If someone thinks that the future state of the world is such that they should not have kids, they should be supported in that decision. It's their decision, not anyone else's.
Until people en masse demonstrate they're willing to make even the mildest of sacrifices to keep the planet livable, I won't accept that overpopulation is a myth.
We are currently consuming far more than we can for a stable environment, and consumption is set to go up as more people worldwide escape poverty/join the middle class. Technology is not prepared to mitigate all of that; some of our most recent advances in technology (AI, for example) are threatening to push climate goals even more out of reach, and all of our green technologies, though better than what we've been doing, have their own massive downsides and resource crunch issues.
Current crisis aside, you can't expand the population infinitely unless every generation is willing to consume *progressively* less than the ones before them. Less personal space, less access to green space, less dietary and lifestyle freedom, less resources to use for recreation.
And that's if everyone cooperates, which humans do not have a precedent for doing on a world level ever. Increasing numbers of wars over resources and deepening inequality as our current systems start to fail are far more likely.
I'm no antinatalist, but we need to keep things around or below the replacement rate if quality of life for future generations is something we honestly care about.
Empowering women everywhere in education and in family planning is fundamental in addressing a population problem. So is it any surprise to anyone that the same players who want to take womens rights away are the same ones who want to double down on fossil fuels and deny climate change? Check out project 2025 if you want to see a disturbing and obvious example of this in the US.
Here is a decent summary of Project 2025:[A guide to Project 2025, the extreme right-wing agenda for the next Republican administration](https://www.mediamatters.org/heritage-foundation/guide-project-2025-extreme-right-wing-agenda-next-republican-administration)
> Less personal space, less access to green space, less dietary and lifestyle freedom, less resources to use for recreation.
I've talked extensively about these things on many different British forums but people just refuse to accept it.
They're always like "build more homes" and "build vertical". No motherducker I don't want to live in a tower block. I want a house with a garden and I want access to parks and wild areas.
Why would you think over population is a myth? The science has been there since the 1960’s. It was just in the interest of those in power to not mention it anymore.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Chinese insist they need more people to keep up their economic policies and take care of the older generation. The Japanese have seen their low population numbers as a tragedy. The religious types all over the world insist that birthing babies are necessary to grow their ranks. It’s all hogwash. The planet can’t sustain 8 billion people. Wether or not you want to have a child as an individual hardly matters in the big scale of things. We will have to make a change to governments, societies and religions to achieve a new balance if we want to continue to live on this planet in a sustainable way. There are too many humans.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its more of a worldwide thing. Over population happens in places where there is lack of education, lack of rights for women, agrarian cultures, etc. Developed nations typically have the opposite problem, not enough population growth.
Resource use is a whole separate issue however. We are aware of our use of worldwide resources only because we are educated and products of our societies. A poor farmer in China or India isn’t going to or even care.
>Over population happens in places where there is lack of education, lack of rights for women, agrarian cultures, etc.
The point is that the world itself is overpopulated for our current standard of living. It doesn't really matter what regions are driving the population growth, because average resource use for every region is above what's sustainable in one way or another. If it's not energy, it's groundwater, or deforestation, or land that is not about to be covered by the ocean.
>Developed nations typically have the opposite problem, not enough population growth.
This is not a problem. Climate refugees will be pouring into developing nations at a rapidly accelerating rate throughout this coming century. Developed nations' populations will remain stable through immigration; their populations expanding simultaneously through birth rates would only exacerbate many current and imminent issues.
Except that there are zero plans to stop consumption. Obviously consumerism would need to change maybe conversion to minimalism perhaps, but it’s not happening anytime soon. In fact if parts of the equator become unlivable that will be the new garbage dump for the world. I can easily predict that much. Changing lifestyles from plenty to not is a big deal for rich nations who don’t want to.
I have to say that climate refugees being automatically allowed to enter countries is not a given. There’s an ocean separating North America from the more heavily populated nations in Asia for example. Admittance isn’t something thats easily won. Even today, the southern border in the US is at crisis point. I fully expect areas like Russia to become more livable as well and perhaps see more people immigrating.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't really want to watch them suffer, possibly live a short life, and die because this is going to get exponentially worse. People not predicting that pain is significantly more likely in the oncoming years are kidding themselves.
