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.

YABU

@Lifeover the child limit and generational limits you mention are really interesting, in theory they're sensible and would address lots of issues.

I just couldn't imagine a world where it's illegal to have more than 2 children or illegal to have kids before age 30.

But I kind of like it.

As with all these situations, unfortunately the people who can probably bring up children to make that difference are probably the ones who will self limit first, the ones mindlessly reproducing like rabbits are unlikely to produce the next Pasteur or someone who makes commercial airlines 0 emissions.

Having said that people across a wide spectrum of skills are needed for society to function. It’s no good just having intellectuals just as it is no good just having people who do unskilled jobs

We need to legislate to make sure any reduction occurs equally across s broad social spectrum

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

Sure they are. They're far more speshul than other peoples' kids. Mine are, too, they're not going to reproduce. That's about the most positive thing you can do.

Robots will do the unskilled jobs or they will be automated. Already happening go into any supermarket or Mac Donald’s. There’s less economic need for lots of unskilled workers now. Not needed down the pits or in the ship yards any more are they?

Having said that people across a wide spectrum of skills are needed for society to function.

Yikes, it can't help but take on a distinctly Brave New World feel.

I can't imagine any MP being brave enough to support legislation on a child limit. But I'd welcome it.

News Flash: Your offspring are NOT an asset to the planet. They are stone cold consumers.

Human beings aren't doing planet Earth a favour by being alive. 🤷🏻‍♀️

That’s unusual, I don’t think anyone would accept laws prohibiting it, it’s more about changing social perceptions of having more. Ie it being as socially unacceptable to have more kids, financial penalties, eg adding 10% supplement to tax rates. Higher stamp duty rates on 4bed plus houses, 7 seater cars being banned, sibling discounts being unavailable etc.

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.

Bloody hell, tone down the histrionics please.

Are you suggesting that a person's future babies who haven't even been born yet have a greater right to be here than existing elderly people?

Nobody is blaming kids. But it's a fact that the world is overpopulated and the single best thing a person can do for the planet is to not have kids. Sorry if you take that as a personal attack on your life choices, it's not. It's just the reality.

@magneticmumbles - I'm not being goady here but surely there is no way to know for certain that your children will do more positive than negative. It's not possible to have any real conception of who or what they may be 20 years, let alone 50 years from now.

In your example Jean Smith influences five people to improve their habits. Her decision to have children may lead to a thousand generations of consumers that wouldn't have existed otherwise. I really think it's impossible for what someone does or doesn't do in their life to mitigate the environmental impact of having children.

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.

This. It’s batshit. Your children are consumers of the planets resources like everyone else’s.

Oh, there was always this batshit strawman argument, especially with numbskulls like Radford family supporters. 'But they'll all be future taxpayers!' At least one of theirs has already opted out of work to have 3+ kids already.

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?

That's a ridiculous argument and (I hope) you know it. Saying that we should have fewer children for the sake of the planet, and to hopefully keep society going as we know it, is in no way comparable to killing people. Jesus.

News Flash: Your offspring are NOT an asset to the planet. They are stone cold consumers.

Exactly. I would be very surprised if anyone other than David Attenborough-level influencers and climate scientists are a net positive in terms of climate change. The rest of us are making things worse purely by existing, no matter how hard we try and limit our carbon footprint.

The problem on mumsnet is that people place too much emphasis on on individual families having lots of kids. Yes, it would be terrible for the planet if all of us had 5 kids, it would be shit for the UK if everyone had none. What you want is an average which keeps our population stable or decreases it slightly, which is what we have currently as the average woman has 1.9 children in the UK and the number has been steadily decreasing over time. There is no benefit to having a massive go at the few families which do decide to have more children than average.

YANBU OP and I agree completely. To simply say that population is the only issue is too simplistic. It’s how much resource that population uses that’s the problem.

I'm not being goady here but surely there is no way to know for certain that your children will do more positive than negative

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick here, but I assume that @magneticmumbles‘ children are adults and are positively contributing in some way to the planet. That’s why I asked what they do as I assume they’re leaders in environmental fields, based on her post.

(Or else she’s just another deluded mombot who thinks her little Johnny is a genius because he can find his toes)

My point is we are producing the next generation who will make decisions which impact this planet

You're producing the people who will continue to destroy the planet. That's the truth of it.

You're producing the people who will continue to destroy the planet. That's the truth of it.

This!

It’s not having kids as such, it’s the people that have 4, 5, 6 kids and drive everywhere ever and buy cheap clothing, never recycle apart from chucking a few bits in the recycling bin, everything is disposable. That’s the issue.

Also, no matter how many or few children have until the massive companies start actually doing something about climate change and changing the way they run things were screwed either way.

Still no reason to have 6 kids though.

the thing is many people don’t make good choices. Once you have more kids you often start to make worse ones. There was a thread recently about someone asking is a 1.2litre car would be big enough for 3 kids. Everyone piling in, you need a 7 seater, I love my suv, you need a bigger more powerful car. I was the only person who mentioned the environment and was actually goaded by some twat who obviously loved their Chelsea tractor so much it would be worth any environmental consequences.
But more kids means bigger car, bigger house, more food, more consumables, more plastic. There’s no getting round the fact that if you have 3 kids rather than 1 you need three times as much food, 3 times as much shampoo etc. You can’t recycle your way out of that.

There are plenty children already here in the Uk awaiting adoption. You don’t actually have to create a whole new one with your own genes just to be a parent.

Just sayin.

financial penalties, eg adding 10% supplement to tax rates. Higher stamp duty rates on 4bed plus houses

While great in theory, I'd worry that those penalties would only apply to those who are more responsible and worldly aware anyway.

Only earners would care about tax rates, only home owners would care about stamp duty so those who are unemployed or in accommodation supplied or supplemented by benefits could happily have half a dozen children without penalty.

Higher tax would also badly affect working single mum's (single through no fault of their own).

I know it sounds dictatorly but honestly I don't see any negatives to a legal ban on more than 1 birth. (Births rather than kids to allow twins/triplets etc).

Ultimately there is fuck all point in 10% of the population becoming carbon-neutral if that 10% keeps growing every year.

And if people aren't willing to stop having children but wait for nature to make us, what will the world population get to ? 10 billion ? 20 billion ? 30 billion ? Infinity human beings on the planet ?

Part - not all, but a big part - of the damage humans have done to their environment is simply as a function of population growth.

Anyway, it's all academic. People will do what they want to do, and that's that. I can remember the environmental" debate was raging in the 1970s, so it's hardly new.

Sadly, adoption is really a poor option in the UK. Many of the children available have very serious issues like FAS and with the budget cuts to mental health and social care and benefits, it's a risky prospect with so many needing far more care than a 'loving home' can provide.