Page 24 | the "don't have kids if u can't afford them" mentality...

MermaidCheeks · 2022-08-06T13:23:35+00:00

Who exactly do this lot think are going to be looking after them in hospitals and care homes when they're elderly and infirm? If only those who could *really afford* to have kids had them - a decreasing well-off demographic -we'd be even more fucked than we already are. Immigration is not a long-term solution when 80% of elderly are going to be spread across low and middle-affluent countries by 2050, either. Every country is going to need their own citizens. Instead of resenting people who need their wages topped-up by the government in order to afford having a couple of kids - maybe embrace those who are making sacrifices to have kids at all, especially in the face of the overwhelming decrease in value that society and successive governments have placed on the role of raising children.

oiltrader · 15/08/2022 15:35

DillAte · 15/08/2022 13:13

@DangerouslyBored
Being conscious isn't the same as being effective.
Children make life more difficult and parents will make things more convenient for themselves.
Driving a gas guzzler to cart your kids around does the same environmental damage whether you feel guilty about it or not.
If a generation committed to breeding only half it's number, a lot of our existential worries would disappear overnight (albeit with some short-term "discomfort").

exctly

Maisa45 · 15/08/2022 15:49

My parasitic neighbours who don't work an claim benefits have just had their second kid and have a never ending stream of deliveries and a fancy car when DH and I both work and can't afford another.

A member of my family is pregnant with her fourth kid. One of her kids has SEN and she already can't cope and hasn't worked since the age of about 18/19.

I get that circumstances change - I claimed benefits myself at one point to top up a low wage when living alone - but some people take the piss and should stop having children.

cheekychatta · 15/08/2022 16:46

If you have one of each what else can you have ? You see so many families where people have three kids because they tried for a boy or girl after having two of the same sex . I had two of the same sex but didn't want anymore because we would have struggled with three and we were both working. But each to their own .

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 16:47

BigChesterDraws · 06/08/2022 15:03

Oh goodie, the old “my children will be working to pay your pension” myth. No, they won’t. The working childless people have paid more than their fair share into the pension pot throughout their lives. They have continuously paid into the “general welfare fund” without receiving child benefit, SMP, tax credits, free school meals, or any other such benefits.

Your children will be working for their own pension. If they have a job. They could be on the dole their entire lives, in prison, unable to work through accident or illness. No one can predict the future.

Who do we think will be caring for us in old age? If we need care, and remember not every 80-year-old is in a nursing home and advances in science mean that people are living independently longer, it will be someone that we pay to look after us. Your children might be glad of the job opportunity.

So you'll be stacking the shelves in Tesco in your 80s? You'll be driving the bus? You'll be performing a hip replacement on yourself?

Honestly.....

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 16:52

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 11:15

Those I know who have children are, on the whole, a lot more environmentally conscious.

Oh absolutely. Except for the part where having a child is the worst thing you can do for the environment by a very long way, of course.

Rainbow......please just be happy with your life and stop coming to Mumsnet to $h!t on parents

This is also a ridiculous narrative to take ie babies being bad for the planet. We don't have an overpopulation problem, we have an overconsumption problem

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 17:00

SoapboxJudges · 08/08/2022 08:45

Why is your anger targeted at individuals having babies - a very natural and organic process. Why are you not targeting your fury at the outrageous organisations who profiteer from the destruction of the planet whilst actively working to spread misinformation about the climate crisis so that they can defer regulation of their industry as much as possible and continue their destructive habits? We know the world is riddled with climate sceptics who have fuelled the debate of whether climate change is real when really there is no debate to be had. The likes of trump being elected as leaders of the most powerful countries where, if behaviourial change were to occur, the impact for the planet would be very real - is not a 'by chance' occurrence - there are active forces at play.

What matters is human consumption of precious resources. Why are we not already pressing those in power to make the change we all want to see? Why are political parties with green credentials not already running our countries? Why are we choosing politicians who promote greed and self interest over thosr who put the environment first? Humans have existed for most of time without damaging the planet in the ways we are now. It is not a certainty written in stone that more humans = more damage.

We, as a species, over eat, we over consume, we've voted in repeatedly political systems that foster and promote captialsitic models where "economic growth" must happen at all costs. Why are we not questioning these models ? This is where human behaviour has become destructive. having children has always and will always be a natural drive.

We have fewer children on average in more wealthy countries because we are more certain of their survival to a reproductive age, and this trend will continue. Where once natural disasters, child and maternal mortality, ill health and old age were big risks to life expectancy, good medical intervention means we are having fewer children and offering them a better standard of living. Rapid population growth has been a temporary phenomenon is most countries quickly followed by a decline in birth rate.

What is interesting, however, is a study in 2020 which revealed that the carbon emissions of the richest 1% of the world's population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity! Looking at the consumption emissions of different income groups in a period which saw the doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the report found that the richest 10% blew one third of our remaining global carbon budget compared to just 4% of the poorest half of the population. So not only are the Jacob Rees Mogs and Boris' progeny worse by far for their consumption levels, they are infinitely worse because they are personally responsible for why we have not yet begun to tackle the climate crisis when they had the power to affect policy and bring about real change.

Tim Gore, the head of the climate policy at Oxfam said "the over consumption if a wealthy minority is fuelling the climate crisis, yet it is poor communities and young people who are paying the price. Such extreme carbon inequality is a direct consequence of our governments decades long pursuit of grossly unequal and carbon intensive economic growth."

So push your MPs and your government ministers to do more and act faster instead of turning your hatred to those in society who are the least powerful. It plays out like playground bullying. Have we not moved past this level of debate now.

Just wanted to let you know that your input into the thread has been appreciated by me.

You're a very logical and informed person, I can imagine this entire topic must be a very frustrating one for you with the amount of ignorance that's being banded about here.

