Support NeoGAF

[Hoo-doo]

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.

You make it sound kind of exciting. Maybe my kid is destined to be a vault dweller. Who am I to deny him or her his purpose.

Jokes aside though, I don't think I should be preemptively shielding my children from a future that might not be as splendid as it once was by just not having offspring at all. They'll adapt. They'll have their own opinions and decisions and they'll at least be raised by someone who has the right ideals. Me.

And I don't even particularly care for having kids at all, it's just this reason that sounds so damn ridiculous to me. By all means, if you can't guarantee a safe environment for your child to grow up and become self-sufficient, then refrain from having kids. But I don't see the horizon burning just yet.

 

[acheron_xl]

It is irresponsible and selfish not to have children.

I'd like to think my reasons are responsible and selfish, personally.

 

[electrotonus]

I'd like to think my reasons are responsible and selfish, personally.

If it is not too personal, what are your reasons?

 

[TBiddy]

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.

What are you basing that on? It's not inconceivable that science will soon (TM) discover a way to reduce the CO2-levels in our atmosphere, in order to lower the temperature. It's also not inconceivable that we will learn how to stretch our resources much further.

 

[acheron_xl]

If it is not too personal, what are your reasons?

I don't want the hassle. I don't really like kids. And I value the little disposable income that the jobs available to a person with my lack of education affords me.

On top of the fact that I would never want to raise a child in today's social climate, I'm also nearing what I would consider too old (at 38).

 

[Greddleok]

What are you basing that on? It's not inconceivable that science will soon (TM) discover a way to reduce the CO2-levels in our atmosphere, in order to lower the temperature. It's also not inconceivable that we will learn how to stretch our resources much further.

Like vertical farms for example.

 

[PeskyToaster]

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.

That doesn't make sense. You can't have the continual loss of resources while also having a continual loss in the population using those resources. Looking in the past at an event like the Black Death. You had a commonly cited average of 50% of the population of Europe wiped out and the end results were rather positive for the survivors and the generations after them. You're also assuming no scientific advances, no innovations, no nothing besides a straight line on a graph until doom. When has anything ever remained so constant and unchanging in this world? We're talking spans of 200 years or more and you don';t think the situation may change in that time?

 

[Kill Your Masters]

You make it sound kind of exciting. Maybe my kid is destined to be a vault dweller. Who am I to deny him or her his purpose.

Jokes aside though, I don't think I should be preemptively shielding my children from a future that might not be as splendid as it once was by just not having offspring at all. They'll adapt. They'll have their own opinions and decisions and they'll at least be raised by someone who has the right ideals. Me.

And I don't even particularly care for having kids at all, it's just this reason that sounds so damn ridiculous to me. By all means, if you can't guarantee a safe environment for your child to grow up and become self-sufficient, then refrain from having kids. But I don't see the horizon burning just yet.

And I respect anyone who thinks like this. I have no judgmental opinion in neither group. Its a personal choice. My thinking essential boils down to, "can my children have a better life, a better future than me?". And in most cases, it's a question as predictable as the winning numbers in the lottery when it comes to most things in life except climate change. That one does look quite doom-and-gloomy even from far away (and it's not even that far).

What are you basing that on?

Just basing it on where we are currently at from a development standpoint. Syrian refugees and the whole migration crisis gave power to the right back again. Imagine a refugee crisis that is ten fold in size.

It's not inconceivable that science will soon (TM) discover a way to reduce the CO2-levels in our atmosphere, in order to lower the temperature. It's also not inconceivable that we will learn how to stretch our resources much further.

Hey I am all for breakthrough tech that will save the world but reading a lot of papers and expert opinions on climate change, the realistic outcome is "basic survival". And I am not nihilistic about it, I sincerely hope that what I believe will happen, will not, and that I am in the wrong.

 

[antyk]

I don't want the hassle. I don't really like kids. And I value the little disposable income that the jobs available to a person with my lack of education affords me.

On top of the fact that I would never want to raise a child in today's social climate, I'm also nearing what I would consider too old (at 38).

