Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

the "don't have kids if u can't afford them" mentality...

645 replies

MermaidCheeks · 06/08/2022 14:23

Who exactly do this lot think are going to be looking after them in hospitals and care homes when they're elderly and infirm?

If only those who could really afford to have kids had them - a decreasing well-off demographic -we'd be even more fucked than we already are.

Immigration is not a long-term solution when 80% of elderly are going to be spread across low and middle-affluent countries by 2050, either. Every country is going to need their own citizens.

Instead of resenting people who need their wages topped-up by the government in order to afford having a couple of kids - maybe embrace those who are making sacrifices to have kids at all, especially in the face of the overwhelming decrease in value that society and successive governments have placed on the role of raising children.

OP posts:
Cornettoninja · 16/08/2022 09:43

@rainbowmilk what timescales are the figures on that diagram based on? Over a lifetime, year or per each time iyswim? i think it’s the specification of one transatlantic flight that’s thrown me, it’s not really clear.

rainbowmilk · 16/08/2022 08:13

Tonnes of C02 involved in having one fewer child, avoiding a transatlantic flight, and living car free.

the "don't have kids if u can't afford them" mentality...
rainbowmilk · 16/08/2022 08:11

Cookiesareworthit · 16/08/2022 06:30

Meant to say has less impact than a childless person who flies several times a year and has their own car

Mumsnet let us edit

Wrong.

amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

Cookiesareworthit · 16/08/2022 06:30

Cookiesareworthit · 16/08/2022 06:28

No we aren't making the same point. You as usual took the opportunity to take a pop at parents rather than focusing on western lifestyles being behind climate change.

I'd also hasten to add a family of 5 who can't afford flights and take public transport than a childless person who flies multiple times a year and has their own car.

Meant to say has less impact than a childless person who flies several times a year and has their own car

Mumsnet let us edit

Cookiesareworthit · 16/08/2022 06:28

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 19:42

Yes, we’re literally making the same point. People on MN are not typically hunter gatherers, they’re consumers and so will their children be. That’s why the environmental impact of having a child in the West far exceeds anything done by a childless person. So calling Western parents more environmentally conscious than people without is nonsense.

No we aren't making the same point. You as usual took the opportunity to take a pop at parents rather than focusing on western lifestyles being behind climate change.

I'd also hasten to add a family of 5 who can't afford flights and take public transport than a childless person who flies multiple times a year and has their own car.

LuftBalloons · 16/08/2022 06:27

By graciously letting them for when they want to or by restricting funding for medical interventions past a certain age. Letting people age and die naturally like they should.

Chilling

Watchthesunrise · 16/08/2022 02:27

Can't live forever 💁

Watchthesunrise · 16/08/2022 02:26

antelopevalley · 15/08/2022 01:59

Yes get rid of all those elderly and disabled people by killing them.

Not by killing them . By graciously letting them for when they want to or by restricting funding for medical interventions past a certain age. Letting people age and die naturally like they should.

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 15/08/2022 23:27

antelopevalley · 15/08/2022 01:59

Yes get rid of all those elderly and disabled people by killing them.

It’s so very Mumsnet - they’ve had their youth / time, now please just die.

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 19:42

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 18:27

The most populous continents are not responsible for the emissions we have today. Civilization existed for thousands of years without causing the level of emissions we see today.

You are again wrong.

A childless person who takes flights *2 a year has a much larger carbon footprint than a person with 10 kids who lives in a hunter gatherer community.

Population isn't inherently the problem.

Yes, we’re literally making the same point. People on MN are not typically hunter gatherers, they’re consumers and so will their children be. That’s why the environmental impact of having a child in the West far exceeds anything done by a childless person. So calling Western parents more environmentally conscious than people without is nonsense.

DillAte · 15/08/2022 19:17

A childless person who takes flights 2 a year has a much larger carbon footprint than a person with 10 kids who lives in a hunter gatherer community.*

Whilst I'm sure there are plenty of hunter-gatherers with internet access and maybe even a few posting on Mumsnet, this is not the userbase, or the societies they live in, by-and-large.

Most Mumsnet users do live in societies that overconsume. They will produce overconsumers who will, ideally, produce more overconsumers (because "who will pay their pensions, wipe their elderly bums etc.") so that is what we're talking about.

To the point of the topic, a childless person in a overconsuming society probably deserves some sort of recognition if they manage to outdo the carbon emissions of an entire family and their descendants.

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 18:27

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 17:25

Pointing out that parents can’t be the most environmentally conscious people if they’re doing the worst thing, by far, that your average person can do for the environment isn’t shutting on them. It’s just correcting a factual error.

And consumption is inherently linked to population. If you’re having s baby in a Western country then it’s going to grow up and consume. I agree that we need to tackle capitalism but you can’t just wave away the climate impact of your children by saying you use cloth nappies or whatever.

The most populous continents are not responsible for the emissions we have today. Civilization existed for thousands of years without causing the level of emissions we see today.

You are again wrong.

A childless person who takes flights *2 a year has a much larger carbon footprint than a person with 10 kids who lives in a hunter gatherer community.

Population isn't inherently the problem.

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 17:25

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 16:52

Rainbow......please just be happy with your life and stop coming to Mumsnet to $h!t on parents

This is also a ridiculous narrative to take ie babies being bad for the planet. We don't have an overpopulation problem, we have an overconsumption problem

Pointing out that parents can’t be the most environmentally conscious people if they’re doing the worst thing, by far, that your average person can do for the environment isn’t shutting on them. It’s just correcting a factual error.

And consumption is inherently linked to population. If you’re having s baby in a Western country then it’s going to grow up and consume. I agree that we need to tackle capitalism but you can’t just wave away the climate impact of your children by saying you use cloth nappies or whatever.

SofiaSoFar · 15/08/2022 17:21

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 11:15

Those I know who have children are, on the whole, a lot more environmentally conscious.

Oh absolutely. Except for the part where having a child is the worst thing you can do for the environment by a very long way, of course.

Exactly this^^

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 17:00

SoapboxJudges · 08/08/2022 08:45

Why is your anger targeted at individuals having babies - a very natural and organic process. Why are you not targeting your fury at the outrageous organisations who profiteer from the destruction of the planet whilst actively working to spread misinformation about the climate crisis so that they can defer regulation of their industry as much as possible and continue their destructive habits? We know the world is riddled with climate sceptics who have fuelled the debate of whether climate change is real when really there is no debate to be had. The likes of trump being elected as leaders of the most powerful countries where, if behaviourial change were to occur, the impact for the planet would be very real - is not a 'by chance' occurrence - there are active forces at play.

What matters is human consumption of precious resources. Why are we not already pressing those in power to make the change we all want to see? Why are political parties with green credentials not already running our countries? Why are we choosing politicians who promote greed and self interest over thosr who put the environment first? Humans have existed for most of time without damaging the planet in the ways we are now. It is not a certainty written in stone that more humans = more damage.

We, as a species, over eat, we over consume, we've voted in repeatedly political systems that foster and promote captialsitic models where "economic growth" must happen at all costs. Why are we not questioning these models ? This is where human behaviour has become destructive. having children has always and will always be a natural drive.

We have fewer children on average in more wealthy countries because we are more certain of their survival to a reproductive age, and this trend will continue. Where once natural disasters, child and maternal mortality, ill health and old age were big risks to life expectancy, good medical intervention means we are having fewer children and offering them a better standard of living. Rapid population growth has been a temporary phenomenon is most countries quickly followed by a decline in birth rate.

What is interesting, however, is a study in 2020 which revealed that the carbon emissions of the richest 1% of the world's population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity! Looking at the consumption emissions of different income groups in a period which saw the doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the report found that the richest 10% blew one third of our remaining global carbon budget compared to just 4% of the poorest half of the population. So not only are the Jacob Rees Mogs and Boris' progeny worse by far for their consumption levels, they are infinitely worse because they are personally responsible for why we have not yet begun to tackle the climate crisis when they had the power to affect policy and bring about real change.

Tim Gore, the head of the climate policy at Oxfam said "the over consumption if a wealthy minority is fuelling the climate crisis, yet it is poor communities and young people who are paying the price. Such extreme carbon inequality is a direct consequence of our governments decades long pursuit of grossly unequal and carbon intensive economic growth."

So push your MPs and your government ministers to do more and act faster instead of turning your hatred to those in society who are the least powerful. It plays out like playground bullying. Have we not moved past this level of debate now.

Just wanted to let you know that your input into the thread has been appreciated by me.

You're a very logical and informed person, I can imagine this entire topic must be a very frustrating one for you with the amount of ignorance that's being banded about here.

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 16:52

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 11:15

Those I know who have children are, on the whole, a lot more environmentally conscious.

Oh absolutely. Except for the part where having a child is the worst thing you can do for the environment by a very long way, of course.

Rainbow......please just be happy with your life and stop coming to Mumsnet to $h!t on parents

This is also a ridiculous narrative to take ie babies being bad for the planet. We don't have an overpopulation problem, we have an overconsumption problem

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 16:47

BigChesterDraws · 06/08/2022 15:03

Oh goodie, the old “my children will be working to pay your pension” myth. No, they won’t. The working childless people have paid more than their fair share into the pension pot throughout their lives. They have continuously paid into the “general welfare fund” without receiving child benefit, SMP, tax credits, free school meals, or any other such benefits.

Your children will be working for their own pension. If they have a job. They could be on the dole their entire lives, in prison, unable to work through accident or illness. No one can predict the future.

Who do we think will be caring for us in old age? If we need care, and remember not every 80-year-old is in a nursing home and advances in science mean that people are living independently longer, it will be someone that we pay to look after us. Your children might be glad of the job opportunity.

So you'll be stacking the shelves in Tesco in your 80s? You'll be driving the bus? You'll be performing a hip replacement on yourself?

Honestly.....

cheekychatta · 15/08/2022 16:46

If you have one of each what else can you have ? You see so many families where people have three kids because they tried for a boy or girl after having two of the same sex . I had two of the same sex but didn't want anymore because we would have struggled with three and we were both working. But each to their own .

Maisa45 · 15/08/2022 15:49

My parasitic neighbours who don't work an claim benefits have just had their second kid and have a never ending stream of deliveries and a fancy car when DH and I both work and can't afford another.

A member of my family is pregnant with her fourth kid. One of her kids has SEN and she already can't cope and hasn't worked since the age of about 18/19.

I get that circumstances change - I claimed benefits myself at one point to top up a low wage when living alone - but some people take the piss and should stop having children.

oiltrader · 15/08/2022 15:35

DillAte · 15/08/2022 13:13

@DangerouslyBored
Being conscious isn't the same as being effective.
Children make life more difficult and parents will make things more convenient for themselves.
Driving a gas guzzler to cart your kids around does the same environmental damage whether you feel guilty about it or not.
If a generation committed to breeding only half it's number, a lot of our existential worries would disappear overnight (albeit with some short-term "discomfort").

exctly

Inkyblue123 · 15/08/2022 13:24

Circumferences · 06/08/2022 14:41

I think it's extremely selfish to have more kids than you can afford.

Great, more children trapped in poverty. Exactly what society needs.

This

LindsayStauffer · 15/08/2022 13:21

redskyatnight · 06/08/2022 14:43

You often see threads on MN from people who already have at least 1 child saying that they are struggling to find the money to eat but really want another child. All too often the advice is "go for it, you'll make it work somehow". Personally I think it's pretty irresponsible to have a child, particularly when you already have one knowing that you can't afford them.

There's also different types of "afford". You also see threads on MN where people think they can't afford another child because it means they won't be able to pay for private education for two.

The 'go for it, you make it work' posts are asinine, honestly. The only people who can be that foolhardy are ones who know full well they have a safety net, usually family they know will take them in or give them dosh if they're skint. They don't live in the real world. They don't understand that you can't always make it work, you can't always stretch a pound as far as it needs to go. Kids live in poverty every day in this country. People go bankrupt every day. It's selfish to have a child if you know you can't afford it, even mores when it's a second or third or beyond child as you know that you have an existing child whose life will be impacted too.

It's funny in a way that the ones who say 'I want a second but can't afford it' and actually stand by that are the better parents than the ones who blithely encourage others to have kids they can't provide for. Because they're thinking about the child rather than themselves and their own urges.

Circumstances change and anyone can try for a child in a good situation and end up in a bad one. But knowingly trying to conceive a child you can't afford is one of the most breathtakingly selfish things a person can do to someone else.

DillAte · 15/08/2022 13:13

@DangerouslyBored
Being conscious isn't the same as being effective.
Children make life more difficult and parents will make things more convenient for themselves.
Driving a gas guzzler to cart your kids around does the same environmental damage whether you feel guilty about it or not.
If a generation committed to breeding only half it's number, a lot of our existential worries would disappear overnight (albeit with some short-term "discomfort").

gatehouseoffleet · 15/08/2022 11:19

Those I know who have children are, on the whole, a lot more environmentally conscious. This will of course be vehemently denied by the child free, but it’s my experience

I am not child-free but I still deny it. It's the parents who insist on driving the massive eco-sin cars "because it's safer", take their kids ski-ing to #make memories and won't walk their kids to school either. It's quite astonishing how little parents care about their kids' futures and how they simply refuse to make even minor changes to their routines.

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 11:15

Those I know who have children are, on the whole, a lot more environmentally conscious.

Oh absolutely. Except for the part where having a child is the worst thing you can do for the environment by a very long way, of course.

Swipe left for the next trending thread