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.

That should say that the world doesn't need a baby...

There is zero need for people to have anymore than one or two kids especially in the west where you don’t need a dozen children in the hope two will survive in to adulthood to take over the farming and look after you in old age as there’s no state pension.

Immigration is the key to filling some roles. The countries with older populations need to be more accepting of immigrants from poorer countries.

I’m glad it’s become more socially unacceptable to have large families in the U.K. It doesn’t matter how much recycling you do if you have four kids. They are still using up more resources than a small Indian village and none of them are likely to invent a cure for cancer.

@therealfatshady do people really call you selfish for having children? I've never got that.

My point still stands. People having more children and people having less children is not a problem.

Also people are getting all pent up about this - wish I'd made the number 3 not 5. For some reason 3 children over 2 also makes you a terrible wasteful person 🤣 despite all the things listed.

I don't think you seem to grasp that a family of 2 and 1, 2, 3, 5 kids will consume more meat, plastics, air travels etc... than a single individual or a couple, or even a couple with one child. When someone has 5 kids the chances of most of them having themselves 1-2+ kids is high and therefore incessantly adding unnecessary humans to this already dying planet. It's selfish for the planet but it is 100% selfish for the kids (and I say this has one of 5, the youngest being a couple of months old only, and I thoroughly think my mom is selfish and I feel extremely sorry for this little girl who is inheriting a shit-show of a planet). I have been in California for the last year and half and in that timeline, kids have had to spend a good 5 months in lockdown, currently due to Coronavirus but also due to the horrible fires and smokes from last year. The planet is changing, new viruses are developing and thriving due to rise in temperatures, weather is changing and becoming unpredictable (and in some cases deadly), here in the US kids also have to worry about things like shooting and poor/inexistant universal healthcare system. I know kids who are under 2 who have spent more time surviving ''natural'' crisis than thriving and being free, how is this a life we want for future generations, and how can we, consciously bringing in more humans to a planet that isn't copping and will continue to struggle to cope, knowing they will have to deal with it and face the consequences.
It's fine if you chose to do it anyway, but don't pretend it isn't selfish, both for the planet and for them. Parents who have kids don't do it for the planet and don't do it to benefit the kids either, it's to benefit them (hence why you care about having someone to look after YOU in your old age instead of accepting that maybe we should stop trying to prolonge life to a point where we need care and accept we have reached our time, we don't seem to have this moral dilemma for dogs so not sure why we have it for humans) so the very least one can do is acknowledge that.

If you look at things objectively (and not emotionally like you seem to) Humans are parasites in the grand circle of life, they bring NOTHING in terms of value to the planet, yet not only are they actively responsible for the extinctions of hundreds of species of fauna and flora and millions of hectars of land in ways that cannot be fix, but they also aim to destroy and surpass themselves to constantly hurt and kill each other. So yes, like any other pest we would ensure to kill in our garden, the ideal thing if we want to preserve species and the earth is for us to go first. One can objectively acknowledge and understand that while also understanding why humans don't want to understand or accept that (humans not only have a survival instinct but also have an ego problem hence why only humans have such concepts as religion as they seem to need to feel like their life has more meaning/value than other species and serve a special purpose, the idea that one could just live and die and be meaningless/purposeless in the grand scheme of things seeming to be appalling to most, Yet it's the case of any other species and yet, even most humans whose life are considered to have had a purpose, have mostly discovered and done stuff that only exclusively benefits the human race).

Saying things such as, if you want the human race to go instinct ''would you be willing to sign your own death warrant'' is stupid at best. I didn't chose to be here, yet my parents felt like you and popped me out, thankfully I am more conscious than them and don't feel the need to necessarily add more life to this planet. I am already alive, yes you could kill me but it's easier to not bring a new life in than to destroy one. Especially when bringing one in requires a minimum of 20 years of investment before they can start serving any kind of purpose nor do any good (closer to 30 if they are going to be a doctor) when I am already there, serving my ''purpose'' and paying through taxes for people who decide to have kids or need care.

