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.

Slight tangent but my Dad and I were talking about euthanasia the other day (my Auntie is very, very ill and he was saying he wouldn’t want to go on like that) and he mentioned some ancient tribe where when the elders got to a certain age and felt their life had come to its useful end, the “done” thing was to take yourself into the wilderness to die. From what he described it wasn’t a law but a societal norm. The aging and increasing population is a massive environmental issue but I don’t see how there is a fair and humane way to legislate about how long people should fairly live or how many children people have and at what age.

The point is that OP is completely deluded.

The worst thing you can personally do for the planet is produce another consumer.

No matter if your Johnny cycles to work, eats a vegan diet and persuades Jenny to recycle.

We are living longer, infant mortality has decreased, it’s not just a debate about should we stop having children.

Well there probably are things you could do that are worse for the environment than having a child...like blow up an oil rig so that it by turns disperses oil all over the local marine environment and then catches fire to burn the rest...that's likely worse than a single child.

But for the overwhelming majority of normal human being getting on with their lives, having a kid is easily the worst thing they can do.

I have three children and therefore we do not go on airplanes 😂

Before them it was twice a year and trips to Australia to see family... genuinely asking... which is better?

I disagree OP. It's the fact that parents then do eco-unfriendly things "because they have to because of the kids". How often do you see people say that they "must" have a gas-guzzling SUV because it's safer than a small car (not always true by the way) or because there's more room for car seats (if you only had one child that wouldn't be an issue)? How often do you see people say they have to drive to collect their kids from school because the younger ones can't walk? (again if you only had one, that wouldn't be an issue).

Ultimately having kids IS a bad thing for the planet.

I know it sounds dictatorly but honestly I don't see any negatives to a legal ban on more than 1 birth. So the population of the planet would essentially half? And half the current population is the magic number?!

Even if we had half the population, we couldn’t carry on the way we do now.

I’m with you OP. And definitely look into Hans Roslin as per PP.

@thatsunusual while you are right that having children is environmentally unfriendly
the one child plan never worked in China on a community/ emotional basis it produced a lot of state interference it has now been reversed, even a little research would find plenty of negatives about a forced legal limit to one child
what are you suggesting forced abortions, forced pregnancy testing of all women of child bearing age forced sterilisation after 1 child??

fairweathercyclist so their existence isn’t the issue but their lifestyle is? Because if that’s what you’re saying, I concur.

“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.”

Absolutely this^^ I think the whole “replace yourself with 2 children thing” is just a get out for people who want to pretend they care about over population but can’t resist the traditional heir and spare 2 children for themselves

Tbh I suspect most people don’t consider the environment when they plan their family. I do know a few woman who experienced secondary infertility and over time made their one and only about population growth and became extremely scathing of those with larger families. It’s hugely complex emotionally but there is no doubt they would’ve had more if it could’ve happened for them. It’s really sad but I wish they wouldn’t spend so much time trying to make larger families feel shit about themselves

@TeacupDrama politics aside, fewer children creates less of an environmental impact.

How to impose a child limit I agree is frought with further complex issues. Wasn't there a financial tax/fee if someone had more than 1 child in China?

A PP had it spot on, it should be socially unacceptable to have more than 1 or 2 kids. And socially unacceptable to drive everywhere and fly abroad on holidays.

Maybe it's an ideological issue, not a political one?

Either way, people mostly don't give a shit. They'll have their kids, drive their SUVs and go abroad every year, because they want to.

You can’t limit having children without limiting immigration, it won’t work, also there’s no point limiting children here while Africa’s population doubles

By 2070, the bulk of the world's population growth is predicted to take place in Africa: of the additional 2.4 billion people projected between 2015 and 2050, 1.3 billion will be added in Africa, 0.9 billion in Asia and only 0.2 billion in the rest of the world.

Absolutely agree Gin.

Interesting numbers Gin96... so perhaps (in answer to OPs original question) the worst thing we could do now is to simply decide not to have any children and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Perhaps the worst thing we can do is ignore why the population of Asia is going to carry on increasing at such an alarming rate. (I’m sure the research suggests families have more children when the chances of survival is lower.)

Carbon footprint is really not all we should be focusing on, so you have a point, @Thewindblows
Carbon in its many forms will get recycled through natural events, eventually. It's also a little pointless concentrating our resources on reducing our collective carbon dioxide emissions when one simple volcano eruption can erase all of our efforts within hours.

Population growth is also not the problem. The predicted growth is slowing down everywhere - in underdeveloped countries due to the introduction of birth control and in developed countries, ironically, overconsumption is starting to kill us off earlier. Naure is quite good at balancing all this out on its own.

We should be focusing, instead, on using natural resources sensibly and investing in more eco-friendly technologies. Reducing plastic use sensibly (i.e. until no longer usable, rather than throwing everything away into landfill while admiring shiny new bamboo toothbrushes) and investing in GM to advance the use of bacteria, which can break down plastics - I believe PET can already be broken down that way. We should invest in biodegradable materials and enough local waste processing sites to assist faster breakdown and harness the energy produced. There have even been attempts to use collective human body heat to power buildings.

Secondly (or firstly, really - this should be made far more important than it is) education is needed. Education on cooking food, animal rearing, making use of natural resources (basket weaving is fun and easy!), developing cloth-producing and -repairing skills, DIY skills, gardening skills, metal working skills, basic eletrical skills etc. A removal of stigma around second-hand purchases. Creative education for us to re-purpose items rather than throwing things away as easily as we are now. And instead of having to buy new and eco-friendly, allow people to retro-fit where possible - i.e. replacing old engines with more eco-friendly ones, universal adapters etc.

Also the Africa issue is complex isn’t it? It’s not an overpopulated continent- there is plenty of space, just a huge disparity between crowded cities and unliveable rural / desolate areas. Can we blame families who produce 8 children so they can work the farm to ensure survival of the family? Families who have 8 children because half of them might not live until 10 anyway? Families who in poor rural areas of certain counties are barely consuming anyway, since their lifestyle isn’t like the west.

The problem is, is that its just the intelligent conscientious people who decide to not contribute to population growth. The rest of the population still have baby after baby

so it’s ok for other countries to have 8 children but we should stick to 1? We then have an older generation that needs looking after which is then topped up with immigration? How is that going to work?

I think you’ve misunderstood my post gin, I don’t think anyone should stick to 1

AlaskanOilBaron

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

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

this ^

YANBU OP.

Overpopulation is a myth. Malthus was wrong 200 years ago and so are the neo-Malthusians today.

Yes we need to be less greedy and less wasteful. But to leap from that to advocating Chinese-style limits on childbearing... wow. Or saying we should delay childbearing because that would mean fewer people around at once?! Apart from the biological illogicality (it's much harder to conceive when you’re older; perhaps that’s partly the point) what an impoverished view of life and family.

Overpopulation is a myth.

I'm not sure how anyone can say that with a straight face. It's telling that they never expand on why it's a "myth."

How can over population be a myth? Just anecdotally there are so many people everywhere all driving cars chomping food etc surely fewer of us would help the environment? No one need 3 plus kids

Haven't read the thread, but two children per family is not enough to pay pensions and social security in general. The system as it was set up in the 50s and 60s pays for the older generation through the younger generation.
If every couple made two children, that would be fine to replace today's working population, but not absolutely every couple does, so some need to produce more to account for those who get fewer or none at all, and to account for any children who die and those who can't work (or whose career is cut short).
Not to mention that if the population stagnates, the economy can't grow, which is a disaster in the set-up we have.

If the average number of children per couple is not slightly above two, you get faced with a problem like Germany or, even worse, Japan.
The common maximum in Germany is two children at the moment, except for immigrant populations and the odd daft couple like us. In that sense, we are doing our bit to help Germany with its population issue.

And yes, we do use cloth nappies and wipes, never throw clothes away unless completely worn, we don't buy heaps of clothes, buy lots second-hand for the children and I prefer going on holiday by train. We don't have a car either, drink from the tap and we buy our logs from a local producer so we can cut down on oil for the central heating.

In that sense, we are doing our bit to help Germany with its population issue.

No, you really aren't. There is no 'population issue'. The population is expanding. That is why immigration of working age people should be welcomed, not feared. Unless you think only your special, white, German born children are good enough, why keep creating more than necessary when there is no shortage of people in the world?