Well, at least you're self aware.

One thing though - how is today's "social climate" any more dramatic than in the past when somehow slavery, open racism, communism, dictatorships, etc. didn't slowed down growth of population? I really don't get this negative attitude and I'm not an optimist personally.

 

[BlitzKeeg]

My girlfriend and I have decided not to have children when we are older due to several reasons, the biggest being money and time, but the climate certainly does factor in.

If we were to have children, we are very likely to adopt rather than have our own, which I think is beneficial on several levels. I can understand people doing it for personal reasons, as I'm sure it's amazing to have a smaller version of yourself running around, but knowing I'm contributing directly to overpopulation really makes me think twice.

That and the birth process sounds like a goddamn nightmare.

 

[gamechanger87]

I think that rather than waiting for the Earth to heat up enough to ruin our food supply, we should be it to the punch and stop having kids completely. This way we can make sure that we end the human race on our terms.

 

[DeviantBoi]

Dunno if this has already been mentioned, but that kind of thinking is what would lead us into that Idiocracy future.

You need to have children and teach them to make the world a better place.

 

[electrotonus]

I don't want the hassle. I don't really like kids. And I value the little disposable income that the jobs available to a person with my lack of education affords me.

On top of the fact that I would never want to raise a child in today's social climate, I'm also nearing what I would consider too old (at 38).

38 is no age, you have still plenty of time to become a father. You should think it over. All the hardships that come with having children are easily compensated. Imagine your father would have thought the same way, then you would not exist. Don't you think that you owe it to your forebears to keep your line going?

 

[Audioboxer]

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.

Americans will go to stocking up on guns. The British will go to stocking up on tea bags.

NeoGAF will continue to stock up on buying games they never play.

 

[orochi91]

Sure why not.

I come from a family of great swimmers, we'll do just fine

Lol

 

[acheron_xl]

Well, at least you're self aware.

One thing though - how is today's "social climate" any more dramatic than in the past when somehow slavery, open racism, communism, dictatorships, etc. didn't slowed down growth of population? I really don't get this negative attitude and I'm not an optimist personally.

Just the place and time. I have dim hopes for the future.

38 is no age, you have still plenty of time to become a father. You should think it over. All the hardships that come with having children are easily compensated. Imagine your father would have thought the same way, then you would not exist. Don't you think that you owe it to your forebears to keep your line going?

I'm nearly 40. I've thought about it plenty. And my GF agrees. As for my line? Lol no.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

That doesn't make sense. You can't have the continual loss of resources while also having a continual loss in the population using those resources. Looking in the past at an event like the Black Death. You had a commonly cited average of 50% of the population of Europe wiped out and the end results were rather positive for the survivors and the generations after them. You're also assuming no scientific advances, no innovations, no nothing besides a straight line on a graph until doom. When has anything ever remained so constant and unchanging in this world? We're talking spans of 200 years or more and you don';t think the situation may change in that time?

Never did I correlate the loss of population with loss of resources. But big parts of the world will migrate where there are resources. And then imagine the current refugee crisis times 10, times 100, with countries armed to the teeth, countries with nuclear bombs. It's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Jotaka]

38 is no age, you have still plenty of time to become a father. You should think it over. All the hardships that come with having children are easily compensated. Imagine your father would have thought the same way, then you would not exist. Don't you think that you owe it to your forebears to keep your line going?

Owe? LOL nope

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Your great great great granchildren will have to go to Disneyworld in northern Georgia. Big whoop. Have kids.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

I'm not gonna have kids. I'm not bringing a child into a world that is going to get progressively worse each year, climate wise. And it will. I rather not put a child through that.

I have a feeling that many here never planned or wanted to have kids in the first place, but now using the climate excuse to make it seem like it's some kind of altruistic, benevolent decision and sacrifice, instead of "I don't want kids, because they're a shitload of responsibility, money, compromise my freedom, and a pain in the ass".

So, should humanity voluntarily exterminate itself, if not having kids is the "moral" thing to do?

 

[zoukka]

So, should humanity voluntarily exterminate itself, if not having kids is the "moral" thing to do?