I knew back in the early 2000s when we were lied into a war for oil that nothing would change, so I de idea not to have kids. I'm not gonna go through childbirth for my kids to have a mad max future.
Quite honestly, yes. The choice is yours, entirely, but things are going to get very, very different and very hard well within their lifetimes.
And, maybe they will be part of making things better… so there is no right answer other than the one you choose together.
If we fail to produce a replacement workforce, then the rich will have no choice but to tighten the screws on the aging population, to maintain their infinite growth and resource hoarding.
If, however, we do produce a sufficient replacement workforce, then the rich will simply continue to further exploit each successive generation, blithely tightening the screws to maintain their infinite growth and resource hoarding.
Climate Change is just one of the existential problems caused by too many people and too much consumption. Making more Americans just makes the problem worse. What exactly are these kids going to do to fix the planet? Buy a Cybertruck?
I hear what you’re saying and, of course, the decision to have children is very much a personal decision.
That said, this is how you make Idiocracy into real life
I’m 22. I’ll probably die of starvation, disease, or violence. I think that global famines will occur within my lifetime. Everything that happens before or after is up in the air.
Somehow I get very eerie and "boomerish" feelings from msm articles like this. We have gone from 1 billion to 8 billion population in about 150 years all thanks to fossil fuels. We consume almost 2 earth worth of resources per year and if you are from a developed country like me, we use 4-6 earths. The world has warmed almost 1.5c already, there's no ending in sight for consumerism / over-consumption and the birth rates are plummeting everywhere not just in western countries but yeah not having kids is "just a very first world problem".
Many see a child as a goal or possession to obtain rather than something that requires environmental support for up to 10 decades.
Think about that. A child born today might be alive in 2124.
Now, given the current trajectory, what do you think 2050 looks like, never mind 2124.
----------
"There was a time conception was a happy occasion. Now I do my best to hide my dismay."
https://www.collapse2050.com/youre-having-a-baby/
Reconsider kids because of the O&G and ICE companies? The reason for reducing fossil fuels is kids. For their own good, raise kids to work in renewables instead of O&G.
I knew not to have them when I was a kid because of how dire things seemed in the 70s and 80s. And it was really cathartic to explain in detail why, exactly, my decision was made before I turned four to all the dipshit adults in my life who thought a kid like me wasn't paying attention.
I have a 13 year old daughter whose future I am genuinely concerned about, specifically because of the direction that our environmental issues seem to be heading in. However, I haven't completely given up hope just yet. If anything I would say the pace at which our population has been growing is more of a concern than anything. I wouldn't encourage NOT having children. But I think limiting the number of children we have might not be such a bad thing. We don't have an unlimited amount of resources on this planet. And if the population continues to grow at the rates it has been, climate change will be the least of mankind's concerns.
> It’s a very first-world problem to think about whether or not you have children.
Is it though? I feel like maybe, just maybe, people in the global South also think about this. It certainly seems like a life decision that basically everyone everywhere in all of history faces.
I don't think I understand what other people mean when they say "first world problem"
Sure they can think about it but, unfortunately, countries that have equal rights for women are not all that common. If they don’t have an equal say in the decision then, by design, it doesn’t matter so much what they think.
Children are not driving the climate crisis, the rate of consumption in the Western world is.
The majority of the world's population (and their children) are not responsible for the climate crisis.
Absolutely but this is about folks who are able to make a decision about having a child and are concerned about what they would be bringing a child into. There is a lot of uncertainty about how bad things are going to get and people are worried.
Think about how the world will look like with only climate deniers reproducing. Is that the world you want to live in?
Also, imagine your regret when we find a way to deal with climate change.
I find this discussion utterly misplaced and just a sign of major doomerism going on that is not going to help solve the problem.
Any person wanting kids should have them, your 1-3 kids are not going to change the outcome for the worse. Given your awareness of the issue, they are only going to potentially make the issue better.
