I don't agree with the 'having children is selfish' debate.

[BabyLlamaZen]

Most intelligent (and even just vaguely worldly) people are aware of the importance of preserving our environment but I am sick of seeing so many self-righteous posts about how having children is the worst most selfish thing you can do for the planet. And this is from people who live their everyday lives exactly as they please but think not having children or only having 1 makes them wonderful martyrs.

1. The selfish thing doesn't even make sense. Yes the entire world is overpopulated. However at some point all these people are going to die. People DO NOT LIVE FOREVER! Every other disgusting thing we're doing to out planet sticks around. Plastic waste being one tiny part of it. The effects or air travel. Meat consumption (which is one of the issues of overpopulation. These people who don't agree with too many children are all vegan right?) There are so many things we need to be changing and yet one thing we do need is people to support it to happen. Do you expect to be looked after when you're ill? Do you want someone to farm your food? If yes, then you must understand that we need people to do that.

We cannot control what happens in other countries. I agree that some other countries are overpopulated. We can just control what happens in our own country. We are actually an ageing population. So really we need to kill off the old people right? Oh wait, no we don't like that. 🤷‍♀️

At the same time there are concerns about the large number of millennials and generations below who are just not having children. One of the main drivers of brexit was to 'take back control' and stop immigration. So reduced immigration and no more children So are we expecting to all grow old and be cared for by nobody until we're 110? These are issues that countries like Germany already have problems with.

Looking at my own case study - I am 30 and have 1 child who will thankfully replace me. Most of my friends don't have any and most don't WANT any. Who is replacing and supporting them? I do not call them selfish because this is their choice and they have a right to this choice. And because of this, someone having 5 is not only bloody unusual but useful. So either let them be or be thankful that not everyone has decided to let us all die out. Funnily enough my friends are quite happy about this. They don't think anyone is being selfish. They enjoy their lifestyle and admit they are not perfect for the environment but will still do their bit.

1. The fact that people who use this argument never wanted children in the first place. Good for you, but this isn't really a sacrifice.

There is so much hypocrisy. Another thing that is terrible for the environment is air travel, meat consumption, food waste, plastic consumption, fast fashion. These are all TERRIBLE things that can be avoided and are not useful. Yet continuing the population is?

So get off your high horses people!

We ALL need to reduce something. If you don't feel the need to have kids, brilliant! Make sure you also live your life as well green as you can. You feel the need to procreate? Great! Also do what you can.

I really despise environmental essentialism and think it borders on the fringes of some deeply unpleasant ideologies.

From a purely theoretical environmental pov ofc the planet would be better off without people. However I am not the planet. I am a person, and I like being alive, and I like other people being alive,so I'm not going to wish for the demise of my own species as I'm not a sociopath.

The global birth rate is already below population replacement level anyway and has been for several decades. So the "problem" of overpopulation (if there is one - I actually think the biggest problem is inequitable distribution of resources but there you go) isn't caused by anyone having babies, whether at Radford levels or just the one. It's caused by people living too long and being too healthy.

Already starting to look even more sociopathic complaining about this isn't it?

Add to this that the entire reason we're being asked to modify our behaviour in order to limit our impact on the planet is to ensure the survival of humans and the position that we need to stop having children moves from failing to address the issue and actually becomes illogical. So we're not going to have a future generation in order to save the future generation? Aye, right you are.

Some people just hate kids, parenting, anything to do with the whole business and dislike a lot of people around them in general (CF comments like "I prefer animals to humans"- because they don't talk back lol) and environmental preaching allows them to exercise their misanthropy in a socially acceptable way.

If you consider that humans are only one of millions of species on the planet yet we are causing the devastation and extinction of plants and animals on a daily basis, yes, it is incredibly selfish to propagate the human race. Letting ourselves become extinct would, by far, be for the greater good. There is no intrinsic reason for the human race to exist, it just has a selfish desire to further its own existence - the time has long since passed when humans were net contributors to planet Earth.

Wanting to do something doesn’t make it intrinsically selfish. Most charity volunteers are doing it because they want to. Nurses and doctors choose that career because they want to.

