• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We've barely scratched the surface of climate-related shit headed our way.



Well, all of those events resulted in many thousands to millions of people dying, too, so I'm not sure that's any comfort here. :lol
Point is, it is going to take a hell of a lot more to end global civilization than climate change or even a nuclear war. Something truly existential like grey goo, a gamma ray burst, or some other cosmic event.


We have the technology now to do short-term stop-gap measures like deploying solar shades or utilizing iron fertilization to slow climate change until we can address the underlying problems.
 
Well, all of those events resulted in many thousands to millions of people dying, too, so I'm not sure that's any comfort here. :lol

If you're afraid of your kid dying, then don't have kids, no. That isn't the point he's trying to make. It's not an end of the world type deal. Society got through all of that, and millions of people still found happiness in their lives with those events.
 

zoukka

Member
We should not have kids.

But your average person won't have the energy to read a pamphlet about the issue so do you expect them to make a significant personal sacrifice for the good of the globe? Don't make me laugh.
 
not having a child because of the sole reason "the world is in bad shape and will be worse" is like not voting because of how bad things are. all it does is leave the dumb and passionate people having 8 kids while your own positive thoughts and beliefs that actually could help the world, no matter how small, are lost in time instead of carried over and propagated

This is Idiocracy becoming true.
 
The solution to overpopulation's staring us right in the face, and it's those wide-open, low-population states. Just build a few cities the size of Los Angeles in Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas.
 

Juicy Bob

Member
This is genuinely something that I am struggling to deal with at my current stage in life.

I am the same age now that my parents were when they got married and had me. I couldn't even begin to imagine doing that with my partner. It feels like I would be bringing them into a life of misery.
 

Enco

Member
Such a dumb argument.

Global warming is an issue because it threatens humanity.

Lets kill humanity to solve the threat!

Get out of here with this bullshit. What's the point of preserving the environment if we kill ourselves off?
 
Such a dumb argument.

Global warming is an issue because it threatens humanity.

Lets kill humanity to solve the threat!

Get out of here with this bullshit. What's the point of preserving the environment if we kill ourselves off?

That's not what the article is discussing.

The writer discusses how we should essentially slow our population growth in developed countries where the carbon footprint of individuals is absolutely massive. Cutting down on population growth where humans are significant consumers would actually help in stabilizing carbon production rates. Maybe not reducing, but the more children we have, the more resources they use. The more resources they use, the more exponential the growth in carbon production across the planet.
 

entremet

Member
That's not what the article is discussing.

The writer discusses how we should essentially slow our population growth in developed countries where the carbon footprint of individuals is absolutely massive. Cutting down on population growth where humans are significant consumers would actually help in stabilizing carbon production rates. Maybe not reducing, but the more children we have, the more resources they use. The more resources they use, the more exponential the growth in carbon production across the planet.

That's not the issue. The issue is our consumption habits. We're also way too in love with suburban lifestyles, which are environmental killers.
 
Two perspectives in this thread it seems.

"We should not have kids because they may be at risk"
-Generations upon generations have been at risk in some way, but I understand not wanting to have kids in the current state. I don't agree with it, and I think things for the next generation specifically will not be nearly as bad as some people think it will be, but I do understand the sentiment. If you really want to have kids as most people do, you should definitely reconsider.

-"We should not have kids as it will put the world at risk"
-This is a rather lazy solution. If this is your own child, certainly you can educate them to make more eco-friendly choices. The effects of adding one additional life to the planet is trumped by having one additional person making choices and spreading awareness of more eco-friendly choices. The extreme objection to this is that we will eventually cease to see any people left, which would save the planet, sure, but at the cost of humanity. While this is a noble gesture, I think most of us aren't devoted enough to let that go down.
 

Dipper145

Member
This is why I'll have more kids, so it's more likely for my genes to survive some sort of post apocalyptic near extermination event leading to the future people creatures all being the partial descendants of yours truly.

Shouldn't world ending scenarios make us more likely/want to have children since its likely a lot of them would die and not pass on our genes?
 
You also want to avoid situations where you have a high majority of your population being elderly, as is the case in places like Japan. You'll run into a situation where you have more retired people living on social security than you have people working, and society kinda collapses.

