to think you can't understand climate science and want kids

“These ideas have gained traction through the efforts of activist groups such as the BirthStrike movement and UK charity Population Matters.”

No, they’ve gained traction through a vast amount of peer reviewed research across disciplines. Sure, there are nuances to the debate, but the fundamental principles are firmly established.

Like Africans and Asians will have 9 to 12 to a family and nobody says anything to them about it, yet Britons are supposed to go extinct, whilst simultaneously not putting their heating on, giving up cars and meat? Fuck that x 10.

Ignoring that this claim about family size isn’t supported by the data, the carbon footprint per capita in countries such as the UK and USA is vastly greater than the same for Africa and Asia.

I was not writing about Africa or Asia!

It's a good question and of course I worry. I guess my feelings on this come down to:

• Is all hope lost? No and that feeling of helplessness buoys the fossil fuel industry. Hopelessness leads to inaction.
• If we don't have a next generation then we are saying all hope is lost.
• humans have always lived with a sense of impending doom - that's a part of consciousness and understanding our mortality. I don't judge people who have children in war and famine and I don't judge my pregnant grandmother for continuing a pregnancy during the Cuban Missile Crisis when it looked very much like the end. In fact, I wouldn't be here if she had.
• things can change very quickly. High infant mortality was a horrendous fact of life but then we had a medical revolution with the advent of antibiotics and vaccines. Also infant mortality rates are getting better throughout the world - it's not just a western success story and this doesn't have to be either.
• I work in a medical science related field - there is so much hope coming from new research it helps charge me in a way.
• we don't actually need to invent a new solution, this isn't Project Hail Mary. We don't need to wait for nuclear fusion to be scalable, we already know what to do and the market trends show renewables are reaching a market tipping point.
• I don't think this is the OP, but those who sneer from the sidelines and say it's now pointless to try are just as bad as fossil fuel lobbyists. If you will be more motivated to fight for the future with kids then great, if you would have more time and motivation without kids then that is also great

Ah I see. So you’re suggesting that “Africans and Asians” have families of 9 - 12 in the UK.

I completely understand what you are saying, OP.

I have always only ever wanted to be a Mum, and I am thankful that we are blessed with two beautiful children. However, if I knew then what I know now, I most likely wouldn’t have had them. We are seeing more and more how climate change is impacting our planet, and I worry about their future.

I've thought about this for a long time and the only answer I have as a childfree person (who mainly made the decision from selfishness and trauma, not climate inevitability) is that people decide the joy of being alive and that kids bringing joy to their lives will just emotionally outweigh it. I don't believe that, and I am someone with severe depression who is mainly alive because it would upset people if I wasn't. I think they genuinely do believe that even if their kids are dealing with 50x worse conditions when they're 40 and perhaps struggling to have clean water they'll still be happy to have been born.

It's a gamble and some people quite enjoy gambling, and some of them win.

I'm not saying climate change isn't real - as that has been peer reviewed.

I'm saying the orgin paper of idea reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals by Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax, published in Global Environmental Change (2009) has been critisied by other scientsis - assumes no reduction of carbon uses american carbon outputs whole premiss concept of adding next genertaion of carbon emssions has been questioned.

It's not settled science than so many on here claim it to be.

But it's aslo been jumped on and promoted by groups who agenda is already about decreasing population because it fits their agenda.

Why the fuck are you attributing words to me that I did not write? I did not say in the UK!!!!

So what on earth are you saying then?? your first post said "Africans and asians", then you said you weren't talking about Africa or Asia, then you said you weren't talking about the UK 😭

Baffling 🤷🏼‍♂️

I wasn’t referring to general climate change. I was referring to the specific issue of human reproduction and its effects on climate change. There is a vast literature on this. You seem to want to suggest that it’s one piece of research that has then been leapt on by certain pressure groups.

I fundamentally disagree with that view point.

My point is that many posters on here misrepresent population and climate control as established scienctific facts as do presure groups because it suits their world view and ageneda.

I'm not sure if it deliberate mis-reprentation or just lack of understanding.

I won't bother argueing futher - any links are never looked at no alterative view is ever considered seems to be an artical of faith which is ironic but it's unshakeable by actaul facts.

Er how? Having children is one of the worst things you can do for climate change, that's just a fact and no amount of "my kids have their own carbon footprint so it's nothing to do with me" changes the fact that you decided to have them!

That's not true, this is based on successful propaganda by the fossil fuel industry.

100 fossil fuel companies and industries create 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook

No, that is an opinion, not a fact. It is an opinion based on a cost benefit analysis that the life of 1 human child unlike the rest of the Earth’s many species has no a right to live on the planet but is somehow too much of a burden.

Humans are part of the ecosystem.

We aren’t some sort of planet destroying disease.

We can reproduce just like every other living creature.

The goal to fight climate change is to attain balance, not wipe out humans.

Balance means someone has to have children. You are all going to depend on today’s children to keep moving towards correcting climate change and saving every living thing also on the planet. To keep reducing carbon emissions per capita. Do you know that the average British person in 1860 had a higher carbon footprint than today’s average British person? This is pre electricity, pre indoor plumbing, pre cars, pre planes…

What has got us there? Bright children who were raised to care about the planet going into green industries.

Who will get us over the finish line? The children of today.

So frankly, the carbon foot print cost of raising a generation of children to adulthood is more than offset by the reductions in carbon emissions they invent as adults.

Certainly more useful than a dog.

I was indeed surprised to read that the average British person in 1860 had a higher carbon footprint than today’s average British person. That’s because it isn’t true! As for humans being a planet destroying disease, that’s up for debate. We have successfully destroyed vast amounts of our natural world and continue to do so at an alarming rate.

It is 100% true. The current per capita CO2 emissions in the UK is at the same level as 1860. See https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-kingdom and the attached line chart.

There will of course be challenges in the years and decades ahead, but your children’s future would still likely be far better than at any time in our history, or than in most places in the world today. For most of history, a significant proportion of children wouldn’t have reached five-years old.

Perhaps we should all just kill ourselves in some mass global suicide? Or we could each try and make the world a better place, and recognise that we need descendants to carry on the work…

@BermudaRhombus
was indeed surprised to read that the average British person in 1860 had a higher carbon footprint than today’s average British person. That’s because it isn’t true!

It is 100% true. See additional drill down. The average British person in 1860 emitted 5.81t of CO2 compared to 4.53t of CO2 in 2024, this is 1.28t lower of CO2 emissions per British person.

Yes, climate change is concerning, but why are you catastrophising? We’ll have to adapt, of course, but humans have adapted throughout history, and without the benefiting technology that we have today.

We live in the safest and most comfortable time to be alive (apart from perhaps the post-cold war to 2008 financial crash era)… that may well erode over time and there’ll be extra cost and upheaval due to climate change I’m sure, but for the UK at least, hotter summers and wetter winters are hardly Armageddon!

Post Cold War to 2008 was not very safe.

The Troubles, the rise of Islamic terrorism, the Serbian genocide, and the collapse of the USSR led to many conflicts in Eastern Europe that involved nuclear weapons changing hands into those of literal mad men that threatened to use them on us, we did two wars in the ME Persian Gulf and the Iraq war, plus a 3rd ME war in Afghanistan started towards the end of that year range. And we got involved in the Somali civil war.