Support NeoGAF

[Linkura]

My husband and I aren't having kids for mainly this reason. The future is fucked, why bring another kid into it? If we ever want kids, we'll adopt.

 

[Icyflamez96]

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."

 

[Seth Enosh]

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.

What scientific calculations point to the end of the world? I thought science predicts massive sea level rise and irreversible climate change even if every nation implements the Paris Accords immediately and perfectly.

We also have scientific methods to deal with climate change in reserve (geoengineering and carbon capture). Expect to start hearing more about these in the coming decades if all the model predictions come true. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/14/the-climate-fixers

 

[Beer Monkey]

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.

I'm responsible and intelligent and I'm ready to eat this steak and have no kids. The last thing I should be worried about is "was this cow the one that breaks the world's back?"

Everybody thinks their kid is going to be some goddamn special snowflake. Most children that are born are going to do absolutely nothing to solve the world's problems.

 

[Audioboxer]

Yep. Progressive are a bit nuts sometimes. And I consider myself one.

Progressives often blow whatever way the wind blows.

It's a noble cause in the face of evidence seeing as it is how the scientific method aims to work. Prove something, then said something is the answer.

However life isn't always that simple and many questions around humanity and society can have multiple valid answers. Sometimes answers are selfish, but to be selfish isn't inherently to be bad. Welcome to humanity, at times you do things for the greater good of your own life. Not everything from birth to death has to be about great sacrifice and living a miserable life of solitude and resentment for being born in the first place...

So some who call themselves progressive lose their critical thinking faculties and just want to be told what to do for every damn decision in their life. One key doesn't fit everyone's life, so sure explore all your options but try and come up with an answer for yourself without then demanding everyone conforms.

Becoming a mother and father is the height of what makes life worth living for many people. It literally changes their life and if well prepared they get the chance to try and help nurture in a new life. Adoption is a possibility, but it sits terribly wrongly with me when some progressives almost try to shame potential mothers and fathers into it. That is not your decision to make, and it's definitely not your body.

 

[Dirca]

im sure your kids will care when famine strikes

Not if you have land and are self sufficient. They've been learning about preparation and planning from an early age.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

Have a reasonable number of kids and educate them about the importance of protecting the environment. Push to ensure schools and government agencies do the same. Live by example, in an eco-friendly household that avoids unnecessary waste, animal agriculture, inefficient transportation etc.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

how would the world be completely uninhabitable if temperatures climbed 4 degrees? Lets pretend that claim is true, which most scientists and their research that I have read claim only portions of the earth would be uninhabitable at that temperature, if your average summer temperature is 90 and that changes it 94 how does that change so much that we cannot live on earth any more?

These projections also don't take into account the steps we can take to use technology to cool the earth.

4 degrees is a lot. (And it's Celsius. So from 90 to 98 not 94)

And if they average increases that much that means theres going to be many days over 100 meaning crop failures that you can just ignore.

Second of all it's globally. Changes will be different in different places. So maybe 8 degrees in certain places but 2 in others.

And we've never shown way to "cool the planet" they're only hypotheticals and could possibly have unintended consequences.

 

[Straight Edge]

Have a reasonable number of kids and educate them about the importance of protecting the environment. Push to ensure schools and government agencies do the same. Live by example, in an eco-friendly household that avoids unnecessary waste, animal agriculture, inefficient transportation etc.

This is too reasonable and not extreeeeeeme enough.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

a lot of people itt like "adoption is expensive!!!"

so is pregnancy & giving birth, and looking after a baby

it's up to you if you don't wanna adopt but don't misdirect

edit: yes it's more but it's not a huge amount more in many cases

 

[uncelestial]

Not if you have land and are self sufficient. They've been learning about preparation and planning from an early age.

I've never gotten this fantasy -- the "lone survival farmer."

I'm guessing anyone like that will be overrun by a panicking population who will literally see that land as essential to their survival. What means would this lone farmer have to fend of companies, the government, and a population that is clamoring to survive and needs to eat?

 

[entremet]

a lot of people itt like "adoption is expensive!!!"

so is pregnancy & giving birth, and looking after a baby

it's up to you if you don't wanna adopt but don't misdirect

It's actually easier to do the latter.

Due to high profile abuse cases, adoption is incredibly difficult, time consuming and expensive.

