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.

@kikibo well that makes sense seeing as it was mostly men that emigrated to Germany and then when the women started to come they shut the gates of Europe and they are stuck in Greece

Higher stamp duty rates on 4bed plus houses

A bit off topic - I get the environmental argument and appeal of this when it comes to encouraging people to have fewer kids, but I think there could be environmental as well as other benefits if more adults lived together which could mean 4bedplus housing could have an environmental place.

I know there is some encouragement, tax-wise, with lodgers, and there may be ways to encourage otherwise while not encouraging overcrowding and the issues with that, but with far more single-adult households along with nuclear-family only focused housing meaning more houses needing to be built, more appliances as each house needs a cooker, and so on, on top of the social isolation issues that are often talked about, I think there may be benefits to encouraging more adults and maybe families to live together which could lead to four bed houses being more useful.

Maybe this is just - as others have mentioned - me trying to give greater good reasons for my own choices, but it always comes to mind when people suggest we should encourage smaller housing for environmental reasons that we may need a greater social shift in we live.

The reason people are leaving areas where Syrian migrants have arrived in droves in Germany has little to do with latent racism and far more with a massive spike in violent crimes, especially robberies and rapes. The reason the AfD is on the rise is because this is a problem that is denied. It's a logical thing to conclude when inviting people with likely PTSD and a completely different attitude to women and people of different faiths into a society, which contrasts their own so much and without much support to help them integrate.

That’s why I don’t understand why people are quite happy to tell people to have less children but don’t discuss the issues immigration bring?

Interesting recent article from the New Scientist suggesting that the big environmental NGOs may finally be facing up to the elephant in the room.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232310-100-we-need-to-talk-about-how-population-growth-is-harming-the-planet/

But that's because they're hugely underinvested. Huge gains have been made in renewable technology but it hasn't been fast enough.

So renewables need subsidy over existing sources of energy ? Quite aside from the fact that's how the spivs jumped on them in the UK with their FITs etc, it's hardly a great incentive to switch to them is it ? Where is that extra money going to come from ? Either higher prices - which pisses on the poor - or higher taxes - which pisses on the poor.

Also, renewables use precious land that we need for all those vegan crops. Solar array - uses land. Windmill - uses land. No point talking about tidal (and the associated environmental impact) because it's not even a ready for market technology.

If we really wanted cheap low emission energy, we'd have embraced nuclear like never before. But we haven't. So it's carry on with fossil fuels and watch the ice caps melt.

Here's what Greenland looks like this year. Not 2030, not 2040. 2019. Now you work out how to reverse that. Not stop it. Not slow it. Reverse it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48674797

ApplesandBannanas That's why we need to start having children later as well as fewer of them. On my side there is son (8) Me (44) Brother (45), Niece (4) and Mum and Dad (82).

Although my parents are substantially older than people would have generally lived previously by having children when we are older we cut down on the number of people alive at one time despite longer lives.

We need to adjust when we do things to fit modern living patterns.

In generations gone by most families would be limited to 3 generations due to earlier death which coincided with younger first time parents so we need to do something to replicate this.

One or two kids is fine in this day and age where childhood .
mortality is so low. In fact the advantages go way beyond environmental

Re immigrants, if we were somehow limiting the number of children we could have we would need to ensure that they followed suit.

I keep coming back to environmental rationing and thinking this is the only way to ensure people are considering the environment when making choices with out giving an advantage to the rich. Then people could choose where they wanted to spend their environmental credits

I think we also need to start rethinking many of the things we have held in such high regard. Globalisation, with goods and people moving across the globe like its to the next town has to find alternative ways, we need to be thinking local and technology.

Immigration should be more carefully considered. people often talk about NEEDING to go home several times a year to see family, The impact of this needs to be considered in granting visas etc. We should take the opportunity of coming out of the EU to build environmental impact into the immigration criteria.

Immigration from 3rd world countries is perhaps the most difficult to address esp where people are claiming refugee status. 6 kids living off the land with no material goods will not have the same environmental impact as 6 kids in the west. How to we manage this? I guess in refugee positions we would have to take what was already there but make it clear that additional children could impact their integration into society where people have less

That's why we need to start having children later as well as fewer of them.

Do that for too long and you'll increase the average lifespan.

Laminate - sorry can you explain please

I’m sorry to say I don’t have much to add except to say this thread is so, so fascinating. And a lot of food for thought (1 child, considering another. Main point against is the environment, main point for is the thought of anything happening to us or just our general old age, and him having to deal with it all alone).

laminate I'm not sure why you're quite so angry with me, but I'll address your points regardless

Re. underinvestment, I'm not talking about subsidies. I'm talking about R&D investment that should have been funded a lot earlier than it was. It would be like us standing here now saying "Goddamnit, these cancer treatments are so shit. Survival rates have barely improved" because we didn't bother spending decades and millions of dollars researching better ones and learning from past experiences. Multiple iterations create successful solutions but they are always a combination of enough time and enough money.

On shore wind is now on a par with coal in terms of generation cost. The issue is integration cost, but that's also getting lower all the time because we have already diversified and absorbed some of those costs. Integration is also a cost of energy diversity/security, so integration costs in Europe have increased since we (wisely) decided to sack of Russia as our sole gas supplier. It's not a new thing. The costs are also lower where the energy infrastructure is least developed already, so countries like India and China can diversify more cheaply than somewhere like UK.

Re nuclear, I agree. It should play a much larger role in a carbon free future. Green lobby needs to reflect on that because a big opportunity was missed. However, post Fukushima there's no political appetite and given the cost blowouts on current capital projects and decommissioning costs its not necessarily as cheap a source of power as advertised on a lifecycle basis.

Land required to grow "vegan crops": mass veganism requires less arable land than meat eating - most soy is grown for animal feed, for example plus of course reforestation of land used for ranching is a carbon sink. Renewables can largely use land not suitable for arable or co-exist with it (especially wind). Solar is likely to be predominantly used as a decentralised generation source in countries whose energy consumption hasn't peaked (i.e on a single or dual storey house to power that house) so it only takes up land where there's land to be spared and tonnes of sun (e.g. Saudi is sticking them in the desert). Solar has huge value as a poverty alleviation tool so should be promoted just for that.

Re Greenland, yes it's a disaster and one of many that we're contenting to inflict. It's not reversible and I'm not optimistic that we can stay short of 2.5 degrees but 3 degrees is better than 4 degrees.

I find this debate about children quite depressing and simplistic. As a PP said people are retro-fitting the environmental arguments onto their small family. We really don't gain anything with some people attacking others for the size of their family. It's a distraction from the real issue and is probably a way for people to feel a bit more in control when really a lot of it is out of our hands as individuals.

The age you have your children (doubling rate) is more important that 2 vs 3 kids. Rich westerners have more impact on the environment than poor Africans. We really can't legislate for how many children we have in a democracy (and if we do there will need to be more immigration to the west to balance the aging population). I don't think we can impose limits on consumption although we might cost the poor out of consumption (do we really want to do that, what would the consequences be?).

We need to stop putting pressure on women to reproduce, no more talk of the 'ticking clock'. We do need to put pressure on the churches that teach that contraception is wrong to change - it has a massive impact on poor women. We also need to improve education and opportunities for women across the globe, women self regulate their family size downwards when they have choice. We need to pour money into developing technologies that increase our use of renewable energy (if you have ground source heating you can have as warm a house as you want, if you have solar powered lights they can be on all the time), and allow us to cheaply and efficiently recycle what we use. We need extensive and efficient transport systems so fewer of us need to drive and run two cars.

We also need to improve education and opportunities for women across the globe, women self regulate their family size downwards when they have choice

They then (understandably) aspire to achieving the standards of living that we in the West enjoy - bigger and better houses, roads and personal transport, travel and leisure opportunities. In environmental terms, aren't we just swapping more low-impact people for fewer, high-impact ones?

I'm not angry with anyone just pointing out some issues ...

@lifeover

The later a species starts reproducing, the longer lifespan it will need to be able to successfully propagate.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120507154103.htm

gives some pointers.

...

I am cynical though ....

www.transportenvironment.org/press/luxury-cruise-giant-emits-10-times-more-air-pollution-sox-all-europe%E2%80%99s-cars-%E2%80%93-study

Carnival Corporation, the world’s largest luxury cruise operator, emitted nearly 10 times more sulphur oxide (SOX) around European coasts than did all 260 million European cars in 2017, a new analysis by sustainable transport group Transport & Environment reveals.[1] Royal Caribbean Cruises, the world’s second largest, is second, yet four times worse than the European car fleet. SOX emissions form sulphate (SO4) aerosols that increase human health risks and contribute to acidification in terrestrial and aquatic environments.[2]

(contd)

Laminate - As you will be aware - Humans are one of the few species where the females lose the ability to reproduce part way through life, comparing us to mice is not really helpful. The article talks about delaying sexual maturity rather than voluntarily delaying the time we reproduce through choice.

There is already a much longer lifespan meaning that we don't need to cram in the need to do so many things in such a short period of time.

it would therefore seem more natural to delay childbirth until later to retain what were the traditional average generations present in the world at any one time.

Then we could stick to 2 children and the occasional family in excess of this wouldn't be so bad for the environment. Having children later in life would naturally sort this position out. What we need is fewer people and simply cutting down children is not the only point which does need addressing.

At the other end of the scale we need to be having serious discussions about whether science has overstepped the mark in its endeavour to keep people alive. Do doctors need more guidance on when life prolonging treatment is advisable? Should my mum with advanced alzhimers be treated for pneaumonia? do we keep treating my Dad's cancer when he is basically bed ridden and also suffering dementia? we've become enamoured with scientific advancements any the possibilities of what we could do we've started to forget to ask should be so it

shrug

humans are animals and obey the forces of evolutionary pressure. If we start reproducing later, then we have to live longer to continue as a species. Hardly contentious.

Anyway, that is all for two, three, four generations down the line, if humans can get that far. We'll have to clean up the last centuries mess first, or it's all academic. And as the research into the carbon footprint of cruises I linked to shows, we are still getting nowhere fast. Same as in 2009, 1999, 1989, and 1979.

Cruise ships are a major problem with emissions ( generally good on the recycling). All the major cruise companies have started ordering bigger LNG ships intended to cut emissions significantly, the problem being the German ship yard building them is having difficulties keeping up with demand.

New environmental maritime laws are being implemeneted over the next few years slashing permissible emmissions.

But the issues remain re technology ( I don't think any of these ships can cross the atlantic without refuelling and and although increasing, places to refuel have remained scarce)

At the other end of the scale we need to be having serious discussions about whether science has overstepped the mark in its endeavour to keep people alive. Do doctors need more guidance on when life prolonging treatment is advisable? Should my mum with advanced alzhimers be treated for pneaumonia? do we keep treating my Dad's cancer when he is basically bed ridden and also suffering dementia? we've become enamoured with scientific advancements any the possibilities of what we could do we've started to forget to ask should be so it

I feel like everyone is having this conversation with themselves & their family, I'm sure the reasons for it not gaining wider traction are complex but it really must happen.

@magneticmumbles may get a shock in a couple of years when one of her special children gets arrested and it turns out they're a serial killer.

I'd like to see people reproduce less. Even Attenborough says that population control is the elephant in the room no one will talk about because of "human rights". We have no more "right" to be on this planet than any other creature (thousands of which species good old humans have wiped out).

Even if we want to ensure humans survive, why do people feel the need to have three, four, five (and I'm not just talking Catholics)? I know so many women who have been married three times and had kids with each husband.

I know one woman who has 5 kids - 2 with first husband, 2 with second and 1 with third. She's 42. She says she wants another. They're well off and can afford it, but it's like some people think marriage doesn't count unless you procreate each time. Between her, her husband and ex-husbands with new partners, there are 11 kids. Totally mad.

but it's like some people think marriage doesn't count unless you procreate each time.

I have to admit I judge these people very harshly, they're absolute clowns.

Tessalectus

That's a myth. Central Germany has been declining in population for decades. Much like some areas in Italy, because there are no jobs. By putting migrants there, they're not increasing crime (I was shocked to read that), but they are trying to get the population up and the local economy going again.

If there is any country that offers lots of support to migrants in the shape of years of intensive language courses, vocational training and proper or at least adequate housing, it must be Germany. Hand on heart, I can honestly say that all those who arrived in my town speak German to a level that's better than some EU low-skilled workers who don't get free lessons, they have a job and a place to live. Though I think they do try and direct them to menial jobs, which I find a bit questionable.

Still, even though the birth rate was the highest in 43 years last year and migrant mothers had 25% more children than native Germans, the average is still only at 1.50. That's not too far from Japan's 1.44. So the simple fact is that more children need to be born in this country.

@magneticmumbles may get a shock in a couple of years when one of her special children gets arrested and it turns out they're a serial killer.

What a shitty thing to say. Since when was being complimentary about your children so frowned upon that it attracts such derision?

DD is a much better person than I am and is absolutely destined to have a positive impact on the world. She is absolutely passionate about reducing her impact on the environment, she thinks way more about other people than I did at her age and is far more aware of the world than I was. She leads the eco group at school and has championed initiatives to reduce waste and increase recycling.

You might want to imagine she turns into a serial killer, I prefer to have faith in her. Like I have faith in her generation generally. Despite what it is fashionable to pretend, they are a pretty decent bunch and that’s because my generation generally are doing a damned good job of raising them. I guess you forget that exactly the same shitty comments were made about our generation when we were young but on the whole we turned out decent too.

It is correct that If we are to consider the possibility that our children will be ‘good’ outliers eg inventors of transformative technologies, we must also consider the loss possibility that they will be ‘bad’ outliers eg serial killers.

Not rude.

Most of course will fall somewhere in the middle, ie average.