To say no to a third child due to climate change?

[ratussbaguss]

My DH wants another (3rd) baby. I think not, with climate change being one of my main reasons. I am already worried for our two DCs lives. Emotionally I could be persuaded but all the facts suggest its a bad idea.

AIBU?

What a pointless, virtue signalling thread. If you wanted to help the environment you’d have had zero kids. You clearly don’t care.

^I agree. Just a lame excuse for that not wanting a third.

Really depends where your coming from. I’m more terrified about my young children now living in a society that is on its knees financially. Obviously won’t be a popular view but I listen to podcasts from economists and there seems to be a more immediate threat to us not having as many babies and that’s to our babies now, that terrifies me more.

Totally agree with you. My mind baffles when there's families like the radfords having 20 odd kids.. like don't they worry about the future?

Does he want you barefoot and pregnant?

You’re

It confuses me that 3 is too much due to climate change, but it was OK to have 2. You're worried for their lives, but you didn't stop to think of that before having them and it didn't worry you enough to not have them. Why not? Why was it OK to bring them into the world but not a third?

I think the reasoning is that if you just have two children, you replace yourself and your partner. Whereas if you have three you replace yourselves, plus one.

@Chasingaftermidnight

It confuses me that 3 is too much due to climate change, but it was OK to have 2. You're worried for their lives, but you didn't stop to think of that before having them and it didn't worry you enough to not have them. Why not? Why was it OK to bring them into the world but not a third?

I think the reasoning is that if you just have two children, you replace yourself and your partner. Whereas if you have three you replace yourselves, plus one.

That's usually the reasoning, but she says she is too concerned about what kind of life they will have so doesn't want a third because of it. That's not a replacement of the parents argument. Why not have worried about the current children's future before having them? Plus you could still have a third anyway even if you just want two to replace yourselves.

I think the reasoning is that if you just have two children, you replace yourself and your partner. Whereas if you have three you replace yourselves, plus one.

And to be fair, that is pretty solid reasoning. The world can easily accommodate 7/8 billion humans if we keep transitioning to green energy and the richest 1% (whose consumption accounts for approx 15% of emissions) will just rein their necks in a bit.

I think the climate change issue to be a sole reason for not having the child feels a bit strange for me. I am hoping to have a 3rd and see that as yes one of my more selfish choices for the planet, and have been thinking of ways to offset beyond all that we already do. But I think on MN people love to casually throw out the ‘don’t have any other children, it’s bad for the planet’ while I would imagine there are far less people actually willing to sacrifice their desires to procreate for this reason. If it’s not right for you or your other kids - more realistic line of reasoning imo. But maybe you are just more saintly than me!!

Those who are saying three is basically the same as two. What if she had a twin or triplet pregnancy? Or even quads? And it's pretty common!
No where near the same then.

Also - while globally population is increasing, the UK had a decreasing birthrate and aging population

Where are you getting this from? The UK population is growing - albeit at a slower rate - but it’s growing!

The U.K. birthrate is now lower than the ‘replacement rate’ needed to keep the population at a stable level.

Mass migration would be the other way to up the population, but that’s pretty unlikely to significantly increase the U.K. population in net terms in the foreseeable.

While the environment is definitely something we should think about, this whole “I’m not doing x or y because of climate change/I’m terrified for my children’s future because of climate change” attitude is completely hysterical.

When I was growing up it was called global warming, and it was estimated that the planet would have heated by several degrees by 2000. Now it’s 2030, I genuinely wonder what it will be by then.

While there is no doubt that many factors need to be considered e.g. emissions/single use plastic etc, historically the planet does go through cycles of warmth and then cooling, hence the ice age etc, and while we’re contributing to it, the climate change argument is less simplistic than “we’re terrified for the future.

You can say no to more for whatever reason you like, your dh can be upset about it too.
You have to work it out together.

Yanbu in not wanting another child. But climate change is a red herring as you would not have had any as they ALL will live with the results of climate change. Not having a third child won't stop it now.

Would you consider fostering or adoption if he wants a bigger family or are you (and it's fine) feeling the family is big enough to manage

HeartsAndClubs several degrees by 2000? You mean you weren't actually listening at school

I think the reasoning is that if you just have two children, you replace yourself and your partner. Whereas if you have three you replace yourselves, plus one.

That logic would work if people dropped dead the moment they had they second child.

If you don't want a third child then don't have one. Many people already had their children before climate change became the huge issue that it is today, but now some people are starting to think of the impact of larger families on the environment.
My issue is with those who think it's fine to have six, seven or more children, whether they can afford them or not.

We learned about global warming and issues arising from it when I was at school in the 70s. It makes me laugh to hear everyone going on like it's something that's just occurring out of the blue. Prince Charles has been warning about it since he was 17 and what is he now? 70 something?

Anyway, leaving climate change issues to one side for a minute, the world 'as you know it' is never going to be the same and it has always been so. The planet is forever evolving, changing, destroying over days, month and years. It will happen regardless of what we do to a greater or lesser extent. As a pp said, your 3rd child might be the one who finds the answers. Or they might be the one who finally pushes the red button. You will never know. Maybe our children will be the ones who turn it all around.

And whilst women have the final say in wether to have another child or not I think it's pretty awful to question the motives of a male wanting children.

Yanbu. I agree with you, OP.

If you don’t want a 3rd child that is entirely your choice and it overrules him wanting another one. (Would be same answer if your positions were reversed)

However, I do not agree that “all the facts suggest it is a bad idea” ...”due to climate change”

There is a lot of climate apocalypse alarmism making the rounds (as it has done for decades). Keep in mind that everything the scientists predict are based on projections, and so far, their predictions are more often wrong than right when it comes to climate change. So the facts are the facts, yes the planet is getting warmer, but the impacts of that warming and even how much warming will or will not occur are projections which are not certain and therefore have only different levels of probability of occurring.

@Chasingaftermidnight

It confuses me that 3 is too much due to climate change, but it was OK to have 2. You're worried for their lives, but you didn't stop to think of that before having them and it didn't worry you enough to not have them. Why not? Why was it OK to bring them into the world but not a third?

I think the reasoning is that if you just have two children, you replace yourself and your partner. Whereas if you have three you replace yourselves, plus one.

It's not like you are required to balance the books though. If you are environmentally minded then 0 children is much better than two.

But most people have two because it is an easy number of children to raise and then they polish their eco halo by not having a third.

@CatJumperTwat

I think the reasoning is that if you just have two children, you replace yourself and your partner. Whereas if you have three you replace yourselves, plus one.

That logic would work if people dropped dead the moment they had they second child.

No, it’s basic math. In fact, the zero growth replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman for high income, low mortality countries.

It's not like you are required to balance the books though.

Well at a U.K. population level if we end up with fewer new humans than older ones there’s a problem. Who will do the work and keep the economy going for the larger proportion of older and economically inactive people then?

For a zero growth population you need slightly more than 2 people per person on average. So some people having 3 children (where others may have 0, 1, 2 or more than 3) isn’t necessarily a bad thing for U.K. society overall.

2 people per couple sorry