So I could sign a death warrant or I could do the easier thing of minimizing my impact on the planet, by not reproducing unnecessarily and not becoming an extra burden on the planet by continuing to consume when I have stopped serving my purpose. So I haven't signed a ''death warrant'' but in line with my (current) own convinctions, I have made sure to have signed a DNR and to have confirmed with my loved ones that I do NOT wish to be on ventilator and that if my time has come, this is it. I do want to give my organs so that's the only reason why entubating me would be okay. I am mid-20's so dying of old age is likely a long way away but for now my plan is that as soon as I am diagnosed with anything that would impair my intellectual faculties or would require me to need full-time care long-term then euthanasia will be my way to go.

For a human, I currently have a pretty good life (on a personal level) but I am not deluded into thinking that my life really benefits anyone but me, regardless of how much I limit my impact on the planet or help others nor that the world would ever be a worse place without me or us, humans.

@Therealfatshady no children I mean. Like I said. I am in a social group where a lot of my friends choose not to have children. I RESPECT THAT! I am saying there are no more or no less selfish than me in terms of the environment. There are other factors.

Fine @Linning. Everyone in the world having 5 kids would be too much. Again, what if you were one of 4 or even 3? If no one else around you had any would you still feel the same?

Or do you agree 2 is ok but 3 is terrible.

Are you hard of thinking or something? The more children you have the more they demand of the planets finite resources. It’s that simple. There is a biological drive in many people to reproduce so having one or two children seems reasonable on balance to satisfy that need. Having none is obviously preferable. Having more than 2 is unjustifiable.

I'm assuming you dont want children then?

@MsTSwift but why is 2 the magic number? 🤣 why not everyone only have 1 and then you only replacing one adult?

Saying it is unjustifiable ignores all the other things that have been posted about why we need younger people.

Oh well. We will all agree to disagree. However, any chance people with these views be less nasty to those who have decided to procreate? Like I have said countless times, I have no issue with people not having children. Yet there are people who will continue to berate those who dare to have any, let alone the 'perfect 2'.

It’s all nonsense and stacking deck chairs on the titanic. The planet needs fewer people. 2 or less per couple is replacement level. The earth cannot cope with ever increasing numbers. The economics of having younger people to pay pensions is madness where will that end? Why do you want a hugely overcrowded planet which is what you are advocating for. It will be unpleasant and awful for our children

I judge anyone with more than 2 yes. I am too polite to say anything but I am entitled to my opinion. And anecdotally the planet seems very crowded to me.

Pretty sure I've never advocated for that..
that would involve me saying I wanted everybody to have loads of kids.

We need SOME kids. 👍

It’s the end result of your position. Not sure you’ve really thought this one through op.

but why is 2 the magic number? 🤣 why not everyone only have 1 and then you only replacing one adult?

You do....you do know that it takes two people to make a baby?

Ok @mstswift my belief still stands. I'm not going to attack my neighbour with 4 kids. I'm not going to attack my friends with none and I'm going to happily create my wonderful 1 or 2 who will hopefully make a decent impact on the world. I will continue to live my day to day life as well as I can. I suppose I always had a strong duty to this planet, but I know a lot of people don't and I shouldn't expect it of my children.

'RU Ok Hun 'Really ' where's your brain?

@ThanksItHasPockets sigh my point was if you have 1 person replace every 2 adults then you are not massively increasing the population.

@littlemeitslyn you haven't read the whole thread. No one has. I'm out. :)

@BabyLlamaZen

Did you read my post? In my world, well an ideal world really, the ideal number would be 0. Ideally humans would look at what they have done, to both the planet and each other and would accept that no real good has come out of us and would accept to do one good thing by choosing to be the last generation and going extinct.

I acknowledge that it is almost impossible to request as it goes against any animal's survival instinct so if I had to pick, the smaller amount the better. Again, we serve absolutely zero purpose. There is no need for 2, 3 new humans to come out. It's a personal choice and will and ''need'' for some to feel compelled to bring in more of us BUT it benefits no one but us and it definitely doesn't benefit them (and again, ''us'' is a big word when you look at what humans do to each other on a daily basis. AIBU being the perfect example actually, without even talking about wars, genocides etc...).