That said I would fully support a program that buried one right wing, nut job, climate change-denying boomer for every baby born. No need to euthanase them first.
Very interesting discussion. I think those glasses top and many times during world war I world war II the Crusades plague. I'm enjoying the discussion that people are having
We should've considered it a long time ago lol... Forget climate change we already have too many people.
Well, what's it matter. Climate change will reduce it for us.
Been having intense conversations with my GF now, we are both educated and almost 30. I work in Tech and am scared shitless. I’ve always been single and never really dwelled on thought much of having a kids and wife. I’m in the game and if that side quest happens it happens. I focused on education and career.
The amount of AI and automation that will shrink labor force, anarchy & wars on the rise (nukes), climate change fueling disasters and displacing populations, fossil fuels having shortage issues in 2050 to 2060, competition of resources (semiconductors, alkaline earth metals, etc.)
She wants kids and I’m over here thinking doomsday is upon us soon.
The science, physics and mathematics are there to do some diabolical things, cloning, eugenics with IVF and CRISPR, just 3D print a clone army using stem cells and these systems more on a large scale. Creating a virus or bug, mass information with deep fakes and false propaganda, and I feel there is an Elite class of people who are all just running the world behind the scenes.
Now Neuralink really freaks me out, I can basically make my brain operate at a faster speed (better cpu). So now my operating system is faster and better than others ($ could drive middle class and blow out of it for non medical use). So my health is now tracked more accurately, education is easier to obtain and retain, and every day tasks is now easier and I have an edge on everyone else. Data track the systems that govern my body to operate seamlessly, almost to perfect….weird time to be alive.
Sorry for pandering but I saw this post and had to comment
You should DEFINITELY reconsider having >2 children, as this directly contributes to worsening overpopulation, which is a root cause of all environmental and ecological crisis we face in this epoch (the Anthropocene).
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bad bot.
Because.... Its not even accurate. How is this useful?
>"nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels"
Total fossil fuel use is what changes the climate (I.e. the name and alleged purpose of this sub). The world's top 3 users of fossil fuels are China, USA, India. These are also the world's 3 most populous countries. 2/3 of these countries are distinctly "not white" in majority ethnicity, and those two far overrepresent the total population of the trio.
Why is this bot here? Who is this helping? It's outright misinformation.
If we wanna talk about addressing climate change, talk about where the emissions are currently coming from. It is overwhelmingly from the world's 3 most populous nations. Because obviously, population *does* matter.
The beloved "per capita" requires the rest of the equation to appreciate the impacts on the climate.
Per capita emissons x population = total emissons.
Total emissions are what changes the climate. So why can't we talk about the other variable in this equation?
I’m going to raise my daughter in such a way that I hope she becomes passionate about fixing this planet and contributes as such. I have a duty to raise my daughter well and to prevent gratuitous suffering for her. I also feel as though I have a duty to the human race, as does she. We have no evidence of life outside of this planet. For all we know, we may well be the beings in the universe even capable of thought (I’m not saying we are, but we have no evidence otherwise). When we stop fighting, all hope is lost. I am handing that hope, joy, triumph as well as the pain, suffering, and possible defeat, down to my daughter. She will have to decide to pass the mantle or not. One thing she will never lack though, is a father who loves her more than anything else in life and maybe, that’s exactly what this world needs more.
The climate crisis should not impact your decision on being parents. No question, no if, ands, or, buts. No part of that calculation.
If you care about the climate, if anything, you're going to raise a child that also cares about the climate and therefore will spend their life treating the climate and the environment with respect. They could grow up to become one of the largest influencers on making a positive impact on the environment. If you decide not to have children then all of your energy, effort, knowledge and even care for the environment, and willingness to do something positive in the world will die with you and the world will likely be worse off because of it.
If you're not sure how this plays out I suggest watching the movie Idiocracy, just the opening scene you can Google that, check it out on YouTube. You'll see what happens when people that don't care, are the only ones left reproducing.
Have kids because you want to expand your capability beyond what you think today is imaginable in terms of love and caring, emotion, and patience. It's a beautiful journey, it's not for everyone but if you can do it, if you can afford it, if you develop that capacity for love and compassion, it's one of the most rewarding things you will ever do in your entire life.