Much more than producing a baby up front.

 

[Straight Edge]

a lot of people itt like "adoption is expensive!!!"

so is pregnancy & giving birth, and looking after a baby

it's up to you if you don't wanna adopt but don't misdirect

Adoption costs $30k. My out of pocket for my kid's birth was a couple thousand.

 

[Chiggs]

Plenty of kids out there in need of homes already. Why not adopt?

Agree wholeheartedly. To me, this makes the most sense and is the most responsible thing to do.

 

[Alienfan]

Climate change or no climate change, and granted you have the option, you should adpot.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Adoption costs $30k. My out of pocket for my kids birth was a couple thousand.

depending on the agency. It's at a base level more expensive than giving birth, but cheaper than some cars & it's a very good thing to do.

It's actually easier to do the latter.

Due to high profile abuse cases, adoption is incredibly difficult, time consuming and expensive.

Much more than producing a baby up front.

but well worth the investment.

 

[entremet]

depending on the agency. It's at a base level more expensive than giving birth, but cheaper than some cars & it's a very good thing to do.

but well worth the investment.

Sure, but people we're just explaining why it's not common on top of the whole biological need to pass your genes things too.

 

[ZackieChan]

Two and through.

Thanks a lot for dooming humanity

 

[freenudemacusers]

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.

lol seriously. we just had an election that illustrates this, and now all my liberal urban peers are going out of their way to damn us some more. gg.

but don't fret gaf, i have three kids and they'll be confident, optimistic and progressive as fuck.

 

[entremet]

lol seriously. we just had an election that illustrates this, and now all my liberal urban peers are going out of their way to damn us some more. gg.

but don't fret gaf, i have three kids and they'll be confident, optimistic and progressive as fuck.

Modern day Shakers lol.

 

[clemenx]

Of course kids should be had. Who else is going to solve the clusterfuck if not the people who will suffer it the most?

 

[platakul]

Im just teaching my kids that its a myth so they dont worry about it

 

[freenudemacusers]

Of course kids should be had. Who else is going to solve the clusterfuck if not the people who will suffer it the most?

no we thoughtful, educated liberals should stop reproducing like the whole of japan, and leave the next round of political-social legislation to the people who are reproducing, like my hard-line conservative coworker who has four kids and is far from the only one.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Adoption costs $30k. My out of pocket for my kid's birth was a couple thousand.

My son cost $500. Now daycare...yikes.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

No we should not, down with overpopulation, up with adoption

 

[BeforeU]

Adoption costs $30k. My out of pocket for my kid's birth was a couple thousand.

I had no idea adoption costs that much :O why exactly? Who gets 30k? I thought you are technically doing a favor.

 

[Triscuitable]

4 degrees is a lot. (And it's Celsius. So from 90 to 98 not 94)

And if they average increases that much that means theres going to be many days over 100 meaning crop failures that you can just ignore.

Second of all it's globally. Changes will be different in different places. So maybe 8 degrees in certain places but 2 in others.

Yeah, you're looking at some regions of Arizona reaching potential temperatures as high as 130 degrees Fahrenheit. That's 54 degrees Celsius. Entire city populations would get heat stroke.

I cannot stress this enough: with a global increase of four degrees, hundreds of thousands of people unable to evacuate would die. Regions like Arizona would become unlivable. Entire ecosystems would collapse due to the temperatures.

And we've never shown way to "cool the planet" they're only hypotheticals and could possibly have unintended consequences.

For an entertaining example of one of the hypothetical (and extremely exaggerated) consequences, go watch Snowpiercer!

I had no idea adoption costs that much :O why exactly? Who gets 30k? I thought you are technically doing a favor.

Depends on the age of the child and where you're adopting them from.

 

[gamechanger87]

no we thoughtful, educated liberals should stop reproducing like the whole of japan, and leave the next round of political-social legislation to the people who are reproducing, like my hard-line conservative coworker who has four kids and is far from the only one.

Seriously. This question, the responses and the whole anti natalist thread make me really question a lot of people's views on this stuff.

I mean the human race will continue to reproduce no matter if you do, but if you believe that you are more knowledgeable than others in this topic you should want to reproduce under the hope that your child's generation will be smarter than yours.

As a whole the human race is getting smarter and living longe each generation, a whole swath of the intelligent portion of the population selectively choosing to Not have kids will only hasten the problem.

I swear some people think they are so special and are taking a principled stand like it will mean anything. The human race will continue and adapt and a dearth of children from intelligent couples is how your get to Idiocracy.

 

[Nafai1123]

If the human race stopped reproducing during the ice age because life was just too hard we would not exist. I understand the point and I commend anyone who decides not to have children because of climate change, but the fact is our entire purpose in life is to reproduce and pass on our genes and our knowledge. If Trump supporters aren't going to stop popping out racist, xenophobic, sexist children who don't believe in climate change, I'm going to do my part to get children out there who believe the complete opposite.

 

[uncelestial]

Okay, there is no guarantee whatsoever that liberals having more kids is going to have a net benefit to humanity with regards to climate change. You're acting like there's some sort of chance at averting the disaster when it's clear there isn't, and just looking at what even the most liberal countries are doing in response, that no fire is going to be lit under anyone's ass until there starts being more existential threats from climate change showing up. It's going to take EVERYBODY, *NOT* just liberals, turning their attention to the problem, and that means it's got to get BAD first. We can't do it ourselves. We don't have the power and we never will.

What *is* known:
- A child born now will live to see what is best (if not perfectly) described as the apocalypse.
- You save 20x more carbon not having a child than you do by perfectly abiding by all available methods of conservation, which you probably don't do
- Overpopulation is the problem.

There is not some kind of cultural war that needs to be fought with an army of liberal children that progressive people need to start pooping out and then everything will be great. Carbon isn't even the only issue here, even *if* that were solved by some yet-unborn genius. The planet is a finite environment with a certain capacity for human life to exist, and that's that. What we refer to as the economy is a heat engine that converts the planet's resources into human biomass and waste.

100 million of California's trees are already dead. Nearly half of all non-human animal life has been wiped out. The future isn't going to be decided by a bunch of liberals, it's in nature's hands now.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Okay, there is no guarantee whatsoever that liberals having more kids is going to have a net benefit to humanity with regards to climate change. You're acting like there's some sort of chance at averting the disaster when it's clear there isn't, and just looking at what even the most liberal countries are doing in response, that no fire is going to be lit under anyone's ass until there starts being more existential threats from climate change showing up. It's going to take EVERYBODY, *NOT* just liberals, turning their attention to the problem, and that means it's got to get BAD first. We can't do it ourselves. We don't have the power and we never will.

What *is* known:
- A child born now will live to see what is best (if not perfectly) described as the apocalypse.
- You save 20x more carbon not having a child than you do by perfectly abiding by all available methods of conservation, which you probably don't do
- Overpopulation is the problem.

There is not some kind of cultural war that needs to be fought with an army of liberal children that progressive people need to start pooping out and then everything will be great. Carbon isn't even the only issue here, even *if* that were solved by some yet-unborn genius. The planet is a finite environment with a certain capacity for human life to exist, and that's that. What we refer to as the economy is a heat engine that converts the planet's resources into human biomass and waste.

The apocalypse is coming this century guaranteed? That's a little much.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

Lol never change neogaf

 

[iMAGINATION]

I don't think the rolleyes gif exists that accurately encapsulates how ridiculous the tone of this thread is.

.

The apocalypse is coming this century guaranteed? That's a little much.

Gaf loves to exaggerate.

 

[uncelestial]

The apocalypse is coming this century guaranteed? That's a little much.

It's literally the first sentence in the OP.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Seems like a fast-track to the idiocracy timeline.

 

[Skellig Gra]

It's literally the first sentence in the OP.

Yeah did you miss all the "possible" and "possibly" parts? And that's not even a reference to the apocalypse.

 

[uncelestial]

Yeah did you miss all the "possible" and "possibly" parts? And that's not even a reference to the apocalypse.

Yeah, let's replay this awesome use of the word "possibly:"

By midcentury, possibly before, the average global temperature is projected to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius, the point scientists and world leaders agree would trigger cataclysmic consequences. Last year's historic Paris climate agreement falls short of preventing that, so more drastic cuts in carbon emissions are needed.

Adding to that challenge, the world is expected to add several billion people in the next few decades, each one producing more emissions.

Comforting, huh?

What I guess you missed was my post that the word "apocalypse" is an imperfect word but probably the best one we have for what will obviously happen if we start to have planet-wide habitability problems. I guess "catacylsmic consequences" sounds a little more technical, but whatever it is, humanity's gonna come down a peg.

But whatever, I'm just exaggerating.

 

[the-pi-guy]

Have a whole bunch of kids.
Have them vote against climate change deniers, and make a green planet with their help.

Also we'll live on Mars when things go bad.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Yeah, let's replay this awesome use of the word "possibly:"


Comforting, huh?

What I guess you missed was my post that the word "apocalypse" is an imperfect word but probably the best one we have for what will obviously happen if we start to have planet-wide habitability problems. I guess "catacylsmic consequences" sounds a little more technical, but whatever it is, humanity's gonna come down a peg.

But whatever, I'm just exaggerating.

It's a projection. And it assumes nothing changes with technology, industrial behavior, personal consumption, etc. You have every right to be concerned and there is much that needs to be done but that doesn't mean we are all doomed in a couple decades.

 

[manueldelalas]

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

People are dumb because they have 8 kids? Please explain.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Have a whole bunch of kids.
Have them vote against climate change deniers, and make a green planet with their help.

Also we'll live on Mars when things go bad.

Terraforming mars will be much harder than geoengineering the earth. We already have a working ecosystem here.

That said, if we can live on Mars and Europa, we can survive any type of climate change here on earth.

 

[chaosblade]

I look forward to living in a dome in my old age, assuming I even make it that far.

 

[Maxinas]

All this pessimism. Sad to see others from my generation already giving up in fighting for the future of our lives and the future of our children. I couldn't give two fucks about kids at my age, but i never know, things change. I'll just have to put in more effort in making sure the planet is hospitable for the future before i push up daisies.

 

[Monocle]

if only the dumb assholes have kids we go from fucked to super fucked so yes, if you consider yourself a scientifically literate and empathic person who wants to better the world, you should consider having a child. because that child has a higher chance of being a force for good and helping steer humanity towards fairness and progress, even if it's through something as simple as voting. of course you also have a chance of having an evil kid but that nature vs nuture and a separate conversation

This is pretty much my take on it. Informed and educated people are already outnumbered by morons. Tipping the balance further by refusing to reproduce seems like a bad idea.

People are dumb because they have 8 kids? Please explain.

That's not what that post says. People pass their ideas down to their children. So what's the logical result of idiots reproducing at the same rate while smart people have fewer kids?

 

[chaosblade]

All this pessimism. Sad to see others from my generation already giving up in fighting for the future of our lives and the future of our children. I couldn't give two fucks about kids at my age, but i never know, things change. I'll just have to put in more effort in making sure the planet is hospitable for the future before i push up daisies.

It's not really pessimism. The fact is we're already fucked, we needed to be making changes years ago but aren't even at a point where climate change is seen as a legitimate issue, let alone a serious one. The questions now are, how fucked are we, and how much can we mitigate the damage?

And it doesn't really matter if smart people or liberals or whoever have kids at this point. Once food production begins to stall and people's lives are directly impacted by the increasing cost of living, even the idiots are going to (finally) start buying in.

 

[Sky Chief]

I'm not as pessimistic as some of you. I feel like humans are pretty good at adapting and I think we will adapt even if we're past the tipping point. Furthermore, I think my genes (and unfortunately a lot of the people who are smart enough to want to not have kids) are pretty damn good and it would be beneficial to humanity as a whole that they continue. Who knows, if smart people don't have kids we may be dooming humanity by not producing the people who could save the human race.

 

[Ganzlinger]

100 years from now and mankind will still be fine.

I'll have kids.

 

[Kinsei]

I'm not. I do plan on adopting when/if I reach a point in my life where I can support a child.

 

[Sanjaaaaaaaay]

I'm going to have a kid before its too late TBH.

Life is cool and its all I know so I'd like my child to feel something. Irresponsible? Maybe.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

What *is* known:
- A child born now will live to see what is best (if not perfectly) described as the apocalypse.
- You save 20x more carbon not having a child than you do by perfectly abiding by all available methods of conservation, which you probably don't do
- Overpopulation is the problem.
.

And where is the evidence to back all this up? We know Malthusian and Paul Ehrlich's population bomb are not a thing due to advances in science and agriculture.
Oh, please stop trying to be so edgy.