Having kids is fine, just don't have more than 2 or 3.

We need to alter our consumption habits more than anything.

Bad:
japan-population-pyramid-2014.gif
 
Wrote a post about this in another thread about a week ago that's relevant. I'll just copy that here because much the same applies:
After the Trumpening I'm not sure I want children. I don't want to bring them up in a world that will be torn apart by climate change within my lifetime.
I understand. I deeply want to have children, but I'm also very concerned about that and don't want to bring them into a world where they have to deal with something so terrible that in no way is there fault. However, at the same time I realize that if everyone who thought like you and I decided not to have children, that would mean that the only people who would be having children would be the ones who give no fucks about any of that, thereby ensuring the planet would be doomed. And that absolutely cannot be allowed to happen. As terrible and frightening as the problems are, the only way we can do anything about them is if we continue the fight and ensure that there are others to continue the fight after we ourselves are gone.

Of course yes, that means bringing them into a world where they have to deal with realities such as climate change, but the only way for that problem to be solved is to ensure there are people who care and are willing to do something about it.

The same is true with concerns over overpopulation/fully-developed nation resource consumption. Yes, it is true that those of us in fully industrialized nations consume tremendously more than our fair share of resources. Thus one solution might appear to be to not have children so as to reduce that strain. However, that's short-sighted as if everyone who actually had concerns about the environment followed that approach then the only people having children would be those that don't give a fuck about any of that and thus if anything the chance of the world being fucked by that would go up under such a philosophy, and not down--it has no lasting impact. The only way to make a lasting multi-generational impact is not only if you yourself take up the fight and reduce your resource consumption the best you can but you also take the temporary hit of increasing the population in the short-term to make sure that there are those to continue to advocate for those causes after your gone and reach out to people about them and try and make a difference and continue to make progress, and that we're not left with only the people who don't give a fuck being the only ones having children and propagating and reproducing their ideas as well without a concern in the world.

Of course, like I said, I'm still deeply concerned about all that and what the effects of climate change will be and what impact that will have on the lives of my kids when I have them, since they'll be the ones who will have to live with all that and not me. But nonetheless, as scared as I am about all that, I can't reconcile that with the conclusion that if people like you and I make that choice, then it follows that in that scenario it will only be people like Trump having kids and propagating their ideas. And indeed, as it stands, in the United States for example, it's groups like deeply evangelical/fundamentalist Christians or Mormons that tend to have some of the larger family sizes and stuff like climate change doesn't tend to be among their top priorities (of course, that's not the case for all of them! But statically, and based on the way these groups vote, it applies far more often than not).

And I just can't be comfortable with that. Because if I choose not to have kids, when I die, I'll be gone, true, and it won't be "my problem" anymore, so it would be easy to not care about what comes next. But regardless the world would keep on turning and while people like you and I would be gone it would be people like the Trump's children who have their hands on the world in that scenario and as concerned as I might be about stuff like climate change, I just am even less comfortable with that, since it changes nothing at best and at worst makes things even worse.

Of course, the one thing that gives me hope about all this is that we humans are tremendously resource, persistent, and tenacious. Just think about our history. We've been fighting against one thing or another our entire brief existence on this planet thus far. And no matter how difficult the fights were, no matter how low the chances were, no matter how bleak things looked and how easy it would be to just stop and give up, we kept going anyway. Because whether you call it stupidity or bravery, foolishness or tenacity, ignorance or perseverance, or whatever terms you afford to that quality, it seems to be a deeply rooted part of the human condition regardless. And indeed, whether it be war or plague, famine or drought, or aiming larger and whether it's possible for us to reach into outer space and other words, not only have we not given up, but we've persevered and found some way to overcome those challenges. It's not easy, it's not pleasant, and there are lots of casualties along the way, but we've always done it. And thus, for the sake of those who fought in the past but are no longer with us, for their sacrifices and efforts to not be in vain, and for the sake of the future, which we've always fought for and always have managed to find no matter how hard it is, we have to keep going, and we will, just like we have before.