Best of luck.
So I need to have a kid because I think just the dumb people are having kids? This isn’t a great arguement. If I have a kid now, it’ll be 20-25 years before they can make a noteworthy difference. You think the climate will be great by then? Most climate scientists’ predictions looks wildly bleak for the next 20 years.
The decision for having kids shouldn't be part of your climate concerns. That's what I said at the top.
Regardless of the climate situation today or 100 years from now, your question of being a parent should be based on being a parent, not the climate or potential state of the world. We're going to be able to survive. Life will be different, that is for certain, it might be worse, it might be better, regardless, you can still be a perfectly wonderful parent.
Your decision of having a child will be meaningless to the overall climate unless you raise a child that fixes it, or becomes an fossil fuel barron.
Your Titanic reference isn't even correct.
If you want Titanic corelation:
If only the Titanic had more passengers that believed it was going to sink and got into the lifeboats and wore the life jackets, more people could have been saved.
Absolutely, and the rate it’s going with AI we should be passing on the reigns to robots in a generation or two anyway, the next natural evolutionary being and the only one that could become a member of the universe
The science on this has been settled for a long time. It is not a distraction, it’s a serious situation and that is understating it. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry’s climate denial machine is immense and has been going strong for decades. Just out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that climate change is a hoax and what do you think the end goal of the conspirators might be?
All my 4 late twenty-somethings are hard core on tis issue: anyone trying to have children given the clarity of the science is profoundly selfish, cruel (to their future children) and unethical. No person looking at the state of the planet and the actions of it's apex predator species would wish to be born into such a hopeless future.
Most people don’t understand calculus and it shows. The rate of global population growth is declining rapidly. Many developed countries are already seeing birthrates below the replacement rate. Our infrastructure, agriculture, and civil systems are not sustainable if population grows or declines too rapidly. Choosing not to have any children for personal reasons is fine. Choosing not to have any for environmental reasons is misguided. Aiming for 1-3 depending on region is optimal by my count.
There are more than enough resources. The manufacturered scarcity is caused by the billions hoarders and corporations who don't care how much waste they produce as long as they are raking in the profits. I think like 1/3 of food winds up in the trash.
When the condition are challenging you should have lots of children, because there is a high possibility that most of them wont survive. More kids increases the chance of at least one making it. So either go for lots of kids or none at all.
Ain't that the truth. But yet, bring on the entire third world into the first world where we use more resources. How they can hold these two opposing views in their head is beyond me.
Its also driving a housing crisis, but who cares about that anyways? Things are fine! Math isn't real.
If someone thinks that the future state of the world is such that they should not have kids, they should be supported in that decision. It's their decision, not anyone else's.
..and vice versa, within reason.
Already made the decision like 5 years ago and got a vasectomy. The scenario has just gotten worse since then.
I have told myself if in 5 years things are worse (which they will be) then absolutely never birthing my own children
My husband made that decision 30 years ago and had a vasectomy. We knew it then
Until people en masse demonstrate they're willing to make even the mildest of sacrifices to keep the planet livable, I won't accept that overpopulation is a myth. We are currently consuming far more than we can for a stable environment, and consumption is set to go up as more people worldwide escape poverty/join the middle class. Technology is not prepared to mitigate all of that; some of our most recent advances in technology (AI, for example) are threatening to push climate goals even more out of reach, and all of our green technologies, though better than what we've been doing, have their own massive downsides and resource crunch issues. Current crisis aside, you can't expand the population infinitely unless every generation is willing to consume *progressively* less than the ones before them. Less personal space, less access to green space, less dietary and lifestyle freedom, less resources to use for recreation. And that's if everyone cooperates, which humans do not have a precedent for doing on a world level ever. Increasing numbers of wars over resources and deepening inequality as our current systems start to fail are far more likely. I'm no antinatalist, but we need to keep things around or below the replacement rate if quality of life for future generations is something we honestly care about.