Ofc not. The unborn don't suffer.

 

[Audioboxer]

I have a feeling that many here never planned or wanted to have kids in the first place, but now using the climate excuse to make it seem like it's some kind of altruistic, benevolent decision and sacrifice, instead of "I don't want kids, because they're a shitload of responsibility, money, compromise my freedom, and a pain in the ass".

So, should humanity voluntarily exterminate itself, if not having kids is the "moral" thing to do?

That last sentence actually brings down what was otherwise a good point by yourself. Many do seek to justify a decision they may feel for what are more "selfish" reasons by substituting in some grand "selfless" reasons.

As I spoke about in here at length previously, selfish decisions are often a normal part of life and the pursuit of happiness. Just be honest about them. Saying you don't want kids because as you put it "shitload of responsibility, pain in the ass, and financial burden" is totally a-okay. You do not need to go scrambling for some pie in the sky substitute to try and earn brownie points with peers "oh my good sir, I am not having children because I, unlike many others, value the life of our great earth, and the rain forests".

Whatever your reasons, just be honest with yourself. It is far more healthy for your psyche, and as I said to be human is often to tip the scales of selfishness on many decisions you make. It's normal and healthy. In the case of kids it can be quite smart to be honest and selfish. You're going to know better than anyone if you and your partner are up for the commitment, can afford it and are okay being tied down for 16+ years.

 

[Hoo-doo]

I have a feeling that many here never planned or wanted to have kids in the first place, but now using the climate excuse to make it seem like it's some kind of altruistic, benevolent decision and sacrifice, instead of "I don't want kids, because they're a shitload of responsibility, money, compromise my freedom, and a pain in the ass".

Nailed it.

 

[Onemic]

So the best way to save the planet is to have no children? Seems like being a vegan and doing all those other lifestyle changes to cut back on carbon emissions is absolutely dwarfed by having no kids.

 

[Amory]

Yes. If climate change is the reason you don't have a kid and you otherwise would've wanted children, I'm sorry but you're an idiot.

 

[creatchee]

So the best way to save the planet is to have no children? Seems like being a vegan and doing all those other lifestyle changes to cut back on carbon emissions is absolutely dwarfed by having no kids.

The best way to save the planet is to ensure humans no longer live here.

 

[Greddleok]

So the best way to save the planet is to have no children? Seems like being a vegan and doing all those other lifestyle changes to cut back on carbon emissions is absolutely dwarfed by having no kids.

Save the planet for future generations by not having any!

 

[Audioboxer]

The best way to save the planet is to ensure humans no longer live here.

Cows would just overpopulate and fart the planet into global warming anyway.

Point being the earth is finite. Everything dies, including galaxies. We just want to try and preserve the earth for as long as possible, as our sun has a nice long expiry date.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I never remotely wanted kids, so it never factored into the equation for me. I don't think it should be super high on the list of concerns for people who want them though. Just live an environmentally conscious life yourself, and set the example for your kids to do the same. And don't live on a coastal area that's likely to go under if shit hits the fan in your kid's lifetime.

 

[poppabk]

The best way to save the planet is to ensure humans no longer live here.

Wait what? 'Saving the planet' means saving it for us.

 

[God Dayumm]

So the best way to save the planet is to have no children? Seems like being a vegan and doing all those other lifestyle changes to cut back on carbon emissions is absolutely dwarfed by having no kids.

Yes. But no one has any right to make that choice for you, as long as you don't expect others to make sacrifices so that your children can have a nice future. Your body your choice, my body my choice.

 

[creatchee]

Wait what? 'Saving the planet' means saving it for us.

Cows would just overpopulate and fart the planet into global warming anyway.

Point being the earth is finite. Everything dies, including galaxies. We just want to try and preserve the earth for as long as possible, as our sun has a nice long expiry date.

I was being facetious.

 

[Audioboxer]

I was being facetious.

Sorry. You never know on GAF!

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Don't you think that you owe it to your forebears to keep your line going?