So, TL:DR: Yeah, I totally get how you're feeling and have had many of those same thoughts myself. But those are reasons if anything for why people like you and I have to be willing to have kids if anything, not reason against it, no matter how scared we might be about our children's futures, in order to ensure that those sentiments don't die with us and that there are always people to keep carrying that torch. We might not want to burden them with that heavy weight, and that's understandable, but nonetheless our duty to do so to pay back the efforts of all of those who are responsible for us being able to live our lives today the way we do (e.g., the people who grow/slaughter and prepare our food so we don't have to, the people who pave our roads so others can have other jobs, the people who build our cars, the people who build our infrastructure and the buildings we use everyday and all the labor of everyone else that is responsible for us being able to live our daily lives the way we do that we usually take for granted but we nonetheless depend on and would not be able to live our lives the way we do were this not the case), to pay back the sacrifices of those who came before us to get us to where we are now, and to make sure those in the future can have at least as a good a life of us if not better and if that's not the case then to fight to restore those norms. That's both the social contract and at the very heart as a human being. And personally... as terrifying as that is from one respect, I can't help but love it from another. Because looking back at our brief history thus far and looking what we've overcome in the past, I can't help but be optimistic that whatever problems our children face they'll be able to overcome as well and that as scary as things may be at a specific moment that as long as we continue to fight, it will all work out and no matter what happens, it will be alright.

I don't know if any of that will help give you peace or not, but they're the conclusions I've come to so I hope they're at least helpful in some respect or another.
 

collige

Banned
-"We should not have kids as it will put the world at risk"
-This is a rather lazy solution. If this is your own child, certainly you can educate them to make more eco-friendly choices. The effects of adding one additional life to the planet is trumped by having one additional person making choices and spreading awareness of more eco-friendly choices. The extreme objection to this is that we will eventually cease to see any people left, which would save the planet, sure, but at the cost of humanity. While this is a noble gesture, I think most of us aren't devoted enough to let that go down.

This mathematically untrue for people living in America, whether you like it or not. There is a minimum carbon footprint for people living in a first world country that can't be offset by making smart individual choices.
 
That's not the issue. The issue is our consumption habits. We're also way too in love with suburban lifestyles, which are environmental killers.

Of course it's not the issue. But it's the point OP is asking about.

The thing about climate change is that there's a billion different components to it. A rapidly expanding population, the rate at which we consume products, the means to producing these products, the means to accessing these products... the list is extensive. And there's no way we'll actually get into a meaningful discussion about those topics in this thread. Not with the way discussion has devolved.
 
This mathematically untrue for people living in America, whether you like it or not. There is a minimum carbon footprint for people living in a first world country that can't be offset by making smart individual choices.

Perhaps saying one was a large exaggeration, but I still stand by my sentiment. It would be better long-term to have a child, teaching them to make better choices, and having them spread awareness. The people not having children for this people are the people we want to be having children as they're going to teach their children. I could be being too idealistic, but I fail to see how just cutting off the family line here is going to encourage any sort of change other than an immediate, "Well now we're contributing a little bit less."
 

wenis

Registered for GAF on September 11, 2001.
Relevant Utopia scene

"Nothing uses carbon like a first-world human. Yet you created one.

Why? Why would you do that? He will produce 515 tonnes of carbon in his lifetime. That’s 40 trucks’ worth. Having him was the equivalent of nearly 6,500 flights to Paris. You could have flown 90 times a year, there and back, nearly every week of your life, and still not had the same impact on the planet as his birth had.

Not to mention the pesticides, detergents, the huge quantity of plastics, the nuclear fuels used to keep him warm. His birth was a selfish act. It was brutal. You have condemned all this to suffering. In fact, if you really cared what you’d do is cut his throat open right now."

Can't wait to re-watch this.
 
This mathematically untrue for people living in America, whether you like it or not. There is a minimum carbon footprint for people living in a first world country that can't be offset by making smart individual choices.
The problem is... what's the relevance of that? What's the implication, and what can we meaningfully draw from that being true? If that's so, that directly leads to the conclusion of us all just offing ourselves. To do otherwise would be entirely selfish and defeat the point of not having kids anyway.

