Population Matters

[onlychildhamster]

My local fair had a Population Matters booth and I talked to the volunteer manning the booth. He said their policy was that they thought people should have small families or one less child. I broadly agree with this i.e. planning to have an only child.

I am confused about one thing though. I thought that having 2 children would be fine from an environmental perspective as you are just replacing you and your partner. But having read about in greater detail, it seems like scientists are saying population reduction is the way to beat climate change, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/scientists-call-for-population-control-in-mass-climate-alarm so doesn't that mean that we should be aiming for 0 children or 1 child and the max 2 children is for exceptional circumstances. My DH also said that even though replacement rate is officially 2.05 for the UK (higher in developing countries due to higher child mortality), the fact that we live so long in the UK means 2 children is 'adding to the population'. What do you all think of this?

Disclaimer: I don't advocate for any coercive measures to control population nor is this a snipe at anyone who has 3 or more children (we can't return children, this is just a discussion about FUTURE children).

I don't think limiting the number of children a few well-meaning westerners have will make any difference without an accompanying change in global economics. Most countries rely on there being more younger people than older people for survival, be that through the younger people paying for pensions and care through their wages or the younger people providing practical care of their elderly relatives and taking the burden off the state. The trouble is the end result is that more and more people are needed to shore up the system which results in overpopulation.

The other issue I would foresee with having one child is, IF you believe (as many do) that very, VERY tough times are imminent due to climate change and that your child is likely to have a dreadful life as a result*, you would surely be better off having loads of DCs and arming them to the back teeth, so they can protect each other!

Clearly this would be mad, and I'm not seriously suggesting it. But, in reality, being a parent can make you...not "selfish", because it isn't for yourself, but it can make you more concerned about your child than you are anyone else. If you want your child to have the best possible life on a difficult planet, you may not think that having one is the best thing for them. I am not one of those idiots by the way, who thinks only children are all odd or unhappy. It entirely depends on the child in question and the family. But you may find later on that you think a sibling or siblings would make your child's life better. If you are conscious now that a family of more than three would be too much for your conscience, then I think you run a risk of betraying your principles later if you have one DC now. So there is an argument for just...not. IF the environment is your main concern that is.

I don't know if I'm wording this well, but my point is that your priorities may change once your DC is here and you may have to compromise a bit. Maybe not on the sibling thing, but in other areas. Or you may feel you need to compensate for having a DC by going further with your attempts to eat plant based and you may have to forgo visits to your family. My family are also overseas, so I do get it!

It's just that you do (admirably) seem very concerned with the environment and that means you need to put thought into these issues. This is a good thing. I'm glad we can discuss it here and I'm genuinely trying to be helpful although your priorities and mine are slightly different

"The other issue I would foresee with having one child is, IF you believe (as many do) that very, VERY tough times are imminent due to climate change and that your child is likely to have a dreadful life as a result*"

Forgot to add my asterix point!

*I personally don't think this is a given. The science actually doesn't indicate this either, but many people get their info from internet memes these days, which is why things range from "don't worry, climate change is made up" to "we're all gonna die violent deaths next week" with little in between!

The only way to sort out the planet would be to go full on dictatorship with harsh measures.

Well its a good job that appears to be the plan going forward, isn't it?

Having a smaller population is the only way to 'save' the planet. And if we don't do it voluntarily then it will happen in other ways, droughts famines wars over remaining resources.

@TornadoTrinity thanks for your thoughtful response. I do think of it from another perspective, the poor are the worst affects by climate change. An only DC who is the sole beneficiary of our London apartment/gets help with house deposits/uni fees might cope better if the cost of uncontaminated food is sky high and parts of London are underwater, driving up the prices of the parts of London that are not under water.

As for whether my DC would benefit from siblings, well every decision has an opportunity cost so I think ultimately it depends on what you prioritize. Environment isn't the only reason;another big reason is that it enables me to be a mum later and be in a better position to do so.

the poor are the worst affects by climate change

Totally agree. The best option for the people who will probably suffer most would be that we chose not to have any children here and allow immigration freely from poorer countries.

But, I expect there needs to be a balance. It is rarely just about the environment.

@TornadoTrinity

the poor are the worst affects by climate change

Totally agree. The best option for the people who will probably suffer most would be that we chose not to have any children here and allow immigration freely from poorer countries.

But, I expect there needs to be a balance. It is rarely just about the environment.

And rarely just about poorer people. Although we are living a charmed existence here, at the expense of poorer populations elsewhere who, as I've already said, could have huge families before it would be equivalent to the damage a single, CHILDFREE person does here, does that mean we have a moral obligation to have no children at all? Or if you weren't planning on having children anyway, do we have a moral obligation to revert to a lifestyle where we produce less carbon even if it means huge sacrifice? Many would say yes. I struggle with it tbh as for me, I feel there is a limit to the burden of responsibility an individual is capable of shouldering. Or even if capable, then whether they should.

As pps have mentioned, the level of change needed goes far beyond what individuals can do.

@MondayYogurt

Trying to discuss the environmental impacts of population growth on MN is like trying to discuss the environmental impacts of digital currencies on r/Bitcoin.

haha!

We also love a charmed existence at the expense of the lives of wildlife and animals. So people do argue we shouldn't keep existing at all as it isn't fair on the animals we harm. Again, I personally don't agree, but it is a theory which has some support.

@Ylvamoon

OP, it's a difficult truth, and posting something like this on a parenting site a controversial for a multitude of reasons.

It's not a truth though, it's just an opinion.

Look at the very real effects of the declining birth rate for some balance. There are excellent arguments for having more children, not less.

Having a smaller population is the only way to 'save' the planet.

And yet we're literally destroying the planet with single-use plastics to ensure not one single person in the west dies of covid...?

I mean... take all the emotion out of it for a second, and covid could have been quite a good thing for the planet (though terrible for humans on a personal level). Average age of death in the 80s, cause of death pneumonia which is generally thought to be the best and most humane way to go.

I'm not saying we should have done things differently, merely saying that as a species, we're incapable of putting emotions to the side in order to make decisions.

So if a smaller population is the only way, then I don't think there is a way, because (unless there is a dictatorship) we're incapable of putting our emotional wants to the side.

A smaller population is not the only way though. It's not even A way, in and of itself.

My DH also said that even though replacement rate is officially 2.05 for the UK (higher in developing countries due to higher child mortality), the fact that we live so long in the UK means 2 children is 'adding to the population'.

Not sure how your husband is calculating it but the birth rate in England and Wales per woman of child bearing age was 1.68 in 2018.
(The ONS gives figures per woman and per 1000s of population)

Other Westernised countries e.g. Italy, Japan, South Korea have lower rates.

Before he died Hans Rosling did lots of research and presentations on population growth. (The videos are on Youtube.) He pointed out that in developing countries e.g. Bangladesh* the birth rate isn't as high as people think due to the increase in girls being educated and women's access to contraceptives. In fact the countries with noticeably high birth rates were Arab states in the middle east.

Anyway the crux is if you want to decrease the world's population educate girls and women.

Also we individually in Westernised countries use far more of the Earth's resources than a family of 4 in for example Bangladesh.

*Other countries are available this is just the one I remember.

@RedMarauder I think what he meant by replacement rate is how many children we need to have to maintain current population excluding immigration/emigration. Yes the birth rate is much lower than 2 in the UK.

Replacement rate would differ for each country as many children in developing countries don't survive to adulthood.

@RedMarauder and also in richer countries, we live so much longer. It's not a case of 1 in 1 out.

@ManifestDestinee - if you look at the planet as a whole, overpopulation is a real issue. There are only X amounts of resources and space available. Climate change is a direct result of using these resources. Think about crude oil- it's a foundation of our industrialised economies and even emerging / 3rd world economies rely on it. Yet we are talking about alternatives due to limied supply. This is just one example.

[quote Ylvamoon]@ManifestDestinee - if you look at the planet as a whole, overpopulation is a real issue. There are only X amounts of resources and space available. Climate change is a direct result of using these resources. Think about crude oil- it's a foundation of our industrialised economies and even emerging / 3rd world economies rely on it. Yet we are talking about alternatives due to limied supply. This is just one example.[/quote]
But how we use that space and those resources matter. There are possible ways to deal with climate change that don't involve the birth rate declining any further, which has very real and very serious immediate implications.

Low birth rate is absolutely a concern if you want humans to have a reasonable existence on the planet for the rest of the time we have left as a species. I said this in my first post.

For some people though, I don't think they consider this or else they don't care. It's a really difficult see decision for anyone who cares deeply about animals, wildlife and the planet, as the straightforward answer would be, as I have heard proposed many times, that we are allowed to die out.

For me, I think that will happen at some point anyway, (but not likely in our lifetime or that of our children). My concern is that humans can carve out a reasonable existence for as long as possible and low birth rate is a serious concern. Good for the planet, but not so good for humanity. If you Google low birth rate UK, you can find articles which explain, better than I can, the concerns about this.

For me the bigger concern is low birth rate, as the planet will be fine when we eventually die out. Low birth rate may speed up that process, but it will not be pretty.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/20/britain-falling-birthrate-covid-pandemic-conservatives-removed-support-for-parents

www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2021/07/baby-bust-how-declining-birth-rate-will-reshape-world

Here are a couple from a very quick Google.

I am not saying I think people mus have babies for the good of mankind. Lie back and think of England or whatever. As the second article states, low birth rate is a side effect of emancipating women and giving them some agency over their own bodies, which is clearly a good thing for humanity in itself.

But, I think it is less straightforward than it seems. The popular argument for many years on this site and elsewhere, has been to have as few children as possible. It is not as clear cut as that, unless you prioritise the planet over the quality of human life. That is a valid choice, but I think the "thank you for not breeding" message would be less popular if the clear and serious downside of low birth rate was better understood.

I've followed Population Matters for years. They are a good charity and it is an important topic which needs to be discussed. Their work educating women where birth rates are higher due to infant mortality, and giving them some of the choices we enjoy here is also incredibly important.
But they clearly have a single, main concern
, and there is, whether people like it or not, a broader picture.

But again, as I said earlier, if, even knowing a bit about the bigger picture, your primary concern is purely to minimise carbon footprint and damage done to the planet by humans, then have no DCs.

But low birth rate concerns relates to the economic model we have. Having more and more babies to help support an ageing population is crazy and unsustainable in the long term.

Also with climate change, the whole economic model won't survive anyway. So it's a nonsense argument to me.

Covid is going to be nothing against climate change effects. We all need to take responsibility. There's going to have to be major changes in my lifetime (early 30s) never mind any younger generation.

For transparency I'm childfree by choice for environmental reasons. I've been mocked on MN for that.

It's an inconvenient truth and one that's difficult to face.

The global population has DOUBLED since I was born - and I only have one grey hair! 😉

If we don’t fuck our selves, Mother Nature will do it for us - you need only take a glance at the animal populations to see how this plays out.

Of course it’s unsustainable- and personally I find it gross on a global scale. Doubled. If you can’t see how this looks in your own “home town” since you were a child, you need to pull your head out of your arse.

@NeilBuchananisBanksy

But low birth rate concerns relates to the economic model we have. Having more and more babies to help support an ageing population is crazy and unsustainable in the long term.

Also with climate change, the whole economic model won't survive anyway. So it's a nonsense argument to me.

Covid is going to be nothing against climate change effects. We all need to take responsibility. There's going to have to be major changes in my lifetime (early 30s) never mind any younger generation.

For transparency I'm childfree by choice for environmental reasons. I've been mocked on MN for that.

It's an inconvenient truth and one that's difficult to face.

I really want to reply to you in full, but I'm busy getting ready for the day. Will come back.

But, briefly, I am not arguing at all, so it isn't a "nonsense argument". It is an opinion based on a reasonable amount of research, which you are not obligated to share. I think your choice to remain childfree for the sake of the environment is very admirable and you should not be mocked for that.

You include a number of very popular 'soundbites' in your post including 'covid is nothing to climate change' and 'it is an inconvenient truth'. Look, maybe you mean these things exactly as you say them, and they aren't even necessarily untrue, but others regurgitate these without thinking. I assume you are not one of these people as you must have done significant research to come to your valid and admirable decision not to have children which I assume you would otherwise love to have. But anyway, if you're trying to have a serious discussion, sometimes these stock phrases make even very educated people sound (to me) as if they haven't thought much through for themselves. That is a slight worry when people base their choices on having children on something they don't know that much about but have gathered soundbites from memes or Reddit. But I'm sure this doesn't apply to you. It's just something worth considering.

Right, I'm a bit more organised now

But low birth rate concerns relates to the economic model we have

Yes, true. There is no likelihood of the global economic model changing significantly in our lifetime.

Having more and more babies to help support an ageing population is crazy and unsustainable in the long term.

Yes, it is. It is, at best, a sticking plaster to make our inevitable demise a little less unpleasant.

I think we would probably agree on a lot of things. And I can see both solutions (keeping a reasonable birth rate - not too low as it currently is) and just stopping having babies altogether. The second is shorter, sharper and more cruel to humans. But I can also see why some people think little of humans and think we (or future generations) should take that hit and die out in a miserable way to make room for Gaia to right herself or whatever. I get it! But I don't personally agree with it. It doesn't make your choice to be childfree by choice laughable. Far from it! I respect your opinion and I respect your choice. I just have an opinion which differs from yours, for the reasons I've banged on about at length on here . I will stop posting so much now, as I'm aware I'm hogging the thread a bit