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.

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

Of course half the population are of below average intelligence too.

@kikibo there is more homeless in Germany than there is on the uk
Germany's homeless data by the numbers: Of Germany's 860,000 homeless, 440,000 are refugees. Excluding refugees, of the 420,000 remaining homeless people, 52,000 live on the streets. That amounts to a 33 percent rise in just two years.

Also refugees have say 5 to 8 children per family, German families 1 or 2 children per family, what do you think is going to happen to German population in 30 years time?

Yabbers your daughter sounds lovely, I'm terribly proud of my kids' green sensibilities too, but the fact of the matter is that we are not even remotely well-placed to judge how good a job we'll have done in the end.

Perfectly happy for all the Greta Thunberg/extinction rebellion clones to forego having kids. Fewer and fewer young minds will get polluted with their anti humanist bullshit

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

And plenty of people don't even bother marrying but need to procreate with every 'partner' they get with.

@kikibo Why the shock? It's being denied on all official channels, but there are far too many accounts out there to read the true picture: Germany has changed, and not for the better. I happen to have relatives in the (former) East who say they don't feel safe walking through their town at night anymore - something that wasn't an issue before 1 million (!) people from a completely different culture were suddenly thrown into the mix. And the funny thing is, they are so tolerant they just accept it.

Remember Cologne NYE? Remember the teacher specifically recruited to teach migrants, only to be raped by one of her students? Or the aid worker in the hostel, same crime? Or the fact that carnival festivities in Cologne had to be tuned down for fear of homophobic and sexual attacks? There are so many examples out there... do your research on what happens in areas now heavily populated by migrants.

Germany is very good at teaching basic facts and skills, but they cannot change a lifetime of religious indoctrination and war-related trauma by giving German lessons and providing employment. Nor can they change decade-long attitudes of women being second-class citizens and (first-hand quote here: "all white women are trash"). Nope.

That stuff takes generations to change. Add to that a second-generation population of Turkish young adults, who have turned out to be more religious than their parents and you have a right mess. German liberalism cannot be upheld like that, all of a sudden.

But officials keep on denying this. The population is a little less safe than it was before. Myth, my arse.

@Tessalectus our society is changing and not for the better, we are now being told to have less children to save the environment but we can’t mention mass immigration that apparently we need as we aren’t having enough children 😒 you couldn’t make it up, it makes no sense.

overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-2-2-1-kids-a-stable-population/

Gin96 Nobody is stopping you coming out with what you want to say about immigration, so say it.

I’m not against immigration, i’m against being told to have 1 child to save the environment but we have over 300,000 people moving here each year, it’s crazy thinking, it makes no sense

tigertiger thanks for stopping by to post pro-life pseudoscience.

You’re welcome Alaskan. After all, Malthus was spot-on, wasn’t he

And pardon me for having a different view from yours!

Of course it’s better for the environment not to reproduce. The best thing for the environment would be for the entire human population to die out as we do more harm than good. There is no worse thing you can do for the planet than have a child, I promise if you don’t have children the world will not miss their existence.

Where did I say that he was?

Is that the beginning and end of your argument?

Did you know that the website you posted is sponsored by pro-life factions? Are you pro-life?

1 child = 1 house/flat more building over the countryside

1. Child will want 1 car adding to pollution

1 child tons of horrible plastic toys that end up inlandfill Etc

Actually modern economies do not ‘need’ more humans. AI will reduce the numbers of jobs, there are already many unemployed people in the U.K. quite a few work in the black cash in hand economy, some live on welfare and sick pay, some live by illegal - theft/drugs.

If our countryside is to be saved we need to stop building houses and roads and massively reduce immigrations. I did not vote in the Brexit vote but many people did because they want immigration stopped.

A lot of people say a couple should have 2 children so they just reproduce themselves as it were. Trouble is so many people re-marry and then have more children.

There are quite a lot of young families where I live and the majority of them have 3 children (some of have more). A couple of the families who already have 3 children are talking about having more.

In my view the future is so uncertain and is not really looking very good that I am surprised so many people still have children.

Me and DH decided 40 years ago not to have any for a few reasons but a couple of reasons was overpopulation and the fact that we both felt the world was not a great place and was probably only going to get worse

I'm curious about where this idea that one has to replace oneself.

Gin96 You do understand that immigrants already exist and aren't being bred to move to England, right?

How does this not make sense to you?

The point about Malthus is that his dire predictions (and dire solutions, including killing the poor) did not come true.

Here’s a quote from the pseudoscience. No wait it’s figures from a UN agency.

“According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth’s population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline.”

To the person upthread who’s worrying about having another baby: do it. Best thing you can do for your existing child, for yourself, and for society.

I’m pro-choice.

I'm curious about where this idea that one has to replace oneself.

Pretty basic instinct. Arguably the basic instinct. We have two. Eat and shag. Everything else is merely a subservient instinct to supporting the Big Two.

Different species have evolved different mechanisms to wind the two basic instincts into social behaviour (altruism can have a genetic advantage) but really, that's it.

Human have particularly made it interesting as giving birth has been made harder by our peculiar insistence on walking upright. The reasons for what aren't immediately apparent.

I'm curious about where this idea that one has to replace oneself.

Me too. The main argument seems to be that we need new little worker bees to keep older people in the lifestyles they're accustomed to. I find that very shortsighted. The economic system needs to be adapted to keep up with modern challenges, not just environmental issues but also the changing nature of work. We can't keep going the way we are and pretending this is sustainable.

tigertiger10 Could you explain why you think that UN quote supports your statement that overpopulation is a myth?

How do you define “overpopulation”?

UN quote suggests that population will continue to grow and then decline.