If not that, then what are we supposed to learn from that since according to that it's pointless to even try to reduce our footprint since it will still be too big regardless of what we do, so if the conclusion isn't to off ourselves... then what is the conclusion? I don't understand what information I'm supposed to get from that that doesn't lead to a conclusion of mass suicide, under the very same premises.

And in any case, that remains self-defeating because that information is only persuasive to those who care about the environment to begin with. If one doesn't care about it, it holds no meaning whatsoever. Meaning the only ones who can be persuaded are those that care about climate change to begin with, so they'd be the only ones who would stop having kids, and we'd be left with a planet of people that don't give a fuck at all running things. That clearly isn't the answer, but it's what would happen: people that care stop bothering, people that don't keep on keepin' on, solving nothing.

Regardless of itself having its own cost, refusing to have children remains a terribly short-sighted approach that solves nothing beyond the current generation, has absolutely no solutions for that period of time because there will be no one to enact them or care under that logic, and if anything makes problems worse in the future.
 

Shadybiz

Member
My wife and I are not having any. Not because of climate change...just because it's not in our plan. But, we are happy that we will be helping to reduce emissions.
 

Hoo-doo

Banned
A weird display of natural selection, where progressives decide not to have children simply because they fear the future.

Fuck that. The future needs a brand new generation of educated and forward-thinking world citizens now more than ever. Every child brought into this world has potential to change things. Because you can bet your ass that climate-change-denying families are procreating at an unchanged rate.
 
We've been fucked for probably 40 years or more, we're just starting to feel more of it now. If you want to go that route, we're the ones who shouldn't have been born.

I think it's a solid 50-50 bet that either

  • CO2 absorbing and repurposing/freezing tech will be seen as a complete necessity beyond any we've ever engaged in as a species and will become a massive industry, and within 200 years we'll have things back down to pre-industrial levels while mining asteroids and with any luck somehow developing a post-scarcity circular economy without enabling mega-conglomorate corporate monopolies that will make public utility and drug companies look like Pottery Barn
  • or the bottom 2 billion of the world population will starve and a new World War, rising seas, and increased desertification will redraw the maps significantly, and the loss of life will give us a 40 year window to either get our shit in gear, or let another billion people die
 
Such a dumb argument.

Global warming is an issue because it threatens humanity.

Lets kill humanity to solve the threat!

Get out of here with this bullshit. What's the point of preserving the environment if we kill ourselves off?
Uh sorry, but it's pretty obvious to me that the more salient question is, what's the point of preserving ourselves if we kill off the environment? You don't even begin to touch on what is about to happen to us or whether it's humane to want to subject your children to that kind of world. So how about you get out of here.

We've been fucked for probably 40 years or more, we're just starting to feel more of it now. If you want to go that route, we're the ones who shouldn't have been born.

I think it's a solid 50-50 bet that either

  • CO2 absorbing and repurposing/freezing tech will be seen as a complete necessity beyond any we've ever engaged in as a species and will become a massive industry, and within 200 years we'll have things back down to pre-industrial levels while mining asteroids and with any luck somehow developing a post-scarcity circular economy without enabling mega-conglomorate corporate monopolies that will make public utility and drug companies look like Pottery Barn
  • or the bottom 2 billion of the world population will starve and a new World War, rising seas, and increased desertification will redraw the maps significantly, and the loss of life will give us a 40 year window to either get our shit in gear, or let another billion people die

This is the most cogent line of thought that's even remotely comforting when considering the future of the species. "It'll be okay, eventually." We might shed a few billion people because of this, but we're probably going to adapt to the new half-uninhabitable world after map-redrawing/ensuing panic/World War dies down, and to be honest, culling our population by a huge degree is probably going to be how nature rebalances things.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
We've been fucked for probably 40 years or more, we're just starting to feel more of it now. If you want to go that route, we're the ones who shouldn't have been born.

I think it's a solid 50-50 bet that either

  • CO2 absorbing and repurposing/freezing tech will be seen as a complete necessity beyond any we've ever engaged in as a species and will become a massive industry, and within 200 years we'll have things back down to pre-industrial levels while mining asteroids and with any luck somehow developing a post-scarcity circular economy without enabling mega-conglomorate corporate monopolies that will make public utility and drug companies look like Pottery Barn
  • or the bottom 2 billion of the world population will starve and a new World War, rising seas, and increased desertification will redraw the maps significantly, and the loss of life will give us a 40 year window to either get our shit in gear, or let another billion people die


I think a little bit of "a" and a little bit of "b" is most likely.