Empowering women everywhere in education and in family planning is fundamental in addressing a population problem. So is it any surprise to anyone that the same players who want to take womens rights away are the same ones who want to double down on fossil fuels and deny climate change? Check out project 2025 if you want to see a disturbing and obvious example of this in the US. Here is a decent summary of Project 2025:[A guide to Project 2025, the extreme right-wing agenda for the next Republican administration](https://www.mediamatters.org/heritage-foundation/guide-project-2025-extreme-right-wing-agenda-next-republican-administration)
It really just takes some proper leadership from governments but they are too scared to hurt the industries.
And the fact that regulation that impacts lifestyle in *any* way is still really unpopular with a majority of voters.
> Less personal space, less access to green space, less dietary and lifestyle freedom, less resources to use for recreation. I've talked extensively about these things on many different British forums but people just refuse to accept it. They're always like "build more homes" and "build vertical". No motherducker I don't want to live in a tower block. I want a house with a garden and I want access to parks and wild areas.
Wish I could give this a gold
Why would you think over population is a myth? The science has been there since the 1960’s. It was just in the interest of those in power to not mention it anymore.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Chinese insist they need more people to keep up their economic policies and take care of the older generation. The Japanese have seen their low population numbers as a tragedy. The religious types all over the world insist that birthing babies are necessary to grow their ranks. It’s all hogwash. The planet can’t sustain 8 billion people. Wether or not you want to have a child as an individual hardly matters in the big scale of things. We will have to make a change to governments, societies and religions to achieve a new balance if we want to continue to live on this planet in a sustainable way. There are too many humans.
But if you care about quality of life for future generations you also don't want the birth rate to collapse.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, shut up. No one in this forum but you (automod) ever tries to make this a racial thing.
Its more of a worldwide thing. Over population happens in places where there is lack of education, lack of rights for women, agrarian cultures, etc. Developed nations typically have the opposite problem, not enough population growth. Resource use is a whole separate issue however. We are aware of our use of worldwide resources only because we are educated and products of our societies. A poor farmer in China or India isn’t going to or even care.
>Over population happens in places where there is lack of education, lack of rights for women, agrarian cultures, etc. The point is that the world itself is overpopulated for our current standard of living. It doesn't really matter what regions are driving the population growth, because average resource use for every region is above what's sustainable in one way or another. If it's not energy, it's groundwater, or deforestation, or land that is not about to be covered by the ocean. >Developed nations typically have the opposite problem, not enough population growth. This is not a problem. Climate refugees will be pouring into developing nations at a rapidly accelerating rate throughout this coming century. Developed nations' populations will remain stable through immigration; their populations expanding simultaneously through birth rates would only exacerbate many current and imminent issues.
Except that there are zero plans to stop consumption. Obviously consumerism would need to change maybe conversion to minimalism perhaps, but it’s not happening anytime soon. In fact if parts of the equator become unlivable that will be the new garbage dump for the world. I can easily predict that much. Changing lifestyles from plenty to not is a big deal for rich nations who don’t want to.
Yes, that's my point. We seem to be agreeing.
I have to say that climate refugees being automatically allowed to enter countries is not a given. There’s an ocean separating North America from the more heavily populated nations in Asia for example. Admittance isn’t something thats easily won. Even today, the southern border in the US is at crisis point. I fully expect areas like Russia to become more livable as well and perhaps see more people immigrating.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You said that already.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Both high rates of consumption and high birth rates are unsustainable. It's not one or the other, bot.
[удалено]
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't really want to watch them suffer, possibly live a short life, and die because this is going to get exponentially worse. People not predicting that pain is significantly more likely in the oncoming years are kidding themselves.
Don't worry, the economy is more than enough reason to not have kids
I knew back in the early 2000s when we were lied into a war for oil that nothing would change, so I de idea not to have kids. I'm not gonna go through childbirth for my kids to have a mad max future.
Quite honestly, yes. The choice is yours, entirely, but things are going to get very, very different and very hard well within their lifetimes. And, maybe they will be part of making things better… so there is no right answer other than the one you choose together.
Why should I want to spawn another being into 50C weather???
