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?

Op what if we manage to turn things around, to have a green industrial revolution and decarbonise? Can we have children, then (please?)

Remember when there was a threat to the ozone layer and a big hole in it because of all those aerosols? Now we stopped using them, and it's started to mend. So healing is possible with the climate too?

Oh I'm not offended, it doesn't bother me if others have children or not, or what their reasons are- there doesn't need to be any reason why people make the choices they do, and I don't feel the need to justify mine. But there are plenty of studies which counteract the notion that we are facing immenent untold suffering; but if you do believe that we are it seems counterproductive to just keep reading more about it.

"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)."

But child mortality is the lowest it's ever been in human history. Far fewer children are dying in infancy and childhood than ever before.
Yes, climate change is an ENORMOUS threat. I don't underestimate it. But no need to be too doom and gloom. Humanity has also made huge strides forward.

ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-global-overview

Can't recommend this website enough for a fact based worldview.

The current mortality rate does not relate to future death or future generations in a burning planet.

I'm not sure why its supppsed to be relevant.

This thread is about climate change and future sustainability of the earth.

I'm ignoring the stupids comments.

The current mortality rate does not relate to future death or future generations in a burning planet.

Climate change won't change the current mortality rate. The planet isn't burning, and if you're referring to Aus you do know this happens every year yes? And has done for eons. Managed far better by the indigenous people who weren't stupid enough to go on arson sprees

The earth, and life, is sustainable and will be for the next billions of years. As proved by the fact that we're here, and thriving, despite far worse climate conditions in the past.

The current mortality reflect the current state of affairs
Your children have a far better change of surviving childhood than they did 100 years ago and, yet, people still had babies.

You are definitely a confirmation biasist. You only want answers which confirm what you already think.

Yes, I absolutely do know it happens every year.

Rtft

So, the world's climate isnt going to harm us or our future generations then? Climate change globally isn't anything that we should be alarmed about. Ok

Can you let everyone know this!

I don't see any arguments that stack up as they don't directly relate to the issues, that doesn't entitle you to claim to know what I am or am not.

Does anyone else think there are quite a few posters with a prepper mentality on this thread?

It’s an extreme view to think that those that have kids are choosing to bring them into a world of future suffering. “Future suffering”? Because we will all have to eat less meat, become less globalised and more sustainable?

Why should I get offline?

The servers you’re using are contributing significantly to global warming

I see the hyperbole continues - a burning planet etc.

This sort of thinking baffles me tbh. We're all going to die of something and so will our kids and their kids if they have any. It's just how it is and not worth the headspace.

@poptartsarefood yes we are all going to die but if the predicted future food and water shortages do happen plus the rising sea levels and global warming the future could be pretty bleak.

Even if you knew your child was going to die aged 20 would you not want those 20 years to be as good as possible?

Children are this worlds only hope. It’s the older generations that have ruined it

@lynsey91 we can't guarantee our kids anything and having them is something we do to please ourselves.

It’s the older generations that have ruined it

Did they indeed. Who do you think made your incredibly luxurious life, with the many comforts and privileges unprecedented in human history, available to you?

@poptartsarefood yes exactly. People have children because they want them, to please themselves. They are not having children because they think their children will have wonderful lives.

Pretty selfish when you really think about it. I realise you can't guarantee what sort of life a child will have or how long it will be but if you believe even half of the predicted future problems will actually come true you are condemning your child to a pretty shit life

Did they indeed. Who do you think made your incredibly luxurious life, with the many comforts and privileges unprecedented in human history, available to you?

Precisely. We only have this relatively comfortable life in a peaceful country because of the ingenuity and sacrifices of our ancestors. The Industrial Revolution has improved life for the masses; no other social revolution (save perhaps the agricultural one near the Bronze Age?) has had such a positive impact. That’s why we can’t just “get rid” of fossil fuels; while the West could (but won’t) move towards nuclear, developing countries still need access to cheap fuels to further their development.

predicted future food and water shortages do happen plus the rising sea levels

Increased CO2 levels actually are great for crops. Studies by NASA (linked a few pages back) demonstrate that crop yields grow in the presence of CO2 and actually need less water!

Also, the Dutch came up with ways to prevent flooding of low-lying areas hundreds of years ago. Land reclamation projects are pretty advanced so I’m sure we’ll be fine. It may cost, but costs are probably bearable as long as you don’t wreck the economy!

I completely agree @lynsey91 we have the kids for our own basically selfish reasons and then they have to get on with it once they're here. No guarantees and the world moves on.

"That’s why we can’t just “get rid” of fossil fuels; while the West could (but won’t) move towards nuclear, developing countries still need access to cheap fuels to further their development."

We could do 'technology transfer'. It's a lot cheaper to offset future carbon emissions in the developing world than it is to make changes to the existing infrastructure in the developed world. So it makes far more sense, while at the same time reducing our own emissions in developed economies, to pay for developing countries to leapfrog over the cheap fossil fuel stage of development given the huge environmental costs involved.

I think the greatest injustice in all of this is that the people who contributed least to the problem of climate change are the ones who are suffering the most.

In developed countries, there is money for adaptation. Also many developed countries are simply not as vulnerable as many developing countries, e.g. Bangladesh which is going to be highly impacted by the rising sea levels, has few resources to adapt but contributed precious little to the problem. There needs to be some accountability for this at the global level.

Of course there's the chance that it'll all collapse and then we're all fucked regardless. But we've always lived with that threat. When I was a kid growing up in the 80s, I was terrified of nuclear war (thanks Mum for letting me watch Threads!). It's different to climate change, of course, because climate change requies an active response and avoiding nuclear war requires NOT doing somethign, but the fear of catastrophe has always been there (had kids nonetheless, no regrets so far!).

The only way to leapfrog fossil fuels is by nuclear, which I’d totally be for, but is politically difficult at the moment. Unless there are some serious hydro sources to exploit, then it’d have to be fossil fuels.

I agree about nuclear. It seems crazy we're moving away from it rather than expanding further.

OP, if you don't want children, that's fine. Please stop haranguing everyone else. Clearly you are the better person, not condemning children to a lifetime of pain. I hope, when you are retired you don't go to a doctor twenty years younger than yourself or avail the services of a dentist/nurse/police officer and plan to be independent of the next generation that was so thoughtlessly produced by your less far thinking peers.

You should have a look at Tony Heller’s youtube channel OP. He’s a nice calm voice of rationality and reason. One of the things he does is to look at climate predictions as reported in the press over the last 100 years and it’s fascinating to see how hopelessly inaccurate (and hysterical) the endless cataclysmic predictions, repeated throughout the decades, turned out to be. And they’re always the same - Australia was “burning” 100 years ago; the glaciers were all melting in 1939... all the same stuff, designed to shock and scare. And it’s always been presented by “leading scientists” and “climate experts” - and they always got it wrong. That must tell you something.

Here’s a short example of his work.