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)

“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.”

I think you probably need some new friends. I have lots-some of them very active environmental campaigners and none have ever “berated” me or “harped on”. So it shouldn’t be hard for you to find some more congenial companions.

I think everyone should read this, ‘I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why.’

He says we need to empower and educate girls and women to enable choice, and massively tax the wealthy, as they are the biggest consumers. Everyone else is kind of just noise in the middle. Economies need young people to survive.

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.

You keep repeating this as if it is a given. It isn’t.

I guess the economic barriers having 4 gives us make us greener than families with fewer children.

Not long term, no. Your children will still have net-positive carbon emissions, not flying or using single use plastics and growing a bit of veg is commendable but won't mitigate the impact - they are probably all well above the target of 2 tonnes of emissions per year. And likely to contribute more emissions in total than the "average" 1 or 2 child family.

And when they calculate emissions they also take into account your children's likely children and so on. So if those two "extra" DC you have had 4 DC each, and they all had 4, suddenly that's an awful lot more emissions in 50 years time.

@thedaisychain - stopping at 2 = net reduction = yay planet

Sweetly naive to think if you bring your kids up one way they will all live their lives like that - teenage rebellion anyone? Can imagine the young adults from the no meat no fly families going for it in adulthood much like the kids I used to know who weren’t allowed any sugar...they went mental in sweet shops as soon as they could

Is there even a point to all this?

The population is exploding in other parts of the world, and those people will immigrate to countries in Europe, like the UK. They will use the same resources that your 3rd or 4th child would have used. All this is is an "environment Olympics" where people can try to one up each other. Until there are real systematic changes that affect corporations like a ban on fracking or making rail transport free, then this is all a virtue signalling distraction. Stop looking down your noses at your peers and apply energy where it matters, at the billionaire class who get away with screwing us all.

@OnlineAlienator great, try tell that to all the families in parts of Africa and Asia who are having 5+ children, where rapid population growth is the problem, not the UK or Europe where there's a declining population.

It's not a problem in this country (like I've said before!), or most of the developed world. Totally fertility rates in the developed world are around 1.2-2.

So, again, having 2 kids is the norm, it's not carrying out Gods work.

@PlatoAteMySnozcumber You keep repeating this as if it is a given. It isn’t

Which part?

@BertrandRussell I think you probably need some new friends. I have lots-some of them very active environmental campaigners and none have ever “berated” me or “harped on”.

Maybe not to your face.

Besides, no where did I say 'my friends'. I mean people in general, on social media mums groups I'm part of, for example.

“Besides, no where did I say 'my friends'. I mean people in general, on social media mums groups I'm part of, for example.“

Oh right. You’re getting exercised about there being people on social media you disagree with! I really wouldn’t do that- no good will come of it.

Isn't that the whole point of Mumsnet and other social media? Getting riled up by other people's opinions on the internet? 😂😊😊

@BertrandRussell 👇🏼👇🏼 ☺️

@thedaisychain see my original post

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.

Some cycling own-food-growing vegan families can be pretty smug too, you know.

Look - everyone is a hypocrite to some degree or another. No-one is perfect. It’s just some people are more aware of it than others.

Prince Harry said this in a recent speech:
“Environmental damage has been treated as a necessary by-product of economic growth. So deeply ingrained is this thinking that it has been considered part of the natural order that humankind’s development comes at the expense of our planet. Only now are we starting to notice and understand the damage that we’ve been causing. With nearly 7.7 billion people inhabiting this Earth, every choice, every footprint, every action makes a difference.”

Then he chartered private jets for two holidays in the space of a week. The hypocricy is pretty galling

Give me a hypocrite who at least does something over a hypocrite spotter who does nothing any day.....

“Then he chartered private jets for two holidays in the space of a week. The hypocricy is pretty galling”

Why is it even remotely galling? The message is still a good one, even if he doesn’t practice what he preaches. Are you going to say “well, because he’s a hypocrite I’m going to use even more carbon just to show him where he gets off?”

What has prince Harry done though. Read out a speech someone else wrote him that he didn’t even understand at the time.

But what has Prince Harry actually done to help the environment? Because all I have seen are fine words - and words are pretty cheap if they are completely undermined by someone's actions.

And what kind of message is he sending?

That 'every footprint' count, but private jets don't? He seems to be suggesting that we should consider our impact on the environment, but only when it isn't inconvenient for us to do so. Yet most of the things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint are at least a little bit inconvenient.

Ultimately, if you're lecturing others you do need to set some sort of example. Emma Thompson falls into the same category

He’s a mouthpiece. No idea what he’s done. But at least he says they right things. If we waited for the message to come only from people with a zero carbon footprint we’ll be drowned before anyone said anything! What do you think David Attenborough’s carbon footprint is? I love films of animals as much as the next woman- but did we need them?

Even if women in all countries started having only 1.9 children, we still wouldn't lack carers as more and more jobs in other industries are getting automated every year. More robots in the factories, self scan in the super markets, machines that can sort waste, pick berries, recognize number plates, hoover, move the lawn etc. It used to be that when the governments all over the world collected statistical data or data about people's income to use for tax purposes, they first had to contact people or companies to get the data and then someone would type it in. Now are lot of that data is generated automatically.

He’s a mouthpiece. No idea what he’s done.

That's the problem.

Have you ever heard the term "compassion fatigue"? No one wants to be lectured by a spoiled prat who has never suffered a day. His presence and hypocrisy actually creates more ill will towards the cause.

If you had the billionaire class come together and start offering things for free for the plebs like rail, then people wouldn't be so jaded about the true intentions on this shift. As it stands, it appears as though it's a do-gooder trend that will mean nothing in terms of real impact but a lot of businesses can profit off of since the lemmings will fall for the PR.

And David Attenborough? Why isn’t he a hypocrite too?