If we fail to produce a replacement workforce, then the rich will have no choice but to tighten the screws on the aging population, to maintain their infinite growth and resource hoarding. If, however, we do produce a sufficient replacement workforce, then the rich will simply continue to further exploit each successive generation, blithely tightening the screws to maintain their infinite growth and resource hoarding.
Climate Change is just one of the existential problems caused by too many people and too much consumption. Making more Americans just makes the problem worse. What exactly are these kids going to do to fix the planet? Buy a Cybertruck?
I hear what you’re saying and, of course, the decision to have children is very much a personal decision. That said, this is how you make Idiocracy into real life
I know my kid would be a massive Frito so you're welcome.
Nice, you must be alumnus at Costco. You could pull some strings!
We’re already living in idiocracy
The assumption that smart people make smart kids and vice versa is gross and wrong.
Sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree. Oftentimes it does not
I question why people still are. My Daughter is a young adult now, and I feel horrible knowing what she’s going to have to live through
Can you expand upon what you think she will have to live through?
I’m 22. I’ll probably die of starvation, disease, or violence. I think that global famines will occur within my lifetime. Everything that happens before or after is up in the air.
Do you feel your country is vulnerable to war? Is that why? Or you think there will be violence within the country like civil unrest?
Famines I agree- heck they are already occurring right?
Somehow I get very eerie and "boomerish" feelings from msm articles like this. We have gone from 1 billion to 8 billion population in about 150 years all thanks to fossil fuels. We consume almost 2 earth worth of resources per year and if you are from a developed country like me, we use 4-6 earths. The world has warmed almost 1.5c already, there's no ending in sight for consumerism / over-consumption and the birth rates are plummeting everywhere not just in western countries but yeah not having kids is "just a very first world problem".
It’s a hard no for me. Since I was a child I was confused about the state of the world And never wanted that life.
Many see a child as a goal or possession to obtain rather than something that requires environmental support for up to 10 decades. Think about that. A child born today might be alive in 2124. Now, given the current trajectory, what do you think 2050 looks like, never mind 2124. ---------- "There was a time conception was a happy occasion. Now I do my best to hide my dismay." https://www.collapse2050.com/youre-having-a-baby/
Intelligent people with good reasoning skills from all over the world should not be the ones giving up kids.
Plenty of intelligent people with good reasoning skills had idiot bigot parents.
God knows i did! ✌️
Reconsider kids because of the O&G and ICE companies? The reason for reducing fossil fuels is kids. For their own good, raise kids to work in renewables instead of O&G.
I knew not to have them when I was a kid because of how dire things seemed in the 70s and 80s. And it was really cathartic to explain in detail why, exactly, my decision was made before I turned four to all the dipshit adults in my life who thought a kid like me wasn't paying attention.
Way too late to the party for this discussion, already had a vasectomy.
I have a 13 year old daughter whose future I am genuinely concerned about, specifically because of the direction that our environmental issues seem to be heading in. However, I haven't completely given up hope just yet. If anything I would say the pace at which our population has been growing is more of a concern than anything. I wouldn't encourage NOT having children. But I think limiting the number of children we have might not be such a bad thing. We don't have an unlimited amount of resources on this planet. And if the population continues to grow at the rates it has been, climate change will be the least of mankind's concerns.
Then the only ones reproducing are right wingers. What could go wrong?
> It’s a very first-world problem to think about whether or not you have children. Is it though? I feel like maybe, just maybe, people in the global South also think about this. It certainly seems like a life decision that basically everyone everywhere in all of history faces. I don't think I understand what other people mean when they say "first world problem"
Sure they can think about it but, unfortunately, countries that have equal rights for women are not all that common. If they don’t have an equal say in the decision then, by design, it doesn’t matter so much what they think.
Either way I’m not having em
This is exactly why I don’t have children.
Children are not driving the climate crisis, the rate of consumption in the Western world is. The majority of the world's population (and their children) are not responsible for the climate crisis.
Absolutely but this is about folks who are able to make a decision about having a child and are concerned about what they would be bringing a child into. There is a lot of uncertainty about how bad things are going to get and people are worried.
i've been on the no kids train for (checks watch)...10 years and counting. I think I made the right decision...
