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?

Alos to come on to "Mumsnet" and tell us all we should be thinking twice about having children. Kind of doesn,t sit right.

Surely a site where many people come for advice about starting a family/whether to have more children is the obvious place to highlight these issues as something to consider. There wouldn't be much point in raising it on a site where the majority were childfree or not at a stage of life where they were thinking about a family yet, or past childbearing age.

The title of the thread is very clear, so if it doesn't sit well with anyone they can avoid it or hide it.

Righto LittleBearPad

Ah yes an emoji. That’s a reasoned argument.

I'm unsure whether I want to bring kids into this world too. It's not just about their hypothetical impact on the climate, but more "if things get as bad as scientists are predicting, do I want to put a child through that?"

We're potentially looking at huge natural disasters, uninhabitable areas where temperatures will regularly exceed 40c in summer, large-scale migration and food shortages, etc etc. There are many people in the 0.1% that are planning for the breakdown of society due to all of the above. Alarmist, or actually alarming?

Would love to be as carefree as some other people on this thread.

Omniverse,
That’s the problem with snapshots in time. You are only reporting the now (and wrongly, reread unicef, it is not half the worlds people or children in poverty, it is half the people/children in Sub-Saharan Africa) .

The fact is that since 1970 poverty, including child poverty, has decreased dramatically.

The biggest decrease has been in the last generation
“The number of people in extreme poverty has fallen from nearly 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 650 million in 2018. This was possible as economic growth reached more and more parts of the world.8 In Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Ghana, and China more than half the population lived in extreme poverty a generation ago. But after two decades of growth the share in extreme poverty more than halved in all these countries.

Poverty was not concentrated in Africa until recently. In 1990 more than a billion of the extremely poor lived in China and India alone. Since then those economies have grown faster than many of the richest countries in the world and did much to a reduction of global inequality. The concentration of the world’s poorest shifted from East Asia in the 1990s to South Asia in the following decade. Now it has shifted to Sub-Saharan Africa. The projections suggest the geographic concentration of extreme poverty is likely to continue. According to the World Bank forecasts 87% of the world’s poorest are expected to live in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2030 if economic growth follows the trajectory over the recent past.“

“In more than half of the countries of the world the share of the population in extreme poverty is now less than 3 percent.”

“The big success of the last generation was that global extreme poverty declined rapidly. But many are still very poor and progress against extreme poverty is urgently needed. However, we are currently far off track to ending extreme poverty – we expect half a billion people to still live on less than $1.90 per day by 2030.”

ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

Not read the full thread OP but I think this on a regular basis.

As for earlier decades such as having babies in WW2, they didn't have reliable contraception then. Now we do.

Each British and American child has the same Carbon Footprint as 10,000 sub saharan Africans

so lets either cut our personal emissions in half
or have even less children (birth rates have been below replacement for decades in Europe)
so that those who are poor can eat enough to thrive

It’s not nuclear power stations that people are worried about, it’s nuclear war. Like it was during the Cold War.

I don’t disagree with you per se OP, but the problem is that none of the places you mention have anything to do with me. Fires in California and Australia? Air pollution in London? Don’t live there so don’t really see it as having an effect on me or the birth of my baby having an effect on it. Which is how most people think, on a subconscious level at least.

I won’t be having any more children but I certainly didn’t consider at all the climate issues when I wanted to get pregnant. I just did it.

Unless the entire planet is in board it seems unfair to those who really want DC. It is very well only having one or two when other parts if the world have a child every year until their body gives up.
I am naive and not educated well on this, I do my bit I recycle, I don't drive, I buy items with less or refillable packaging which is not much in the grand scheme of things. If the planet is truly failing, why are flight's not reduced, people banned from their cars, farm animals shot to drop gases.
I think lots of people dont believe it is and will continue living life oblivious until it is on every station. Again I don't know much about the rain forest why are they still cutting huge amounts down I know its power money but can it be stopped, it is more like the weed forest.

It is very well only having one or two when other parts if the world have a child every year until their body gives up.
Love this racist trope
only Africa has average birth rates of more than two children per child
every other continent will be in active decline within 30 years
(China a LOT sooner)

I think the world has always had it's problems human wise, i wouldnt have fancied living during the middle ages much.

Love this racist trope
only Africa has average birth rates of more than two children per child
There are lots of other countries and cultures who have many DC including white people. It is down to lack of resources education or religious beliefs.
In the 1950's in Ireland many families were of 9 or 10 DC. There has been massive changes though still lots of people today have 5 to 6 children.

I also think a lot of people enjoy the drama of the apocalypse fantasy. It makes them feel important and virtuous. Fighting something “big”.

If you have been on the Greta thread some are almost cult like. We are going to die in next ten years.

The world could have destroyed it's self many times in 20th century via weapons, global warming, ozone layer ect, we are still here , but this is more urgent than rest that's what we were told last time.

The people these days think all these protests are something new Greenpeace have existed for years.

Have kids don't have kids, don't let anyone panic you.

What @Hefzi says. She’s more succinct than I would be, although the world is fucked is also pretty succinct.

Emerald
Average birth rates in Ireland are well below replacement
www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-s-birth-rate-down-25-compared-to-celtic-tiger-period-1.4055232

only Africa has an average Birth rate of more than 2.2

I know that people are listening and reducing the amount if DC they have. The health services schools and hospitals are completely over stretched in Ireland.
Though there are many family around here not only African but Irish and Muslim and Roma who have lots of DC. I just meant it is unfair for someone to feel they dont have the choice to have a DC due to over population when others continue having them.
Maybe in the future if the planet survives this might be controlled by a limit.

EE families around here have one DC, two at a push.

Would love to be as carefree as some other people on this thread

You can be. You don't have to worry so much...You can get some perspective and be more positive or optimistic.
The way we think is a choice, whether you can see that or not. We should all be mindful of our planet and do what we can to minimise harm and promote responsibility....and then let go of the obsessing over a future no one can accurately predict.

FFS all these people saying they are not having children. Have you stopped flying, buying plastic. Stopped going anywhere in a car? Probably not!

Most of my friends (early 20s) are aiming for 2/3/4/5 kids

I also think a lot of people enjoy the drama of the apocalypse fantasy. It makes them feel important and virtuous. Fighting something “big”

This is SO true!
Honestly I think most of the people who catastrophize these things would be happy for the worst to happen so they could gleefully say ‘I told you so’

@Rayn I don't drive or fly. I avoid single use plastic as much as possible. I cut down drastically on meat and dairy. What's the "FFS" about?

Pregnant now, I'm very excited about it. Did not consider this even for a second.

The world has always been a mess

@Rayn and again, this thread isn't just about not having kids so as to limit environmental damage. It's also about the worry of what the planet & society might look like as the next generation grow up.