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)

[flapslack]

YABU

It's no different than someone with three kids, two dogs and flying out to Majorca for their holidays banging on about their recycling efforts.

[Catsingangs]

Humans ‘might’ be making it heat a little faster than it would naturally, but we are not responsible for it doing so.

[PlatoAteMySnozcumber]

No matter how many children you have, you are wrong.

I don’t really care what other people do. I do think having lots of children is selfish and a disproportionate drain on resources whether they be environmental per se or things like education and healthcare (those that exclusively utilize private services exempted of course). I have better things to do than sit around worrying about judging other people for their choices and I certainly wouldn’t communicate it.

I think most people are wrong about most things. Live and let live.

[DinosaurRoarred]

It's almost like people want to give a valid excuse for why they are stopping at 2.

And often it's because people feel it's ok to ask questions like "when are you having no.3?"

It's ok to just want 2 children (or 1, or 4, or none)...

[CedarTreeLeaf]

I will never take these people seriously until they do something that doesn't financially screw over the little people. They need to campaign, protest, and force the idea of free public transport. Until then, it's a bunch of virtue signalling and business driven bollocks.

[hereforasillygoosetime]

People advocating no more than 2 kids per couple for the environment need to wake up to the reality that there will not be enough people to take care of the elderly and so forth, therefore there would need to be some
mass genocide of the elderly population to correct this. Good for the environment though hey.

[Witchinaditch]

Only since joining mumsnet have I heard people say about not having kids for the environment no one in real life has ever said this to me... I live in a big city and meet people from all walks of life so I find it so off to read on here people are saying this?

[MsTSwift]

I would never crow judge or virtue signal in real life but I do find this angry defensiveness odd. Unless a person lives in a hedge off grid and has no children on here they are not allowed to discuss or take any environmental decision or they are a “hypocrite “

If the majority stopped at 2, minimised meat and flying and bought less stuff it would make a real difference and wouldn’t impact massively on lifestyle. No one needs steak every day, 3 kids or frequent long haul flights.

[PlatoAteMySnozcumber]

MsTSwift

That’s far too sensible.

[BertrandRussell]

Yes, I do wonder why people get so angry about others who are at least trying to do something.

Guilt, perhaps?

[Dyrne]

For the 80th time, this thread is not about people making sensible environmental decisions to cut down. It is about people making minor decisions for reasons other than the environment (cost, convenience etc) and pretending that it’s 100% because of the environment.

It’s about people who stop at 2 children because they were going to anyway; and using it as an excuse to look down on women with 3+ children.

It’s about people who cut down on their meat consumption and look down on someone for buying a bit of chicken... but drive their children the 1/2 mile to school every day in a massive petrol-guzzling 4x4 and jet off on long haul holidays.

Of course we need to care about the environment; and every little helps. It’s possible to do it without being a hypocritical twat.

[BertrandRussell]

“Of course we need to care about the environment; and every little helps. It’s possible to do it without being a hypocritical twat.”

Not on Mumsnet it isn’t.

[ThatssomebadhatHarry]

Yes I would be definitely filing those people under C for Cunt in my head.

[MsTSwift]

Dyrne you need to surround yourself with better people. I don’t know one person who is as you describe.

[PlatoAteMySnozcumber]

For the 80th time, this thread is not about people making sensible environmental decisions to cut down. It is about people making minor decisions for reasons other than the environment (cost, convenience etc) and pretending that it’s 100% because of the environment.

It’s about people who stop at 2 children because they were going to anyway; and using it as an excuse to look down on women with 3+ children.

It’s interesting that you are able to ascertain this information about other people and the motivation for their choices.

Even if someone decides not to have three children because they can’t afford them it doesn’t change the fact that those with three plus are draining resources disproportionately. I wouldn’t spend my time worrying about who is looking down on who and why, it’s impossible to police.

[MunaZaldrizoti]

Plenty of people who want to come to the UK and be doctors, nurses, teachers, carers. There is no need for us to keep creating more people than the planet can handle. We should be celebrating immigration, not demonising it

OP, YABVU

[OnlineAlienator]

Yabu - a population remains steady with one offspring per lifetime per individual surviving to adulthood. If every breeding pair in our population go no higher than two, we have net decrease, as many will have one or none also.

In the UK, you correctly state it isnt special. The challenge is raising living standards for the undeveloped world.

Dr hans rosling did brilliant work on this.

[Trebla]

We have 4 (we planned 3). We are very green in many other ways. I do struggle a wee bit with the fact that 4 kids goes against some of my environemtnal values, but we also no cant afford to fly and have to grow our own veg, use reusable nappies, I use reusable sanitrywear and we haven't bought any new toys or clothes since child2 as they are all the same gender. We make packed lunches rather than eat out at restaurants like maccas or places that have disposable packing. I guess the economic barriers having 4 gives us make us greener than families with fewer children.

[user1497863568]

I would have loved 5 or 6 but for economic and space reasons, we just had 2. Political and military shenanigans worry me far more than the environmental concerns when it comes to the future.

[MsTSwift]

I think living in a green way when the kids are small is a red herring sorry. Each of those children will need a house, food, car will travel and likely to have their own families too. The fact they wore reusable nappies and played with their brothers toys for a few years when they were young is a drop in the ocean.

[Trebla]

Each of those children will need a house, food, car will travel and likely to have their own families too

And will have a lower environmental impact than others due to the conditioning in their childhood regarding environmental responsibility. Or not as they may not have a future as we know it to be now...

[thedaisychain]

@OnlineAlienator Yabu - a population remains steady with one offspring per lifetime per individual surviving to adulthood. If every breeding pair in our population go no higher than two, we have net decrease, as many will have one or none also

I'm well aware the fertility replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.

I wasn't raising a point about population sustainability. I'm raising a point about people who have 2 children and then harp on about not having anymore because of the environment.

[thedaisychain]

@MsTSwift If the majority stopped at 2

HELLO?! The absolute vast majority DO stop at 2. I said in my OP the fertility rate in the UK is 1.9 children per woman.

What I can't abide by is people who have 2 children, like the vast majority of the population, but the lecture everyone about how they stopped at 2 due to environment factors when actually if they really cared about the environment they would have stopped at 1, or none.

[Frazzled2207]

Hmmm. Environmental reasons were a bit reason we stopped at two (though the biggest factor was purely that I don't think I could have coped with three!!).
We are bringing them to be as environmentally responsible as we can. We eat very little meat (one child is veggie), have one electric car, fly very rarely. Very conscious about what we do and don't buy.

I've never banged on about the above to people in real life though. It's for others to come to their own conclusions. Hopefully before it's too late.

[Frazzled2207]

Ps I do completely support the argument to stop at 2 (or ideally less) but agree it's pointless if those 2 (and their own offspring) end up being high carbon emitters.