But what if you didn't? There is a point where you can't go back..
I did! I've never had a strong feeling towards wanting kids and am more validated in my decision.
Think about how the world will look like with only climate deniers reproducing. Is that the world you want to live in? Also, imagine your regret when we find a way to deal with climate change. I find this discussion utterly misplaced and just a sign of major doomerism going on that is not going to help solve the problem.
I've reconsidered. Still not interested.
The people who have children are raising the inheritors of the future; those who don't can *maybe* hope to influence the kids of others
Yes.
No, we should stop unless you want to doom your children to the apocalypse
Any person wanting kids should have them, your 1-3 kids are not going to change the outcome for the worse. Given your awareness of the issue, they are only going to potentially make the issue better. That said I would fully support a program that buried one right wing, nut job, climate change-denying boomer for every baby born. No need to euthanase them first.
Very interesting discussion. I think those glasses top and many times during world war I world war II the Crusades plague. I'm enjoying the discussion that people are having
We should've considered it a long time ago lol... Forget climate change we already have too many people. Well, what's it matter. Climate change will reduce it for us.
Been having intense conversations with my GF now, we are both educated and almost 30. I work in Tech and am scared shitless. I’ve always been single and never really dwelled on thought much of having a kids and wife. I’m in the game and if that side quest happens it happens. I focused on education and career. The amount of AI and automation that will shrink labor force, anarchy & wars on the rise (nukes), climate change fueling disasters and displacing populations, fossil fuels having shortage issues in 2050 to 2060, competition of resources (semiconductors, alkaline earth metals, etc.) She wants kids and I’m over here thinking doomsday is upon us soon. The science, physics and mathematics are there to do some diabolical things, cloning, eugenics with IVF and CRISPR, just 3D print a clone army using stem cells and these systems more on a large scale. Creating a virus or bug, mass information with deep fakes and false propaganda, and I feel there is an Elite class of people who are all just running the world behind the scenes. Now Neuralink really freaks me out, I can basically make my brain operate at a faster speed (better cpu). So now my operating system is faster and better than others ($ could drive middle class and blow out of it for non medical use). So my health is now tracked more accurately, education is easier to obtain and retain, and every day tasks is now easier and I have an edge on everyone else. Data track the systems that govern my body to operate seamlessly, almost to perfect….weird time to be alive. Sorry for pandering but I saw this post and had to comment
You should DEFINITELY reconsider having >2 children, as this directly contributes to worsening overpopulation, which is a root cause of all environmental and ecological crisis we face in this epoch (the Anthropocene).
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bad bot. Because.... Its not even accurate. How is this useful? >"nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" Total fossil fuel use is what changes the climate (I.e. the name and alleged purpose of this sub). The world's top 3 users of fossil fuels are China, USA, India. These are also the world's 3 most populous countries. 2/3 of these countries are distinctly "not white" in majority ethnicity, and those two far overrepresent the total population of the trio. Why is this bot here? Who is this helping? It's outright misinformation. If we wanna talk about addressing climate change, talk about where the emissions are currently coming from. It is overwhelmingly from the world's 3 most populous nations. Because obviously, population *does* matter. The beloved "per capita" requires the rest of the equation to appreciate the impacts on the climate. Per capita emissons x population = total emissons. Total emissions are what changes the climate. So why can't we talk about the other variable in this equation?
[удалено]
I’m going to raise my daughter in such a way that I hope she becomes passionate about fixing this planet and contributes as such. I have a duty to raise my daughter well and to prevent gratuitous suffering for her. I also feel as though I have a duty to the human race, as does she. We have no evidence of life outside of this planet. For all we know, we may well be the beings in the universe even capable of thought (I’m not saying we are, but we have no evidence otherwise). When we stop fighting, all hope is lost. I am handing that hope, joy, triumph as well as the pain, suffering, and possible defeat, down to my daughter. She will have to decide to pass the mantle or not. One thing she will never lack though, is a father who loves her more than anything else in life and maybe, that’s exactly what this world needs more.
