having babies despite the state of the world

[TruthOnTrial]

I am wondering about any that are contemplating pregnancy at a time when the world weather is in crisis, fires ranging out of control across Aus, also california, and others. Floods regularly now around the UK, tornados even and more extreme weather generally, a summer just gone with record heatwave temps.

Many are making a decision to not start a family as the continuing viability of life on earth is ever more unsure.

Half a billion animals killed in the Aus fires alone. People having to lock themselves indoors and residents considering leaving Aus for good.

Is it U to consider bringing future children into this?

@TruthOnTrialfinally common sense

Aussie to, in SA since christmas we have had fire either side of our town and 2 a little further.
None even got close even though we got the CFS sms to watch and act, we had people from adelaide ringing thinking our town about to burn cos media was just "yorke peninsula on fire", the peninsula is huge ffs.

raging bushfires which trapped 4000 people on the foreshore
not the first time, happened in Tasmania a few years ago too
Yes the fires are raging, they really rage up every decade or so, more so when backburning and clearing has been halted from the Greens.

In the NT the aboriginals start their own fires on their lands every year, have done for centuries to clear out dead grass and crap, they wait for right weather, clear it out and you rarely hear of big fires up there and when you do its generally areas they havent been allowed to clear via traditional methods. Media rarely report this.

Don't any of you care about the future your children will likely face?

But when has this not been the case? Can you imagine having a kid during World War 2? At the height of the Cold War? During the Russian Revolution? Or in fact at pretty much any moment during human history before the late 20th century here in the West, unless you were extremely wealthy and cushioned from the more immediate challenges of daily life?

I really think this is to do with mindset and anxiety levels, more than anything else. Things look awful because you are constantly being told that they are awful, and some people are more susceptible to believing that; but actually people are very bad at predicting the future -especially now, when technological developments are happening so fast. Many of those awful things may not actually come to pass.

The problem with not having children is who will be left to support the large ageing population

Compulsory euthanasia for people over a certain age? The world can't support a growing population, with or without severe climate change, so either half of us will be wiped out by disasters and disease, or there will be selective culling and a one child policy. Or both.

We're not having enough children to replace the existing population, the population is expanding beyond anything the world has ever seen.

hen watched your news on BBC iplayer and the difference in reporting is phenomenal. They were making out no where is safe...you can't escape to the ocean as you'd get eaten by sharks 😂 Like I said, my closest dangerous bush fire is over nine hours away. I don't think you quite comprehend how big our country is

How patronising. Because nobody from Europe has ever been to Australia or looked at a map...

Can you imagine having a kid during World War 2? At the height of the Cold War? During the Russian Revolution? Or in fact at pretty much any moment during human history before the late 20th century here in the West

As I said several pages back, we have reliable contraception now.

This thread is really interesting.

Confirmation bias everywhere, backfire effect in spades...

Loads of facts and articles referenced but I wonder how many people are reading the 'opposing' side in any way other than looking for holes to pick in it?

I've read most of the thread and it doesn't feel like anyone's likely to say "Wow, , those facts you just shared completely changed my stance on this." So I'm left wondering, where we go from a place like that? Not in a judgy way, I'm just always interested in these big debates and where they end up / how they evolve.

OP, this issue to me feels like the 5 blind men and the elephant. Climate change and the future of humanity is such a COLOSSAL subject, with so many competing and contributing elements, nobody has 'the answer'.

I'm choosing not to have kids certainly in part because of what's happening to the planet – but I also don't really want them for a whole host of reasons, so it's easier for me to say 'yes' to climate change as a contributing factor to my decision.

If I felt a huge biological drive to have a child, I wonder if it would be so easy for me to join the one-less-human-can-only-be-a-good-thing camp.

I have a hunch that's the case for most people, too –although I'd be interested to hear if there's anyone out there desperate for their first child and choosing not to have one for environmental reasons.

That'd pack a hell of an ethical punch in my book.

If your a scientist and not at all religious then the meaning of life basically is too pass on your genes fundamentally.

So with that basic primitive urge people will carry on reproducing whatever. At some point the human race will die out as part of the balance of science. Let’s hope there’s something left after us. But even one day the magnetosphere will go and poof, just like that the planet dies anyway.

I don’t know why. I take great comfort in that humans aren’t going to endure forever. We have a short part to play in a much bigger story. Our end is unavoidable especially now.

"We're not having enough children to replace the existing population, the population is expanding beyond anything the world has ever seen."

That's not true. Globally fertility is still above.replacement. However, outside of sub saharan Africa, the cast majority of population growth is the result of population momentum, i.e. large cohorts due to earlier high fertility moving into reproductive ages. Fertility is declining as is the rate of growth but more growth will happen even if fertility everywhere drops to replacement tomorrow.

I chose to have a child three years ago. Climate change was not a factor in our decision making process, although we have decided to be a one child family.

We live in a semi-rural area, with affordable housing, lots of green spaces and strong communities. I think and hope that DD will have a good life, no major harm or crisis has befallen us yet.

I imagine this is one of those areas where your spiritual beliefs play a big role. I am a Christian, and that i know that alters my outlook. Different Christian's will have slightly different beliefs about the worlds future but mine is that wars, earthquakes and disasters will continue to happen but there is always a greater hope for humanity. So I should live according to the hope (being responsible/kind/compassionate) but should also be prepared to endure the disasters if they should come my way.

