AIBU to think people who say they're 'only' having 2 children for environmental reasons drive me nuts?

[thedaisychain]

Surely, if you were genuinely concerned about the environment, or it was a big factor when considering the size and shape of your family, you'd have no children or possibly just one?!

Saying you're not having more than two children for environmental reasons really grates me. Given the total fertility rate for women in the UK is 1.9, it's not like they're doing anything fucking special! They're just the average!

People who say this, get down from your high horse!

(P.s. Prolific name changer)

[AnalUnicorn]

Yes. Lots of hypocrisy and virtue signalling going on. It’s tiresome.

[Hundredacrewoods]

YANBU, especially if they say that their having two children equals “zero population growth.” Yeah, not unless both parents die as soon as the first child is born.

[nanbread]

It depends - if they'd like to have six children but are stopping at 2 because they are thinking about the environmental impact, then surely it's better?

[noneintheforeststoday]

YANBU imo. Sortof. I think in some of these sorts of things, people are genuinely misinformed. People who I've met who've said this are also plane-using meat eaters so it's tricky to get a handle on where their ethics begin and end!

The most lifestyle-otherwise-eco-friendly family I know are on 4 kids so far with no plans to slow down.

2 children is just population replacement, isn't it? So perhaps it's like being carbon neutral rather than actually of net benefit.

[PeculiarBerries]

YANBU. It's pathetic, especially considering our birth rate is stagnating and there are only 1.9 dc per household. AND it's countries like Mexico, China, India, etc that have explosive population rates.

People who preach this need a good look at themselves.

[Dyrne]

What really bothers me about this; is when people say it whose DC are 8 and 10; they clearly had other personal reasons for stopping at 2, but now they’re jumping on the bandwagon pretending it’s “for the environment”.

There’s someone on my FB with 3 grown up DC now being all snobbish about how people should be using reuseable nappies and wipes etc. Like, she happily took advantage of the convenience of them back then; but now she’s getting all holier-than-thou about it? Any idiot could have guessed back then that using constant disposable, non-recyclable stuff isn’t great for the environment; it’s not exactly rocket science. Just because she’s now seen Blue Planet she’s acting like it’s BRAND NEW INFORMATION that plastic is bad.

Err, no, the information has always been out there, if you really gave a shit you’d have looked into it back then and acted accordingly, it’s just because it’s convenient for you now that the DC are grown up and you’ll never have to faff with reuseable nappies and wipes; you can jump on the bandwagon because it’s trendy now

[Dyrne]

Err, sorry - I may have issues with this woman as you can tell

[Waiting1987]

If this picture is accurate then having less children has a huge impact. I have no idea if it's accurate but have seen it posted before.

[MustardScreams]

YANBU, but I suppose if someone wanted 5/6/7 children and stopped at 2 then yes they are doing their bit. I don’t understand how anyone can have 6 children and actually make time for them all, let alone negate the impact they have on the planet, but that’s just me being judgemental.

[nanbread]

Why are people so quick to lay into anyone voicing concern for the environment? If we all waited to be perfect before saying anything we'd be waiting forever.

[userabcname]

Yanbu. Totally agree. I was reading an article yesterday that said the birth rate in the whole of Europe is no longer at "replenishment level" (and we don't even have the highest birth rate in Europe, I think it's France). Yet on a thread the other day someone commented about how people now are "mindlessly breeding". Utter tosh.

[DtPeabodysLoosePants]

You mean the couples that have 2 children for environmental reasons but run two cars, go on flights at least twice a year, use electricity like it's going out of fashion, eat meat, fish and dairy, have wardrobes full of new clothes, buy new for the sake of it rather than need, buy take away drinks and food daily at work and dinners at the weekend?

[BertieBotts]

This annoys me too. It doesn't actually matter how many children an individual couple has, that is totally irrelevant in terms of population growth. You need to look at the overall fertility rates.

Some people need to Google Hans Rosling and his population stuff!

[Dyrne]

Waiting1987 that graphic really is misleading. It assumes your child is going to continue to have a similar “worst case” carbon footprint to what people do now. The simple act of giving birth doesn’t release tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere!

For example, in the West a family with ‘only’ two children will have a WAY bigger affect on the environment than a family from a developing country with 6 children.

On the same way, a Vegan family with 4 children in the UK that cycles/walks everywhere, uses renewable energy, grows much of their own food etc etc will have a much lower affect on the environment than a Smug family with 1 child who flys internationally 4 times a year, eats meat, has 2 SUVs etc.

[FineWordsForAPorcupine]

Two kids isn't "just replacing the adults" anyway, because you're not replacing like with like. A child born today is likely to live longer and consume more of the earth's resources than their parents.

[WolfInSlutsClothing]

FineWordsForAPorcupine

That, and the death rate is much lower than the birth rate, atleast in ireland, not sure about the UK. I'd imagine it's the same or similar.

[Dyrne]

nanbread For me, the issue isn’t people showing concern for the environment. Of course that’s a good thing.

My issue is people crowing about how good they are for the environment because they’re doing things they always planned on anyway or that involve a minor change - stopping at 2 children, using reuseable carrier bags etc; but completely ignore the fact that they’re still being terrible for the environment by eating meat, going on lots of holidays etc.

If people just did the best they can then it’s fine, it’s when they start getting holier-than-thou when I point out the hypocrisy of what they’re doing.

[KUGA]

Some people believe their own bullshit.

[Verily1]

From my experience of larger families they are less likely to fly and more likely to recycle/ use reusable nappies etc.

Driving 3 dcs about doesn’t use much more fuel than driving 2!

[Annabk]

I know a lovely ‘hippie’ family with four children. They don’t eat meat, fish or dairy. They also recycle diligently, buy clothes and household goods second-hand, run one car and don’t fly anywhere. They are having a much smaller environmental impact than many couples I know with one child!

[DtPeabodysLoosePants]

footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/

If anyone wants to calculate their carbon footprint. Mine is below the UK average but twice the world average. We are veggie and I don't drive and rarely have take aways so they are my main reasons for it being lower.

[FineWordsForAPorcupine]

Also, lol to "if you wanted to have six children but you only had two, I suppose that's doing your bit".

If I fly longhaul only three times a year, but I'd actually like to fly ten times, is that me doing my bit as well?

[HarryElephante]

Don't let things like this eat away at your insecurities.

[CocoLoco87]

DH was telling me about a Ted talk the other day where apparently we need to have 2.1 children to stable the population. If its lower then the population will crash. In reality this means 3 children to help average out those who can't have children.

In Japan they are about to have real problems because often they have one child to a family.

[MsTSwift]

Yabu I agree with them. Too many people no one should be having more than 2.