Going to be a rocky road but we will survive. Well some of us.
 

Astral

Member
I feel like some people are using this as an excuse not to have kids because they're already either unsure or completely against having kids. No one says you have to have 10 kids or something. Your kid is gonna face some kind of challenge regardless of climate change or not.
 
Unless we get some miraculous technology I think that as impopular as it would be some sort of population control will have to be necessarily implemented.

We don't really see because it we consider it normal but we're truly living in an era of excess, it's going to bit us in the ass hard.
 
I think it's a lot safer now to have a kid than it was during the Mongol invasions, fall of the Roman Empire, etc.

But nah anyone who believes in it should kill off their family so we can have nothing but people that voted for Trump. Way to give up and doom us all, thanks guys.
 

collige

Banned
Perhaps saying one was a large exaggeration, but I still stand by my sentiment. It would be better long-term to have a child, teaching them to make better choices, and having them spread awareness. The people not having children for this people are the people we want to be having children as they're going to teach their children. I could be being too idealistic, but I fail to see how just cutting off the family line here is going to encourage any sort of change other than an immediate, "Well now we're contributing a little bit less."

It may be possible that your child ends up being the next Al Gore, yes, but there's a limit on the amount of change an individual can affect on their own. You could say that one person's carbon footprint would be totally offset if they convince 20 or so other people to change their lifestyles, but this can't be extrapolated beyond a few individuals before you run into a mathematical wall. This is the same reason why pyramid schemes don't work.

More importantly, you still have to raise your child for at least 18 years at a reasonable quality of life in America before they can start making changes for themselves. That's a heavy cost to the environment up front for the possibility of change several decades down the line after the point of no return for climate change.

The problem is... what's the relevance of that? What's the implication, and what can we meaningfully draw from that being true? If that's so, that directly leads to the conclusion of us all just offing ourselves. To do otherwise would be entirely selfish and defeat the point of not having kids anyway.
I'm not arguing for any particular policy or conclusion, I'm just re-affirming the science put out in the OP that having a child has an extraordinarily large carbon footprint.
 
fuck climate change is terrifying me right now

i want to have kids, but if the world doesn't get its ass in gear to really try to prevent this i may have to forego it...idk im fucked up about the whole thing
 
Children should be opt-in.
Taxes increase after 1 child.
Who's going to pay for social security and Medicare for you when you are old?

We aren't China, there will never be a one child policy except under a dictatorship like that. Even replacement rate is 2.2 or something so people having just 2 kids will result in population decline over time.
 

entremet

Member
A weird display of natural selection, where progressives decide not to have children simply because they fear the future.

Fuck that. The future needs a brand new generation of educated and forward-thinking world citizens now more than ever. Every child brought into this world has potential to change things. Because you can bet your ass that climate-change-denying families are procreating at an unchanged rate.
Yep. Progressive are a bit nuts sometimes. And I consider myself one.
 
To answer you question: Sure have as many kids as you want. I personally think this whole climate change and global warming is much to do about nothing.

Please enlighten us.

To everyone saying "eh, we'll survive, we always have before"... well, how? All of our scientific calculations point to the contrary, unless some drastic action is taken RIGHT FREAKING NOW. And Donald Trump is going to be our next president.
 
Millennials are gonna be the largest elderly population the world has ever seen. Hilarious they'll be nobody to change their shitstained bedsheets when they get older.
 
not having a child because of the sole reason "the world is in bad shape and will be worse" is like not voting because of how bad things are. all it does is leave the dumb and passionate people having 8 kids while your own positive thoughts and beliefs that actually could help the world, no matter how small, are lost in time instead of carried over and propagated

So much this. If you are at all responsible and intelligent, and you are ready and willing to have children, the absolute last thing you should be worried about is "will my child be the straw that breaks the world's back?" It's more likely they'll be someone who contributes to the solution, and, an in any event, there's millions of irresponsible people out there conceiving children with no preparation whatsoever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom