Support NeoGAF

[BassForever]

Of course I plan to have kids one day, GAF is letting its negativity rule the day which is kinda alarming.

 

[SPCTRE]

What say you, GAF?

it is too late, I have already impregnated the wife

 

[Audioboxer]

It's odd when people are saying it's selfish to have children when they often are basing their choice in not feeling good or right about it if they would bring a child in this world.

I mean, isn't that a selfish choice too? You don't do it because it feels bad to you. You don't do it because you feel better if you don't do it.



This post is golden and it explains pretty well how the "selfishness" thing really goes:

Cheers. I try my best to help some understand the pursuit of ones own happiness is normal and healthy. If you view the world and your actions as either selfish, or selfless, then you potentially go down a slope of severe mental health affliction. Life is not that simple and ironically in most instances "happy" humans are productive humans. Some may well be comic book levels of selfish, but the majority of us are just trying to bring our own lives some happiness (and our family/relatives) as well as offer something to the greater good, our fellow humans and the planet.

Alternatively some may live an almost totally selfless life and give up lots, but for the majority we fit somewhere in the middle of the scale and there is nothing objectively wrong with this. Therefore it sits rather poorly with me when individuals try and force people into one extreme view of selflessness. In this case almost verging on shaming people for making a decision to have their own biological family. That is the wrong approach. Genuine advice and concern for families should be more around education and understanding your commitment needed to raise a kid(s). Not instantly turning the dial to 10 and blurting out don't you dare have a kid, adopt or you are abusing the planet/bringing someone into a miserable world. How on earth do you know that? Many families do great by their kids, offering emotional, financial and loving support from kid to adult. Regardless of the outside factors on where the world sits with politics, religion, weather/global warming, etc.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

This is the biggest issue IMO.

Me and my GF have been going strong and I love her to bits, but I'm not sure I can have kids and look them in the eye while the world burns.
We have had numerous fights over this.

The ramifications that global warming will bring are just insane.
Extreme weather causing mass migration.
Totalitarian regimes coming to power cause of civil unrest, and xenophobia.
Not to mention the wars that will be fought over the few resources we have left.

If you can bring a child into that world with out your stomach turning then good on you?

As others have said, we are better equipped to handle things like extreme weather than we were in any other period in history. This is obvious.
The drastic level of climate change we are facing could have probably been avoided if we were a bit more forward-thinking about 2 decades ago.

It is important to remember things like the fact that Al Gore was basically screwed over in the 2000 Presidential election, and was a strong supporter of battling climate change.

I bring that up specifically because it hits close to home for me. I was a science nerd and his message resonated with me because there was already hard science behind it.
The problem lies in the fact that I was only 15 at the time, so I obviously couldn't vote.
However, there were plenty of uneducated older voters in my home state of Florida who bought into Bush's stupid as fuck "Hey I am just asking questions. We don't have all the facts people." bullshit.

If the previous generation in Florida had produced 500 or so more intelligent young voters who listened to facts and science, we might be living in a very different world now.
Think about that for a moment. The election that set back the entire world's battle against climate change and embroiled multiple countries in a wasteful war that still has dire consequences to this day was decided because there were 500 more uneducated voters than there were educated ones. That is obviously an oversimplification, but I think it's a valid one. Even as a 15 year old I could tell that Bush was dumb as a goddamn doorknob.

The problem isn't really overpopulation. While we are definitely putting a strain on mother earth, we are at level of civilization where with the right resources and direction things could have been reversed in the past, or at the very least curbed in the present/future.

The problem is there are too many fucking stupid people. Wringing your hands about your unborn child's carbon footprint is just some defeatist pitiful bullshit in my opinion.
It's a non-starter. You aren't doing anything to help the world, and in your pitiful hand-wringing inaction you might just be doing more harm than you realize.
Because those stupid bumfucked idiots in Florida aren't going to stop popping out kids.

 

[Alienfan]

Some of these posts are dissonance at it's finest. Not having children, or adopting instead is one of the best things you can do to reduce emissions. You can justify your decision to have kids all you like, it's fine, it's your life and your own happiness, and their are plenty of personal reasons to want to have kids; but to paint the people who don't want children because of climate change as being crazy or being too pessimistic, is super weird to me. Conversely, shame on those putting down people for having or wanting children.

 

[PackerinMN]

Have there been any studies showing how many people would be on this planet today if WWII didn't happen? Those people back then had 6+ kids each.

Maybe we just need a WWIII...

Spoiler

I'm not serious, but I would like to know the answer to my first question.

 

[Regginator]

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."

I don't know this show, but wow that's a cold scene. Very well delivered.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

If you're privileged, you probably will be fine and so will your kids.
The worst thing is you have to emigrate to Austria? There are worse things in life.

I kind of want to see the irony of american refugees now.

 

[Audioboxer]

Have there been any studies showing how many people would be on this planet today if WWII didn't happen? Those people back then had 6+ kids each.

Maybe we just need a WWIII...

Spoiler

I'm not serious, but I would like to know the answer to my first question.

I don't think it was just about war. Many humans used to have larger families in the past because modern medicine/science wasn't as good as it is and many died younger. Either before your kids could have kids, or before they were at their optimal age to have kids. There was an evolutionary coping mechanism to try to have a big family in order to maximise your chances of your genes successfully being spread on into future generations. This isn't as much of a problem these days as even kids born in troubling births can often be saved and grow up healthy.

That does tie into WWs though from the point of view of trying to skirt around the mass casualties caused from death in service.

I think what would be more interesting to study over time is how often single pregnancies result in twins/triplets/more. Versus how often one baby is born from a single pregnancy. I would guess over a long spell of time there could be more single child pregnancies as it's more likely one kid is enough to pass on your genes. Or at least twins at the most, with triplets/more being complete outlying statistics.

Of course that is pure speculation, but it is somewhat grounded in reality. Look at the animal kingdom and how many offspring some species birth at once due to the likelihood of many if not nearly all of the offspring dying. Humans are generally living longer and babies having higher chances of being conceived healthy. If evolution starts to autocorrect itself then mothers need not have many children at once and have to spread their time and resources trying to care for 3/4 children. Caring exclusively for one child, or two tops, is enough to pass on genes. Having 3/4+ kids at once is a massive risk in itself, especially on the mothers health and capability to look after that many children. However when the chances of genes being spread were low due to environmental factors, poor life expectancy and so on it's a "risk" evolution would take to try and maximise its chances of gene survival.

Humans best not forget we are mammals. As much as evolution and our roots scares off religious people, it's fact.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Some of these posts are dissonance at it's finest. Not having children, or adopting instead is one of the best things you can do to reduce emissions. You can justify your decision to have kids all you like, it's fine, it's your life and your own happiness, and their are plenty of personal reasons to want to have kids; but to paint the people who don't want children because of climate change as being crazy or being too pessimistic, is super weird to me. Conversely, shame on those putting down people for having or wanting children.

It's really sad that we are at the point where these ridiculous stop-gap solutions are actually a talking point. The real problem is that the issue has been politicized meaning green tech has not progressed as far as it should have. It is totally possible at our technological level to reduce an individual's carbon footprint drastically. It just isn't happening.

Most developed countries around the world are struggling to keep up their replacement birth rate anyway, so I find it super weird that people are acting like abstaining from having children is somehow a long term solution. Just seems like it will continue the trend of developed countries--the only ones with any real hope of salvaging what we can-- aging and declining in population while developing countries have a population boom. I can't remember where I read it, but don't developing countries count for like 80% of all growth in most population trend models?

 

[zoukka]

Of course I plan to have kids one day, GAF is letting its negativity rule the day which is kinda alarming.

If you call the scientific community warning humans of future disasters "negativity" then yeah, it's running rampant!

 

[maxcriden]

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

I thought that was more the case for if you specifically want to adopt an infant?

 

[Steejee]

I don't think it was just about war. Many humans used to have larger families in the past because modern medicine/science wasn't as good as it is and many died younger. Either before your kids could have kids, or before they were at their optimal age to have kids. There was an evolutionary coping mechanism to try to have a big family in order to maximise your chances of your genes successfully being spread on into future generations. This isn't as much of a problem these days as even kids born in troubling births can often be saved and grow up healthy.

You're missing the invention of birth control - suddenly women had tons of control over when/if they got pregnant (if they didn't want to become nuns or celibate). Many went off and got a college education and started careers now that they wouldn't have to worry about having an unexpected kid (condoms kinda sucked back then). The combination of delaying (and sometimes outright avoiding) having children, and the ability to manage how many you ultimately had, changed population growth significantly.

For countries that still have high population growth, the best way to curb that growth improve girl's/women's education.

I thought that was more the case for if you specifically want to adopt an infant?

That's been my impression. According to https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/s_costs.pdf if you go through a public adoption agency it's significantly cheaper than going through a private one. With a public one you might not get that perfectly color matched kid though.

 

[Aurongel]

I'm glad GAF wasn't where it is now back during the Bush/Gore election, the nihilism on display in this thread is sickening. If you truly believe what you say you believe in them don't be so hasty to roll over and die just because Republicans swept up an election.

Have children, educate them and teach them tolerance and strength. If we never redeem our generation then let them. Being nihilistic about this shit is a 100% free ticket for the spread of ignorance.

 

[RMI]

If you call the scientific community warning humans of future disasters "negativity" then yeah, it's running rampant!

Very few people here are denying that the climate change outlook is grim.

The problem is the number of posters basically admitting defeat and saying we're completely fucked and that there's no hope for humanity now.

I get that many of us have been disappointed with how things are going since the election but it's starting to become unbearable.

 

[Audioboxer]

You're missing the invention of birth control - suddenly women had tons of control over when/if they got pregnant (if they didn't want to become nuns or celibate). Many went off and got a college education and started careers now that they wouldn't have to worry about having an unexpected kid (condoms kinda sucked back then). The combination of delaying (and sometimes outright avoiding) having children, and the ability to manage how many you ultimately had, changed population growth significantly.

For countries that still have high population growth, the best way to curb that growth improve girl's/women's education.

I'm not forgetting that, but exploring the notion of in successful pregnancies how often are we seeing a single child birth, versus multiple, in current/modern times. I'm pretty certain the stats already show if we go back in time having triplets or more at once was seen more often than it is these days (Victorian era).

Birth control is a "man made" restriction, it's not so much to do with evolution and the way the body/reproductive systems may change over time to reflect environmental/health concerns. As for whatever part it plays in changing stats around birth/children (contraception), it is done "unnaturally" opposed to evolution and science changing things naturally through genes.

Men have been masturbating since the dawn of time, and in a sense you can view sex with a condom as "masturbating". The sperm has zero chances of ending up going anywhere useful, so it has little to no effect in shaping genes/evolution.

However yes, in female birth control we are often tampering with hormones to "fake pregnancies". In other words preventing eggs from being released. As far as most contraceptive pills are safe to take, maybe they will have longterm effects on pregnancies. It's all research and stat gathering the experts have to do. I'm not in a field of biology, but psychology, so my thoughts are purely speculative. Or at least the stats I have access to I may not fully understand without further reading.

But ignorance leads to teen pregnancies. The higher ones education level, the less likely he/she is to make kids or at least the timing is delayed and the life conditions of the child improved.

It's not necessarily nihilistic to decide to not have kids. It's a rational view on the world and one that is very helpful.

No, but what can be is the almost strident demanding for others to conform to what you may want (not necessarily you as in yourself).

 

[zoukka]

I'm glad GAF wasn't where it is now back during the Bush/Gore election, the nihilism on display in this thread is sickening. If you truly believe what you say you believe in them don't be so hasty to roll over and die just because Republicans swept up an election.

Have children, educate them and teach them tolerance and strength. If we never redeem our generation then let them. Being nihilistic about this shit is a 100% free ticket for the spread of ignorance.

But ignorance leads to teen pregnancies. The higher ones education level, the less likely he/she is to make kids or at least the timing is delayed and the life conditions of the child improved.

It's not necessarily nihilistic to decide to not have kids. It's a rational view on the world and one that is very helpful.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

If you call the scientific community warning humans of future disasters "negativity" then yeah, it's running rampant!

They're not being alarmist or fatalistic either.

Is Ignorance of Climate Change Culpable?

Are agents who are ignorant about climate change and the way their actions contribute to it excused because of their ignorance, or is their ignorance culpable? In this paper I examine these questions from the perspective of recent developments in the theories of responsibility for ignorant action and characterize their verdicts. After developing some objections to existing attempts to explore these questions, I characterize two influential theories of moral responsibility and discuss their implications for three different types of ignorance about climate change. I conclude with some recommendations for how we should react to the face of the theories’ conflicting verdicts. The answer to the question posed in the title, then, is: “Well, it’s complicated

 

[BudokaiMR2]

But ignorance leads to teen pregnancies. The higher ones education level, the less likely he/she is to make kids or at least the timing is delayed and the life conditions of the child improved.

It's not necessarily nihilistic to decide to not have kids. It's a rational view on the world and one that is very helpful.

Not at all what this thread is about. No one is discussing the reality of life in a developed country where career and other immediate needs take precedence over children in order to secure a healthy and prosperous life.
Feel free to make that thread if you want. I will jump in and give my 2 cents as both my wife and I followed our careers and started having children in our late 20s once we felt comfortable.

This thread is about people worried about their children facing some post-apocalyptic wasteland almost as bad as the movie waterworld in the middle of the century.

That's kinda nihilistic you gotta admit.

 

[zoukka]

Not at all what this thread is about. No one is discussing the reality of life in a developed country where career and other immediate needs take precedence over children in order to secure a healthy and prosperous life.
Feel free to make that thread if you want. I will jump in and give my 2 cents as both my wife and I followed our careers and started having children in our late 20s once we felt comfortable.

This thread is about people worried about their children facing some post-apocalyptic wasteland almost as bad as the movie waterworld in the middle of the century.

That's kinda nihilistic you gotta admit.

Yeah my posts have steered from the OP too much I admit. The wasteland is real though, it's just not visible in developed countries yet.

 

[Ensoul]

What makes you say this? And do you have any evidence or justification to back your stance?

Just do a search for global warming is fake. Not sure what else I can say. There are tons of webpages and "experts" that think it a hoax and there are tons that don't. Personally global warming is pretty low on my list of concerns.

http://yournewswire.com/trump-global-warming-hoax/

As for adoption: Fair enough. I was thinking to adopt a newborn is a fortune (which it is) The average age of a foster kid is 9 years old. God bless people that adopt a foster kids but I think many parents want kids of their own.

 

[fast_taker]

i'd rather adopt a child in need than having my own.

 

[poppabk]

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.

So we should stop immigration, which is one of the major contributors to the increase in population in the major consumer nations? Maybe we should be glad that Trump is a global warming denier.

 

[TruHero]

Good Lord. The hysteria of some people. It's like people have never dealt with defeat in their lives.

'gaf' has been like this for years but the trump election has accelerated the fatalism to a fever pitch.

It's been fun to read, personally.

 

[Messofanego]

I don't know this show, but wow that's a cold scene. Very well delivered.

Utopia is full of this coldness. It only ever had two seasons before it got cancelled. Some of the best cinematography and music in a TV show.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Yeah my posts have steered from the OP too much I admit. The wasteland is real though, it's just not visible in developed countries yet.

Not gonna deny that. I live in Osaka which is going to be affected drastically by a rise of about 1 meter which is all but guaranteed now. Already planning on a long-term move to Kyoto at least. Even that isn't gonna help much.

My main point of contention is that I don't think educated rational people in developed countries not having children is a good long term solution.
I don't even think it's a good stop-gap solution. I'm not sure how anyone can think that when all signs point to developing countries as the main culprit in our population growth.
I just googled those numbers I previously mentioned and it seems that in 2012 developing countries accounted for 97% of all growth...

 

[Distresssss]

Good Lord. The hysteria of some people. It's like people have never dealt with defeat in their lives.

Southpark had a good bit on this.


People will get over it mid-way into next year.

 

[Steejee]

Not gonna deny that. I live in Osaka which is going to be affected drastically by a rise of about 1 meter which is all but guaranteed now. Already planning on a long-term move to Kyoto at least. Even that isn't gonna help much.

My main point of contention is that I don't think educated rational people in developed countries not having children is a good long term solution.
I don't even think it's a good stop-gap solution. I'm not sure how anyone can think that when all signs point to developing countries as the main culprit in our population growth.
I just googled those numbers I previously mentioned and it seems that in 2012 developing countries accounted for 97% of all growth...

Developing countries have most of the population growth but their impact per child is a fraction of that of western nations, at least for now. If/when they scale to western consumption levels those populations will matter a lot more.

It's not so much about the absolute number of people on the planet, but rather the impact of each one, which is part of the reason the estimates for Earth's carrying capacity vary so much. By one standard if everyone lived like an American the planet could only support 2 Billion people. Ecological footprint is an example of how this can be measured (though the data is now 10 years old): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

Southpark had a good bit on this.

People will get over it mid-way into next year.

While Trump's election is bringing this to the forefront of a lot of people's minds, this whole discussion is not something new. I made my decision years ago, back when we had Obama and a majority-democrat Congress. That being said, I'm not going to begrudge other peoples' decision on this. Ultimately each person has to decide what they think the best option is. While I'd encourage people to have only one kid or adopt instead, I'm not going to go into some sorta fatalistic fetal ball if they don't. I figure the human race will survive, it'll just have a shitty transition and we'll lose a *lot* of biodiversity in the process.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Just do a search for global warming is fake. Not sure what else I can say. There are tons of webpages and "experts" that think it a hoax and there are tons that don't. Personally global warming is pretty low on my list of concerns.

http://yournewswire.com/trump-global-warming-hoax/

Wow, what?

97% believe it's real, 3% don't. That is 97 tons vs 3 tons. Please educate yourself on this issue. It should be of concern for all of us.

 

[Chuck the Bean]

Such a depressing thread... Interesting to read but very depressing...

Hopefully humanity can turn things around but we'll need political will to do so. Therefore, vote for the party that has the best enviromental plan.

 

[boneyjangles]

Climate change is real Donald, get over it.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Developing countries have most of the population growth but their impact per child is a fraction of that of western nations, at least for now. If/when they scale to western consumption levels those populations will matter a lot more.

It's not so much about the absolute number of people on the planet, but rather the impact of each one, which is part of the reason the estimates for Earth's carrying capacity vary so much. By one standard if everyone lived like an American the planet could only support 2 Billion people. Ecological footprint is an example of how this can be measured (though the data is now 10 years old): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

Yes, but those places are getting closer to those consumption levels at a quicker pace year after year.
The entire reason they are having such population growth is because of their steadily increasing standard of living.
Populations declining in developed countries is just going to have the inverse effect of driving those levels up quicker as global corporations focus more and more on growing markets with lower regulations.

I understand how the ecological footprint works. I also understand that we could be doing more to reduce it and we aren't. I've reiterated that point plenty of times in my posts.

 

[Messofanego]

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

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.

Just do a search for global warming is fake. Not sure what else I can say. There are tons of webpages and "experts" that think it a hoax and there are tons that don't. Personally global warming is pretty low on my list of concerns.

http://yournewswire.com/trump-global-warming-hoax/

As for adoption: Fair enough. I was thinking to adopt a newborn is a fortune (which it is) The average age of a foster kid is 9 years old. God bless people that adopt a foster kids but I think many parents want kids of their own.

You might want to check your sources more closely than google searching your confirmation bias and finding "tons of webpages and experts that think it a hoax" which happen to be conspiracy clickbait websites like Your News Wire that post misinformation on a constant basis that isn't reported in other more reputable outlets.

Your version of "tons" is like this

 

[R&R]

Having worked for several years in the field for the UN...with climate and child related projects among others...

...wouldn't bother.

Yes, it's not all doom and gloom. Yes, there are success stories. Yes, some people will always be better off and can reach a decent quality of life even in the far future.

Yet...i'd say most of the world, especially percentage wise when it comes to whole population, is fucked. Some might argue that it's always been so...but not in the way it's going to be. That, my friends, is not doom and gloom - that is the inconvenient truth.

 

[old manatee]

I'm not having kids. I think things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better.

 

[PeskyToaster]

How would 4 degrees of warming be "uninhabitable to humans"?

 

[Hoo-doo]

Why not take this further.
I mean, why keep living yourself? I mean, the world is totally fucked and every day you and your loved ones draw breath is a day you're creating a more unsustainable planet for the rest of us.
Isn't living inherently a selfish act?

Disclaimer: I DON'T actually think this, but this is how crazy some of y'all sound to me.
The future is looking bad when it comes to climate change. For sure. But humanity will adapt. It might not be the naive bright and bubbly future you had envisioned for you and your kids, but humanity will adapt.

 

[poppabk]

I like how they extrapolate carbon emissions for a child out over several generations while believing that there won't be several generations to extrapolate over.

Total savings in carbon emissions for two parents who reduce their carbon footprint - 1000 tonnes. The total carbon footprint of one child if they follow the same principles as their parents - 1100 tonnes.

 

[Griss]

The idea that all the people who are educated about climate change should stop having kids while those who aren't keep reproducing is not a good idea. If you think not having kids is that important - as in crucial to the survival of humanity and the earth as a habitable planet - then you need to talk about legislating fertility and reproductive licences etc. And good luck pitching that kind of body control to either the left or the right.

Personally, I think 200 years is a massive amount of time, and there's every chance some scientific breakthrough will either fix the problem or give us more time to deal with it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for solutions now, but it does mean that there's no need for the panicky, apocalyptic rhetoric.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

How would 4 degrees of warming be "uninhabitable to humans"?

Already warm parts of the world: A lot of these would become uninhabitable simply because of no water, droughts, extreme weather, which leads to scarcity in food and water, which leads to mass migration, civil unrest...

Colder areas: warmer weather will lead to thawing of permafrost, and that can release deadly diseases. There was an anthrax outbreak in Russia this year that was caused by thawing 75 year old ice.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Already warm parts of the world: A lot of these would become uninhabitable simply because of no water, droughts, extreme weather, which leads to scarcity in food and water, which leads to mass migration, civil unrest...

Colder areas: warmer weather will lead to thawing of permafrost, and that can release deadly diseases. There was an anthrax outbreak in Russia this year that was caused by thawing 75 year old ice.

Nothing about that is as apocalyptic as has been suggested in the article and by users here. Humanity has survived way worse.

The idea that all the people who are educated about climate change should stop having kids while those who aren't keep reproducing is not a good idea. If you think not having kids is that important - as in crucial to the survival of humanity and the earth as a habitable planet - then you need to talk about legislating fertility and reproductive licences etc. And good luck pitching that kind of body control to either the left or the right.

Personally, I think 200 years is a massive amount of time, and there's every chance some scientific breakthrough will either fix the problem or give us more time to deal with it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for solutions now, but it does mean that there's no need for the panicky, apocalyptic rhetoric.

Just think of how far we've come in 200 years. America is only around 240 years old.

 

[Grug]

We are but one generation of many going back thousands of years who thought their generation was standing on the eve of destruction.

Have some faith in humanity. We're not licked yet.

 

[turnbuckle]

Yes, and we should teach them the importance of science, empathy, and civic responsibility.

We need those traits to pass on through the future generations.

I'd like to someday have a second kid. If we ever go the adoption route it'll be after we're older and have gone through raising a couple of our own.

 

[zoukka]

Not gonna deny that. I live in Osaka which is going to be affected drastically by a rise of about 1 meter which is all but guaranteed now. Already planning on a long-term move to Kyoto at least. Even that isn't gonna help much.

My main point of contention is that I don't think educated rational people in developed countries not having children is a good long term solution.
I don't even think it's a good stop-gap solution. I'm not sure how anyone can think that when all signs point to developing countries as the main culprit in our population growth.
I just googled those numbers I previously mentioned and it seems that in 2012 developing countries accounted for 97% of all growth...

I'm not limiting my view on developed countries alone, it would be great if poor countries had less births. But I can't speak for them.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Nothing about that is as apocalyptic as has been suggested in the article and by users here. Humanity has survived way worse.

It is just the beginning. It then only gets worse. Yeah we have survived, and we will continue to survive but future generations can forget the good life we had, thriving societies, plenty of resources... It will all boil down to basic survival until it's lights out. Don't think of the apocalypse like in The day after tomorrow, it will happen much slowly and gradually.

 

[antyk]

Why not take this further. I mean, why keep living yourself? I mean, the world is totally fucked and every day you and your loved ones draw breath is a day you're creating a more unsustainable planet for the rest of us. Isn't living inherently a selfish act?

My thoughts exactly while reading this... If people are so educated that they understand and care about climate change, then it's actually them who should multiply and raise environmentally-conscious future generations, incl. scientists, entrepreneurs and politicians who will be committed to solving this issue. If they're so selfish as to deprive future generations of that possibility, then why not help this instant by killing themselves?

Also, why is it allegedly so expensive to adopt a child? I mean how is it any more expensive than raising your own? Do you have to "buy" the kid? Pay monthly instalments?

I wouldn't know because I have 3 of my own...

 

[electrotonus]

First, if you personally have one, two or twenty kids, doesn't matter. Your personal life choice won't change a thing about climate change. Secondly, if you don't want to reproduce and encourage others to do so as well, why even fight climate change? For whom? If all people stopped having children, there would be no more humans left to suffer from the consequences of climate change. And if just you stopped having children, all you would do is to sacrifice your stake in the future (children) to alleviate climate change by an immeasurably tiny bit for other people's children. Who are you, Jesus Christ? Sacrificing yourself to save others?

Remember, loving thy neighbor as thyself, starts with loving thyself.

 

[acheron_xl]

I've managed to avoid having kids so far. I'd go get surgery, but I think I can live with the dozen or two times I'll have to wear a condom each year until my GF hits menopause.

I understand the population-replacement argument, but I think it's often irresponsible and selfish to have children.

 

[creatchee]

Good Lord. The hysteria of some people. It's like people have never dealt with defeat in their lives.

This election and Brexit were the first major political L's that a lot of GAF have had to take - and they have no idea how to hold them whatsoever.

The irony is that now you have the Liberal versions of 2008 Glenn Beck running amuck with doomsday prophecies and calls to not have children in such an uncertain world. I'm anxiously awaiting the first threads on how primarily investing in gold and stocking up on MRE's are the only ways to ensure survival during the impending apocalypse.

 

[electrotonus]

I understand the population-replacement argument, but I think it's often irresponsible and selfish to have children.

It is irresponsible and selfish not to have children.