To think having kids is NOT necessarily the worst thing you could do for the environment?

[Thewindblows]

dons hard hat

Now hear me out!

Every time I hear this argument I think;

1. It seems to assume that a human being's impact on the environment is equal to the sum total of their carbon footprint. Isn't life a lot more complex than that? Don't we all influence each other?

To take an obvious example - David Attenburgh has probably taken a SHITLOAD of international flights in his life, his carbon footprint must be massive. But would anyone say the world would have been better off without him, when through his work he has brought environmental awareness to millions? Of course the vast majority of us are not David Attenburgh. But let's say Jean Smith from down the road also cares lots about the environment, and tries her best to reduce her consumption and do her bit. Now, OF COURSE she is personally using more of the world's resources than if she didn't exist at all. But what if she has, through her lifestyle and activism, encouraged 5 of her friends to use cloth nappies and second hand clothes? Encouraged a few more to reduce their daily plastic use? Made one friend rethink his yearly long haul holiday? Through her activism, she has helped to push through plastic bag and bottle bans, and preserve a local woodland? How do we calculate this against her personal carbon footprint?

1. People are, on average, fairly likely to have beliefs/follow lifestyles broadly similar to their parents (isn't this why some organised religions encourage people to have many children?)

The only people who are likely to be persuaded not to have kids for environmental reasons, are people who already care about the environment.

So let's say in both country A and B, 50% of couples care about the environment deeply, 50% of them are climate change deniers.
In country A, all the environmentalist couples decide it is best not to have children. All the deniers go ahead and have 2 kids per couple.
When the next generation grows up and is making the decisions ALL of them are the children of parents who don't care for the environment.
In country B, all the couples have 2 children. The next generation has 50% offspring of environmentalists, and 50% of deniers.
Yes, country B does now have a bigger population - but is it not clear that it also stands a vastly greater chance of implementing policies and making the real societal changes necessary to preserve the environment?

Considering the above, is it not better for someone who cares about the environment to actually have children if they want to, and raise them as responsibly as possible?
(Note by responsibly I don't just mean they try to remember their reusable bags at the supermarket sometimes - I'm talking the parents making real effort in every area of their lives personally, and also being involved in activism/campaigning/politics to try and effect real change. Modeling this to their children and raising responsible caring people.)

I'm willing to hear counter arguments to this!! Genuinely interested in what people think.

(should maybe add as a disclaimer - I have 2 kids, this is not a secret attempt to justify to people my family of 12 )

It is though, even if you’re the most environmentally conscious person on earth doesn’t balance that you have increased the population. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have kids of course, it’s just the truth.

Have no more children than to reproduce yourself. So a married couple should be limited to 2 DC. Population growth is a massive problem.

But my understanding is that population is growing because people are living longer, but the birth rate is actually falling around the world?

In many western countries (UK included I believe) birth rate is now below 2. Therefore the problem is not that people are having too many children I think, but how we are living our lives.
In other countries, there are women who are having maybe 10 children, whose total environmental impact probably adds up to less than one rich western child (no car, no chance of flying, no nappies, minimal 2nd hand clothes, meat a rare treat, no processed packaged food, etc etc...)

Have no more children than to reproduce yourself. So a married couple should be limited to 2 DC. Population growth is a massive problem

That’s fine if you and your spouse are planning on dying shortly after having your second child, but most people don’t.

With people living longer, a person and their children (and probably another generation) will all be on the planet at the same time.

No, you really can't recycle/bike your way out of a the footprint of a kid and it would be pretty hard (but not impossible) to carnivore/fly your way through the negative footprint of not having a kid.

It's just maths, innit.

You miss my point.
Of course it's ridiculous to suggest you can recycle your way out of your carbon footprint or whatever.
My point is we are producing the next generation who will make decisions which impact this planet, and it is not (I think) as simple as your own personal consumption or that of your children, but how you and they impact and influence people and policies around them.

I'm not suggesting therefore we should all be having 10 kids. But evidence seems to suggest that when women are empowered and have choices, most people anyway do not CHOOSE to have more than 2-3 kids, some choose none or 1. Birth rates consistently fall when this is the case.

To take an obvious example - David Attenburgh has probably taken a SHITLOAD of international flights in his life, his carbon footprint must be massive. But would anyone say the world would have been better off without him, when through his work he has brought environmental awareness to millions?

If you're flying for work, than strictly speaking the product you've produced carries the footprint.

^Of course the vast majority of us are not David Attenburgh.
But let's say Jean Smith from down the road also cares lots about the environment, and tries her best to reduce her consumption and do her bit. Now, OF COURSE she is personally using more of the world's resources than if she didn't exist at all. But what if she has, through her lifestyle and activism, encouraged 5 of her friends to use cloth nappies and second hand clothes? Encouraged a few more to reduce their daily plastic use? Made one friend rethink his yearly long haul holiday? Through her activism, she has helped to push through plastic bag and bottle bans, and preserve a local woodland?^
How do we calculate this against her personal carbon footprint?

I think Jean should take a surcharge of the reduction in their footprint just like she would a finder's fee or similar.

But we can't really know that our children will assume our beliefs. I think that probably it makes more sense to assume that they'll follow the national average.

If you raised your children in as eco-friendly a way as you could manage, and then those children grew up to influence policy and society in a way that had a massively positive impact on the environment, would that not be better for the world, overall, than if they never existed at all?

If all the people who care about the environment stop having children, and everyone else continues, do you think the world will be a better place?
Genuine question.

Well we are moving into an age where they will care about the environment because the world will be very different

This is really interesting by the late Hans Rosling. Essentially the population increase is by people living longer rather than more children being born.

I agree with you. I do not feel even remotely guilty about having my two. Their lives matter more than their environmental impact.
And they'll do more positive than negative for this world. So whatever their carbon foot print is- so be it.

If we're going to go down that route that people shouldn't be having kids, then we'll have to start considering voluntary or forced euthanasia for the elderly, criminals, least useful in society etc. No-one would consider discussing that. So let's just pick on the kids, eh?

If you raised your children in as eco-friendly a way as you could manage, and then those children grew up to influence policy and society in a way that had a massively positive impact on the environment, would that not be better for the world, overall, than if they never existed at all?

If all the people who care about the environment stop having children, and everyone else continues, do you think the world will be a better place?

I think you're asking interesting questions, and I'm happy to participate in your thought experiment!

You'd have to assume that they would offset their own footprint and indeed defray others in order to have made a positive impact. This is entirely possible, but whether we can know it or influence it is really debatable.

You'd also need to consider their own reproductive futures, like are they going to carry on your chain of goodness, or are their kids going to be normal?

I HATE this term 'climate change deniers' because I think there is so much more to worry about than climate change, why are people so focused on this? what about deforestation, biodiversity, plastics, food supply chains and so on?

Rather, I'll call them ecologically unwoke - I don't think it's good for these people reproducing faster than the ecologically woke, but we'd really have to examine more closely how safe the assumption is that parents absorb their parents' beliefs (I have a 16 year old - he's absolutely rogue).

And they'll do more positive than negative for this world.

said every parent, ever. Sadly, most are just reproducing.

We need to be having fewer children and having them later in life. Recycling your plastic bottles/sending then to Malaysia is not going to compensate.

Unfortunately it is becoming absolutely clear that people are unwilling to self limit (except a small few), government are not willing to limit the number of consumers.

We need environmental rationing. We need it now but people aren’t willing to limit the wants they feel they have the absolute right to fulfill

Sadly, most are just reproducing.

Reproducing is not the problem. Living too long is the actual problem! So how about we sort out the elderly issue? No? That's seen as cruel. But blaming parents doing what is natural and reproducing, and blaming kids for existing- well that's just fine.

And yes, my kids are doing more positive than negative to this world. They're an asset, not a problem.

I’ll bite.

What is it your children do, @magneticmumbles?

surely the fact we're all living longer means it's logically even more important to lower the birthrate?

Ever seen the film idiocracy OP? It essentially makes your point, but with intelligence. Ie if all intelligent people stop having children because of various well thought out reasons, you're left with a planet populated with idiots who didn't care or who didn't know any better than to have 15 children

If you've not seen it, the film is dire but the first five minutes make that point well

And yes, my kids are doing more positive than negative to this world. They're an asset, not a problem

Is that quantifiable in real footprint terms? Rather than just your opinion that the world 'is a better place' because your darlings are in it.

Nobody is trying to ‘blame’ children for existing, you can point out the effect of the rising population on the climate (and environment generally) without it being a personal attack on people’s kids.

Magnet, of course killing people who are here is completely different to people using contraception to reduce the number of conceptions! How ridiculous!

No one is suggesting stopping people having kids, just limiting the number to one or two. Having them later in life to stop a build up of generations. By delaying childbirth, even with longer life expectancy it’s perfectly possible to get to a position where no more than 3 generations of a family are alive at the same time with a leeway of a few years. Delaying childbirth largely cancels out the issue of people living longer

Having lots of kids on the basis that everyone one of them is going to be an environmental campaigner on a par with Attenborough is patently ridiculous.

I adore my three kids - on a global environmental scale though they are doing more harm than good.

Women's reproductive rights aren't just a feminist issue, they're an environmentalist one.