Ok doomer

Agree with the poster above who talks about confirmation bias. I was always unsure about whether to have kids and now there are just another load of reasons for me not to. But I do think there’s a lack of critical thinking on this thread. It’s not just about ‘the climate’ - changes to which are not a ‘matter of opinion’ or up for debate - the average temperature of the atmosphere is rising, carbon concentrations are rising and these things are unlikely to be stalled or reversed. It’s about the ongoing availability of fresh water, nutritious food, areas of the earth becoming uninhabitable, the death of large parts of the natural world, sea level rises, all of that driving mass migration on a scale we can’t imagine, (driving more political changes like Brexit) and everything happening faster and faster due to the fact the population of the planet has doubled in just 40 years and will take just another 20 to double again. Quality of life can’t go on improving for us all forever and by certain measures (not measures which anyone who writes articles for The Spectator would include) I think we’re already on the slide. I’d rather my kids lived in a world where there is still ice at the poles or an Amazon rainforest than have to budge up and share it with another X billion people.

We will be trying for a baby at the end of 2020. We have decided that we will only have one child. For me, that is in part due to climate change. We have also decided that if we struggle with infertility, we won’t seek any treatment, partly due to climate change.

We have decided to have a child because we would rather raise a child that is interested and invested in making a change. There are still far more people who don’t give a shit than those that do. I would much prefer that environmentally conscious people have children to balance those that don’t care.

No, I dont think I mention my status anywhere as in the greater context of things it seems irrelevant, whether I am trying to decide to have dc or not, or whether I already have them.

So you're happy we keep bringing children into this or no

Still not saying your status OP but damning everyone who is choosing to have children. If you want to fully participate in this discussion and have people actually take your considerations into account OP, your status is relevant.

Not damning anyone atall!

Just wondering whether responsible decisions include future of the planet for our children. I might br decidingnwhether or not to have them, I might already have them and trying to answer wth was I thinking, I might have lost children to the already heavily noxious air in some places.

So no, whichever it is doesn't make any difference to my considerin how reasonable it might or might not be. Last time I checked in answer to the question Is it U to consider bringing future children into this?. Majority have continually voted its U

How utterly depressing, the medal however goes to @BlaueLagune for compulsory euthanasia for people of a certain age. I mean ffs that is next level fucked up.

So no, whichever it is doesn't make any difference to my considerin how reasonable it might or might not be. Last time I checked in answer to the question Is it U to consider bringing future children into this?. Majority have continually voted its U

See, OP, the problem is that if you have children and are telling people not to have children, you’re a hypocrite. If you tried to have have children and couldn’t, you’re a hypocrite. If you are considering having children and using this an open discussion, you aren’t being very open to discussion. If you don’t have children and don’t plan to have children, then you probably be quite happy to share that with everyone. If your child had already died from air pollution, your posts would be a lot more emotive. Your status matters. Others have told you theirs and their reasoning.

I see the problem as you reading the wrong thing into my question.

I am not judging, i am asking whether its an U thing to think, many are thinking it.

I wonder what the answers would be amongst the under 25s, or school age.

Ok doomer

😂😂

I'm tired of reading about how awful human beings are and how we should basically just welcome our own extinction (disclaimer: NAPALT).

I think now that we're here, we might as well do our damndest to survive. As far as I can tell, human beings are the most incredible thing around (certainly on the planet) in terms of sheer unique level of achievement amongst species (and yes, along with that comes terrible consequences as well, commensurate with level of intelligence/power). The fact that any altruism exists at all (for example) is a miracle to me considering how "red in tooth and claw" our founding Mother Nature is.

I have great hopes for how much further we may evolve as a species, and yes, we need to alter our behaviour in order for that to happen. But I'd love to see a lot more optimism about who and what we may grow to be if we strive, rather than how terrible and doomed we all are - even if this is true, it's just not a good way to motivate people, and I thinks serves more to foster the attitude of 'let us all die then'. Just... defeated, lazy, and pointless.

It's definitely a reason we've stopped at 2 children. Things have been messed up for quite a while, especially politically/socioeconomically, and even as a young teen in the nineties I felt powerless and that the only way to effectively fight those forces is not to bear children.

I think people should just do what makes them happy if the sun will burn out eventually - or whatever - anyway.

It's sure not stopping Elite families having kids, is it? So why should it stop us?

We're here because the human race is survival enough to keep reproducing through hard times. Certainly harder than anything we have seen, and probably harder than anything we will ever see, or you have to hope so given that we have come through ice age, the black death, matiral disasters, world wars, the list goes on.

From the point of view of the species, you don't slow down people production to get past situations that will kill many people and require problem solving. That's when you ramp people production up.

Survivable enough

Last time I checked in answer to the question Is it U to consider bringing future children into this?. Majority have continually voted its U

TruthOnTrial
No, the last time I checked the voting is 60% You Are Being Unreasonable. Which means that the majority think YABU to suggest it's U to consider bringing future children into this world with all its current problems in particular the threat that climate change poses to humanity and all life.

How do you ramp 'people production' up?