But those examples have a positive impact on society.
Having a baby may have a positive impact on society but equally well it might be a negative one. People who want to (e.g.) volunteer for charity are generally at least partly motivated by the idea that they are doing "a good thing". No one has a baby because they think it will be good for society. They have one because they want to.

Another thing that is terrible for the environment is air travel, meat consumption, food waste, plastic consumption, fast fashion.

But having children isn't just another thing on the above list. It causes all the above issues in itself as the increased number of humans are doing all these things, and so are their children, and on and on.

If we die out then the entire ecosystem will collapse with many more species going extinct.

Most ignorant comment ever on the whole internet.

TAAT.

IMHO choosing having more than 2 children is selfish from an environmental perspective. I am not anti immigration and would be happy to spread the existing people around the planet a bit rather than creating more.

Funny how even in this day and age women are still being criticised for their reproductive choices
I criticise men for making the choice to have big families, too.

This is a TAAT so it us unlikely to be around for long, but to engage very briefly:

OP, most adults understand that their actions have consequences. Every additional child represents an additional 58.6 tonnes of CO2. You could go car free (-2.4 tonnes), eat plant based (-0.82), recycle everything (-0.21) and give up flying (-1.60 for every transatlantic round trip) and still get absolutely nowhere near offsetting that child. And that is fine, but that is the consequence of having that child.

You've completely failed to grasp any of the very sensible points on the other thread so I doubt this will have any impact, of course.

Redsky,
“No one has a baby because they think it will be good for society. They have one because they want to.”

You can’t speak for every parent on the planet. I had children because I wanted to contribute to the future, and because it is good for society to have a younger generation than mine. Children are an essential aspect to being an adult, and giving back to society.

I criticise men for making the choice to have big families too.

Yeah? What's Sue Radford's husband's name? No googling and "Mr Radford" is an incorrect answer.

Maybe the people who say that are just fed up of being called selfish for not having kids

I have no idea who Sue Radford is, but it takes two people to produce a baby so I don't see how criticism of this can possibly be seen as criticism of women only.

1300cakes
You are ignorant if you don’t know the facts that peak or apex predators are necessary to an ecosystem, and humans are one of these predators. Without us, prey species will quickly over populate and devastate grazing, forests, etc until their population crashes due to famine or disease.
greenerideal.com/news/environment/7066-the-importance-of-apex-predators/

But having a child, even just one, is selfish, there are no two ways about that.
Deciding to bring a child into the world is an entirely selfish act. Totally amazing and wonderful if one is lucky, but selfish nevertheless, whether it is 1 or 11.

Agreed pelleas why do men never get mentioned in these discussions?

It's Noel. And there are a whole load of issues about him, which I won't mention here as anti Radford stuff has a habit of getting deleted. But their respective ages when they had their first child are one.

is* one

I agree.

Why the hell do I have a reproductive system if it's there to not be used? (I know some people suffer from infertility so not to be insensitive) but we are here to reproduce. There's no rule on how many children we have. If you don't want any that's up to you but don't judge others for doing something that's in our nature.

why do men never get mentioned in these discussions?

To add to this can you imagine a female Prime Minister not declaring how many kids she had; having kids with multiple different men and a partner a good two decades younger than her?

We would never hear the end of it.

YABU.

Is everything okay? You sound very upset.

prey species will quickly over populate and devastate grazing, forests, etc until their population crashes due to famine or disease.

That is exactly the course we humans are on. It might even be said to be happening now.

That's the obvious conclusion for these people @Plan But they don't like it up em.

What's Sue Radford's husband's name?

Noel.

No google used and no I’m not a fan of theirs either.

What the actual fuck @PlanDeRaccordement? Why don't you go back and re-read what you have just written.

And, it would not be good for the environment for humans to die out. We are part of the environment as a peak predator. If we die out then the entire ecosystem will collapse with many more species going extinct.

You can't be serious. Humans becoming extinct would be the best thing to happen to this planet which existed quite happily long before we did. I'm not proposing a cull of the human race just pointing out we are the ones that harm the planet.

It's a logical progression from what you're saying. Other people's children are humans and therefore are unnecessary and harmful to the planet. So you, as a human, are also unnecessary and harmful to the planet.