Again, bring in as many kids as you want into the world, it's your kids and grand-kids who will likely have to deal with the end result of your choice to pro-create and to bring them up in a planet that has been and will continue to suffer irreversible changes and likely will bring in irreversible consequences to them. THEY will be the ones suffering, your kids, not me or you.

You CANNOT compare the consumption of your single childless friends with yours. If you have kids, you and your offsprings FAR outweight the consumptions of this one single individual making your choice, yes, more selfish than theirs. Even if they consume a lot, they didn't chose to get born, they are doing what humans do, consume resources and bring back little value, you on the other hand are doing this PLUS choosing to bring in more people to consume and bring back little value. You are ADDING to the burden. Can't you see how that makes you more selfish? Really? Plus if they remain childless their impact is limited to their lifetime (80 years or so), your choice on the other end will spread for as long as your descendant continue to procreate and bring in more kids. Centuries likely if not forever.

No my opinion wouldn't change if all of my friends stopped having kids. I love kids I have been a nanny and a teacher, kids are massive part of my life, it doesn't stop me from acknowledging that while they are cute and lovely and I love them and (selfishly!) want them to live as long as possible and be happy, it's still not the right thing and the planet would indeed be better off without them (and me!), it's a fact. it's not personal and it's what it is. I suffer more from the idea that a lot of them have had to be in lockdown for a good chunk of their life and have had to survive almost continuous natural disasters in very little time and that it's likely only the beginning for them, and what it could mean for their future than I do the idea that they could simply not have been born.

I had a miscarriage a couple of years back, it was painful but sometimes like right now I sit comforted by the knowledge that he probably did more for the planet and the world by not experiencing it than would have happened was he around to see and live through the consequences of human decisions.

I still very much think I would have been selfish had I managed to give birth to this baby, the fact that it's mine and I would have loved him and wanted him to be happy and selfishly live as long as he potentially could, wouldn't have changed that. You can love someone and still acknowledge their presence is destructive and not what's best in the bigger picture.

It's different to chose to not care about the bigger picture but then we have to acknowledge that not doing so is selfish.

Overpopulation is a world wide problem but everyone would be protesting if the governments of the world stoped sending aid to poorer countries that have a lot of children that they cannot afford to feed and they go on to be just as poor and have 10+ children themselves. Surly the best thing for the planet would be to let them die out? Coronavirus killing the older people I've seen threads on here slamming the government for failing care homes because people are dying. Surly this is a good thing in the eyes of overpopulation? The frail and elderly being wiped out? Talking about overpopulation is a dangerous argument and where do you draw the line on what's morally acceptable? As for someone mentioned earlier about what if you have 5 children and they all become doctors would that be acceptable? The replies were as if that was an impossibility but I personally know an family that had 9 children grew up poor in Ireland and everyone of them became a GP or Dentist so it can happen.

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

I actually think this is true to some extent, but just as with human beings, I don't see the inherent value of any species.

Forget 'you do you', for 13 billion years, Planet Earth has done Planet Earth. She doesn't give a shit about any specific life form.

Currently, the planet supports one somewhat over-evolved ape as the dominant apex life form - an unusually adaptable one, with a unique form of sentience, but some problems associated with that also.

Doesn't mean that has always be the case or will always be the case. There's no inherent virtue in the matter.

If we die out for any reason, life will adapt again. Sabre toothed pandas, giant hamsters, the octocat. Who knows.

I have an inherent issue with the idea that 'preserving life' on this planet is interpreted as preserving the present set of existing species, apparently indefinitely. Because that's the endgame of environmentalism whilst we still exist. We survive, and no new species of note evolves. To me that seems a much bigger shame than humans dying out.

I'm not phased about the idea of humanity being another evolutionary footnote studied by supersentient corvids in the year 8292.