This question sounds silly to me on its own, but even if it didn't, the human population will have doubled over the course of our lifetimes. We're not exactly in a struggle to propagate the species.

 

[CosmicQueso]

I have a feeling that many here never planned or wanted to have kids in the first place, but now using the climate excuse to make it seem like it's some kind of altruistic, benevolent decision and sacrifice, instead of "I don't want kids, because they're a shitload of responsibility, money, compromise my freedom, and a pain in the ass".

Why not both! I would never, ever want a kid. Now it comes with nice environmental side benefits.

38 is no age, you have still plenty of time to become a father. You should think it over. All the hardships that come with having children are easily compensated. Imagine your father would have thought the same way, then you would not exist. Don't you think that you owe it to your forebears to keep your line going?

I can't. I just... I can't.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Why not both! I would never, ever want a kid. Now it comes with nice environmental side benefits.

See, I respect this stance a million times more.

 

[mid83]

I always find it concerning how many people live with so much anxiety about the future holds. Do I believe climate change is real? Yes. Should we work to fix it? Yes. Are we doomed without any recourse? I don't think so. Think about how much the world has changed technologically in the last 20-30 years? Who is to say we won't have a technological breakthrough that allows us to reverse the effects of climate change?

In any case, we only get one life. My hope is that people aren't wasting that life completely terrified of the future and denying yourself the priceless job of a family to experience that life with. I work in a hospital and have witnessed hundreds of patients dying. I always find it so sad to see patients dying along with nobody by their side. Plus, without question, patients do better with family by their side vs being in the hospital with no visitors except the medical staff. I've never been an anti-having kids person, but my experiences in the hospital have given me new perspective on how important family is.

So it's a personal decision, but I think some of the stuff above is something to think about. We don't know what the future will bring this earth, but we do know that having a family means you'll be able to share that life with others, which is a natural desire/want we have as humans.

 

[Chao]

What if I decide not to have kids because I don't want to make them suffer this climate change thing, then we reach year 2050 and everything is fine, I'm old and don't have a family of my own, so I get to die alone and sad.

I would hunt down every motherfucking scientist if that ever happens.

My gf and I have had this talk and we're still not sure wether we should have kids that or not. It sucks that's something we need to decide now.

Maybe we will all be dead in the next 4 years thanks to Trump, so that would save us some trouble.

 

[Neo C.]

Is the ratio of smart and conscientious kids raised by smart and conscientious parents insignificant or what? Do you have any stats or did you just want to seem clever and smug?

I'm not into social darwinism. I don't get why you guys want to discuss who should and who shouldn't have kids instead of addressing the main issues: The shamefully low level of your education system and the high inequality of your society.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

This question sounds silly to me on its own, but even if it didn't, the human population will have doubled over the course of our lifetimes. We're not exactly in a struggle to propagate the species.

This.

I've never given two shits about keeping the family line growing. We have overpopulation as is, and I don't like people, so I don't want to add to it. Aside from that, my brother has five kids, and outside of my parents my family line is largely worthless, rural white trash so the world would be better off if it ended anyway.

Why not both! I would never, ever want a kid. Now it comes with nice environmental side benefits.

Also this. As above, I never, ever wanted kids. Can't stand them. Actively avoid situations that involve being around them. Hate taking care of things. Found a fiance that hates them even more.

 

[mid83]

What if I decide not to have kids because I don't want to make them suffer this climate change thing, then we reach year 2050 and everything is fine, I'm old and don't have a family of my own, so I get to die alone and sad.

I would hunt down every motherfucking scientist if that ever happens.

My gf and I have had this talk and we're still not sure wether we should have kids that or not. It sucks that's something we need to decide now.

Maybe we will all be dead in the next 4 years thanks to Trump, so that would save us some trouble.

My take summarized from my longer post above, we really don't know what technology will mean for the environment in 30-40 years. We do know that we will get old and eventually die. I don't want to look back at my life when I'm old and sick and regret not having a family by my side.

 

[Keri]

My gf and I have had this talk and we're still not sure wether we should have kids that or not. It sucks that's something we need to decide now.