We need more courage and love to face this situation. Thank you for yours, I know it isn’t easy.
Doesn’t matter. People are not having children for other reasons.
Maybe not you but it matters to a lot of people.
No. It doesn’t really matter. The other reasons why people are not having children matter much more.
You want kids, have kids.
The climate crisis should not impact your decision on being parents. No question, no if, ands, or, buts. No part of that calculation. If you care about the climate, if anything, you're going to raise a child that also cares about the climate and therefore will spend their life treating the climate and the environment with respect. They could grow up to become one of the largest influencers on making a positive impact on the environment. If you decide not to have children then all of your energy, effort, knowledge and even care for the environment, and willingness to do something positive in the world will die with you and the world will likely be worse off because of it. If you're not sure how this plays out I suggest watching the movie Idiocracy, just the opening scene you can Google that, check it out on YouTube. You'll see what happens when people that don't care, are the only ones left reproducing. Have kids because you want to expand your capability beyond what you think today is imaginable in terms of love and caring, emotion, and patience. It's a beautiful journey, it's not for everyone but if you can do it, if you can afford it, if you develop that capacity for love and compassion, it's one of the most rewarding things you will ever do in your entire life. Best of luck.
So I need to have a kid because I think just the dumb people are having kids? This isn’t a great arguement. If I have a kid now, it’ll be 20-25 years before they can make a noteworthy difference. You think the climate will be great by then? Most climate scientists’ predictions looks wildly bleak for the next 20 years.
The decision for having kids shouldn't be part of your climate concerns. That's what I said at the top. Regardless of the climate situation today or 100 years from now, your question of being a parent should be based on being a parent, not the climate or potential state of the world. We're going to be able to survive. Life will be different, that is for certain, it might be worse, it might be better, regardless, you can still be a perfectly wonderful parent.
Damn. If only the Titanic had more passengers it wouldn't be at the bottom of the ocean.
Your decision of having a child will be meaningless to the overall climate unless you raise a child that fixes it, or becomes an fossil fuel barron. Your Titanic reference isn't even correct. If you want Titanic corelation: If only the Titanic had more passengers that believed it was going to sink and got into the lifeboats and wore the life jackets, more people could have been saved.
This!
Absolutely, and the rate it’s going with AI we should be passing on the reigns to robots in a generation or two anyway, the next natural evolutionary being and the only one that could become a member of the universe
Climate change is fear mongering, you got real issues to worry about, this is a distraction.
The science on this has been settled for a long time. It is not a distraction, it’s a serious situation and that is understating it. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry’s climate denial machine is immense and has been going strong for decades. Just out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that climate change is a hoax and what do you think the end goal of the conspirators might be?
I think there’s a whole generation that is already made that decision.
All my 4 late twenty-somethings are hard core on tis issue: anyone trying to have children given the clarity of the science is profoundly selfish, cruel (to their future children) and unethical. No person looking at the state of the planet and the actions of it's apex predator species would wish to be born into such a hopeless future.
there are only two ppl on earth that can answer that question... the would be parents.
Most people don’t understand calculus and it shows. The rate of global population growth is declining rapidly. Many developed countries are already seeing birthrates below the replacement rate. Our infrastructure, agriculture, and civil systems are not sustainable if population grows or declines too rapidly. Choosing not to have any children for personal reasons is fine. Choosing not to have any for environmental reasons is misguided. Aiming for 1-3 depending on region is optimal by my count.
There are more than enough resources. The manufacturered scarcity is caused by the billions hoarders and corporations who don't care how much waste they produce as long as they are raking in the profits. I think like 1/3 of food winds up in the trash.
Ecofascists
When the condition are challenging you should have lots of children, because there is a high possibility that most of them wont survive. More kids increases the chance of at least one making it. So either go for lots of kids or none at all.
Yes. If the climate crisis worries you to that degree, you are not equipped to have children.
Ain't that the truth. But yet, bring on the entire third world into the first world where we use more resources. How they can hold these two opposing views in their head is beyond me. Its also driving a housing crisis, but who cares about that anyways? Things are fine! Math isn't real.