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?

To add I agree with other posters that it being shoved down my throat doesn’t particularly make me want to engage. It also irks me that there are these children and teens protesting on school days and yet I bet they wouldn’t be happy to give up their gadgets, latest fashion, makeup etc

@PlanDeRaccordement

Curly haired
You need to do a bit of actual researching other than watching movies.

I don’t really watch movies and have never heard of Clan of the Cave Bear. This was something that I learned from the museums of prehistory around Les Eyzies in France. Would the information that tourists read there be wrong? Outdated? Possibly.

Don’t forget, pre-history covers a looooong period. And the “early humans” were not just one tribe from one area. I’m sure there was a long while at least where the less aware/intelligent early human groups really didn’t put two and two together about sex and babies. They certainly wouldn’t have sat down and had a discussion about whether the time was right to start a family, was all I’m saying. They wouldn’t even have BEEN in a nuclear family as we know it

I like to take a cosmic perspective on all this. Something is keeping our planet spinning perfectly in orbit, in perfect relationship to the sun to allow life to thrive. We are tiny ants in these much bigger forces. Something out there much bigger than us is pulling all the strings. We might have our time, just like the dinosaurs, but we can just do our best with what we have. We are not all knowing and the universe is way bigger than us.

Yes, who’s to say this exact same conversation isn’t going on in some galaxy elsewhere. “We can just do our best with what we have” is exactly right. I think it’s one thing choosing to have a child whom you need to educate about the fuckups your own and earlier generations made, and quite another actively choosing to bring a child into a world just to suffer their whole life. I do think a bit of perspective is called for.

I fluctuate in my opinions on this, though, depending on what I read. I was reading about the survivor of Auschwitz who died in 2019. She basically had the view that despite the horrors she’d seen and experienced during her time in the camp, since she got out she lived every day to its fullest and appreciated everything. Because she knew that her friends who hadn’t survived would have loved to have had that chance and never did. She viewed life as a gift. It is, really, isn’t it? Our survival instinct is so strong, I think we should pay more attention to that and wonder why we have it, rather than wondering whether we should let humans die out for the sake of the planet. That instinct is there for a reason, it’s just that it gets rather mind-boggling if you stop for a minute to try and think about what that reason is. What do we want to continue for?

Even in my parents generation there was ignorance about getting pregnant. It seems unthinkable, but some didn't know about periods even, especially amongst grandparents generation.

There wasn't previously choice. There is now, big difference.

Also, theres a world of difference between events (like the holocaust referenced above) that can't be predicted, and the predictions we have been aware of for years now.

I personally wouldn't plan to deliberately bring a child into a world where they would be subjected to such as the holocaust, surely noone would.

Whereas science is telling us that food will become more scarce, temperatures will continue to rise, weather systems will become more extreme, are becoming more extreme, whole communities are being wiped out.

Its not the same as choosing to live close to an active volcano for instance, this is a world-wide event. Coming to everyone.

The polar ice caps are melting.

Our instinct is to procreate, but there are often good reasons for controlling instinctive urges.

There are babies born into poverty everyday, as argued upthread but its also arguable that those still having babies very young (accidents aside) where there is no hope of having already acquired your own homing and means of self support, is more about the circumstances of that young woman and many other social factors, than well educated and well-rounded thought. There is still a lack of aspiration for many girls, especially in poverty, and there is growing gap between rich and poor.

Given good choice for women the average family size does down.

Surely we should be looking at future generations just having less children - if everyone all over the world just had 2 that would dramatically reduce our population and help?

I've never understood the 'I'll just have two children so I've not changed anything' theory.
Unless both you and your partner die shortly after the birth of your second child, you've effectively doubled the population for the remainder of your own lives

it's fairly basic maths.... Unless you and your dh are the only people on the planet.

Two children, each of whom have two children themselves, replace their four grandparents, not their parents.

Knowingly bringing a child into a life of suffering is an alien concept to me.

I don't understand that at all as a reason for bringing children into the world, where theiir life will be shorter or endure such suffering.

Poles apart that we all die, to knowing you will die early and suffer along the way.

People dont even subject their pets to this, if they know they are suffering they have them pts, not everyone, but hopefully most!

CO2 is plant food; crop yields are not going to go down because of climate change. So scaremongering by saying we are going all starve to death is bonkers.

www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops

Keep in mind that in the past century, the deadliest famines were political in nature. We’d do well to keep that in mind.

Turnips

Are you arguing that you would plan to have a child knowing it would suffer, as opposed to the usual risks of living that you talk of because the two are not the same obviously.

If I moved my family close to a risk situation, or moved to a desert where.life was untenable and then actively planned to bring a baby into it that would be seen as stupid frankly, and in similar circumstances if ss were involved they would question the validity of such decisions when they risk the well-being of future children, its on this basis newborns often get removed.

These two situations are very different.

Not sure why people can't see this. Agreeing with pp that posters don't necessarily actually read posts and opposing views in order to consider their validity but instead continue to just argue their point even if unjustified.

I can't be convinced that these two things are in any way the same.

So scaremongering by saying we are going all starve to death is bonkers.

I missed where anyone said that, some research has proposed this, so I'm not sure that research is bonkers

I missed where anyone said that, some research has proposed this, so I'm not sure that research is bonkers

Someone upthread said that already half the world’s children are starving and that’s before global warming really gets going 😂

So, no food shortages, as CO2 is good for plants and helps plants thrive despite drought risks (see NASA link). That is, unless, political reasons mean we can’t transport food around the globe to help regional shortages, as we do know

All children will suffer (pain, loss, sadness, fear) at some point in their lives, and 100% will die one day. So, everyone having children knows that they will suffer and die, even if climate change is miraculously reversed next week

Yes, its completely reasonable that the usual 'sufferings' of expected childhood ilness (which we reasonable expect most will get through fine) and the social knocks and bangs of childhood, school and family life, as well as managing the usual risks of traffic and so on.

That IS different to knowing the environment will shorten their life, and will mean suffering in addition to the usual risks of living that everyone has (to varying degrees).

Can't agree that this isn't a new and increased permanent and now evidenced risk to life now and in the future.

It is a pretence that aus has now, finally, declared a state of emergency, or is it a real and ongoing, increasing threat to our lives and future lives.

Someone upthread said that already half the world’s children are starving

And someone else read the link that person provided and read it properly - to find it said no such thing....

OP I think it would be good to get offline and stop reading selective bits of research that exclaim everyone is going to be starving in a few years time.

I'm not.

I'm saying climate change, real, new and increasing risk to life.

Responsibility for future generations to not go blindly into that and exposing young lives to known suffering and shortened lives.

Why should I get offline? Why do you want to shut me down? If you are so offended then you might need to step away rather than trying to tell others what to do.