This is how it always is, which sucks. Whatever you decide, it's one of the biggest decisions you can make - it shapes the whole rest of your life - and there's always a clock running on the decision.

 

[maxcriden]

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.

Thanks for the info. That's the sense I had.

 

[superdeluxe]

Isn't this an Idiocracy type situation. A kid I went to high school with just got arrested for robbing a bank this week. He's got seven kids. Doesn't it make sense for smart and conscientious people to breed? Aren't we left with Trumpian goons if we just let climate change deniers have all the kids?

Thanks Gaf.

 

[Usobuko]

38 is no age, you have still plenty of time to become a father. You should think it over. All the hardships that come with having children are easily compensated. Imagine your father would have thought the same way, then you would not exist. Don't you think that you owe it to your forebears to keep your line going?

I like kids and I would be hoping to have them.

But you know, before my grandfather pass away ( he's 91 this year ), I specifically asked him jokingly if he would be mad with me for staying unmarried and have no children? Nope.

It's my life.

Not that I would change my mind if he says otherwise but it's nice to have backing from your family, my parents included.

 

[superdeluxe]

38 is no age, you have still plenty of time to become a father. You should think it over. All the hardships that come with having children are easily compensated. Imagine your father would have thought the same way, then you would not exist. Don't you think that you owe it to your forebears to keep your line going?

I'm 42 with a 14 month old. Its workable, she helps keeps me active lol

 

[Shabutaro]

I mean I understand the sentiment, but everyone saying it's selfish to have kids is kind of being ridiculous. Do the people claiming its morally reprehensible to have offspring thing that, globally, no one should have children anymore? Then what? If not everyone, who should have kids? If you, in all of your environmental consciousness, decide not to have kids, all that remains are those who don't care about the environment to reproduce. I think it's valid to consider the number of kids you have. I think it's valid to appreciate the weight that each child will have on the environment and to take actions in teaching them and trying to change current environmental policy. But I think the posters claiming that abstaining from children is the one true way are being hyperbolic and are not thinking it through.

 

[system11]

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.

Well, it's true. People keep focusing on carbon targets and emissions - and that's only a tiny piece of the puzzle. Go and research human impact on the level and rate of extinctions, for example. Where do other creatures live when people keep turning their homes into farmland, or houses?

It's basic numbers, there's no magic and no amount of concessions or lifestyle changes the human race can adopt to avoid this. It saddens me how few people are willing to accept the truth. The human race grows and spreads like a cancer until it has consumed all available resources. Only then is it going to fall in number. At that point, everything else is fucked anyway.

Trump isn't even a footnote in any of this, even the Green party would be of no material difference while people are in denial about population count. I'm not going to lecture people on having children because it's a waste of time, I do wish it were considered socially unacceptable to have more than two though.

Here, read this - from one of the precious few environmental organisations who actually care.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/

 

[Ashes]

Well, it's true. People keep focusing on carbon targets and emissions - and that's only a tiny piece of the puzzle. Go and research human impact on the level and rate of extinctions, for example. Where do other creatures live when people keep turning their homes into farmland, or houses?

It's basic numbers, there's no magic and no amount of concessions or lifestyle changes the human race can adopt to avoid this. It saddens me how few people are willing to accept the truth. The human race grows and spreads like a cancer until it has consumed all available resources. Only then is it going to fall in number. At that point, everything else is fucked anyway.

Trump isn't even a footnote in any of this, even the Green party would be of no material difference while people are in denial about population count. I'm not going to lecture people on having children because it's a waste of time, I do wish it were considered socially unacceptable to have more than two though.

Here, read this - from one of the precious few environmental organisations who actually care.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/

Numbers. Lol.

I recall sitting through the math required to actually work this stuff out. The number of unknown variables is just incredible.

Overconsumption numbers and waste by the wealthy is arguably worse than overpopulation.

I mean people not having children but having pets is..

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/

Lol. We aren't in an unstable pop growth cycle or whatever. Look up the Green Revolution.

And hey, what a surprise. They are anti GMO.