SofiaSoFar · 15/08/2022 17:21

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 11:15

Those I know who have children are, on the whole, a lot more environmentally conscious.

Oh absolutely. Except for the part where having a child is the worst thing you can do for the environment by a very long way, of course.

Exactly this^^

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 17:25

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 16:52

Rainbow......please just be happy with your life and stop coming to Mumsnet to $h!t on parents

This is also a ridiculous narrative to take ie babies being bad for the planet. We don't have an overpopulation problem, we have an overconsumption problem

Show quote history

Pointing out that parents can’t be the most environmentally conscious people if they’re doing the worst thing, by far, that your average person can do for the environment isn’t shutting on them. It’s just correcting a factual error.

And consumption is inherently linked to population. If you’re having s baby in a Western country then it’s going to grow up and consume. I agree that we need to tackle capitalism but you can’t just wave away the climate impact of your children by saying you use cloth nappies or whatever.

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 18:27

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 17:25

Pointing out that parents can’t be the most environmentally conscious people if they’re doing the worst thing, by far, that your average person can do for the environment isn’t shutting on them. It’s just correcting a factual error.

And consumption is inherently linked to population. If you’re having s baby in a Western country then it’s going to grow up and consume. I agree that we need to tackle capitalism but you can’t just wave away the climate impact of your children by saying you use cloth nappies or whatever.

Show quote history

The most populous continents are not responsible for the emissions we have today. Civilization existed for thousands of years without causing the level of emissions we see today.

You are again wrong.

A childless person who takes flights *2 a year has a much larger carbon footprint than a person with 10 kids who lives in a hunter gatherer community.

Population isn't inherently the problem.

DillAte · 15/08/2022 19:17

A childless person who takes flights 2 a year has a much larger carbon footprint than a person with 10 kids who lives in a hunter gatherer community.*

Whilst I'm sure there are plenty of hunter-gatherers with internet access and maybe even a few posting on Mumsnet, this is not the userbase, or the societies they live in, by-and-large.

Most Mumsnet users do live in societies that overconsume. They will produce overconsumers who will, ideally, produce more overconsumers (because "who will pay their pensions, wipe their elderly bums etc.") so that is what we're talking about.

To the point of the topic, a childless person in a overconsuming society probably deserves some sort of recognition if they manage to outdo the carbon emissions of an entire family and their descendants.

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 19:42

Cookiesareworthit · 15/08/2022 18:27

The most populous continents are not responsible for the emissions we have today. Civilization existed for thousands of years without causing the level of emissions we see today.

You are again wrong.

A childless person who takes flights *2 a year has a much larger carbon footprint than a person with 10 kids who lives in a hunter gatherer community.

Population isn't inherently the problem.

Show quote history

Yes, we’re literally making the same point. People on MN are not typically hunter gatherers, they’re consumers and so will their children be. That’s why the environmental impact of having a child in the West far exceeds anything done by a childless person. So calling Western parents more environmentally conscious than people without is nonsense.

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 15/08/2022 23:27

antelopevalley · 15/08/2022 01:59

Yes get rid of all those elderly and disabled people by killing them.

It’s so very Mumsnet - they’ve had their youth / time, now please just die.

Watchthesunrise · 16/08/2022 02:26

antelopevalley · 15/08/2022 01:59

Yes get rid of all those elderly and disabled people by killing them.

Not by killing them . By graciously letting them for when they want to or by restricting funding for medical interventions past a certain age. Letting people age and die naturally like they should.

Watchthesunrise · 16/08/2022 02:27

Can't live forever 💁

LuftBalloons · 16/08/2022 06:27

By graciously letting them for when they want to or by restricting funding for medical interventions past a certain age. Letting people age and die naturally like they should.

Chilling

Cookiesareworthit · 16/08/2022 06:28

rainbowmilk · 15/08/2022 19:42

Yes, we’re literally making the same point. People on MN are not typically hunter gatherers, they’re consumers and so will their children be. That’s why the environmental impact of having a child in the West far exceeds anything done by a childless person. So calling Western parents more environmentally conscious than people without is nonsense.

Show quote history

No we aren't making the same point. You as usual took the opportunity to take a pop at parents rather than focusing on western lifestyles being behind climate change.

I'd also hasten to add a family of 5 who can't afford flights and take public transport than a childless person who flies multiple times a year and has their own car.

Cookiesareworthit · 16/08/2022 06:30

Cookiesareworthit · 16/08/2022 06:28

No we aren't making the same point. You as usual took the opportunity to take a pop at parents rather than focusing on western lifestyles being behind climate change.

I'd also hasten to add a family of 5 who can't afford flights and take public transport than a childless person who flies multiple times a year and has their own car.

Show quote history

Meant to say has less impact than a childless person who flies several times a year and has their own car

Mumsnet let us edit

rainbowmilk · 16/08/2022 08:11

Cookiesareworthit · 16/08/2022 06:30

Meant to say has less impact than a childless person who flies several times a year and has their own car

Mumsnet let us edit

Show quote history

Wrong.

amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

rainbowmilk · 16/08/2022 08:13

Tonnes of C02 involved in having one fewer child, avoiding a transatlantic flight, and living car free.

the "don't have kids if u can't afford them" mentality...

Cornettoninja · 16/08/2022 09:43

@rainbowmilk what timescales are the figures on that diagram based on? Over a lifetime, year or per each time iyswim? i think it’s the specification of one transatlantic flight that’s thrown me, it’s not really clear.

rainbowmilk · 16/08/2022 09:57

Cornettoninja · 16/08/2022 09:43

@rainbowmilk what timescales are the figures on that diagram based on? Over a lifetime, year or per each time iyswim? i think it’s the specification of one transatlantic flight that’s thrown me, it’s not really clear.

It's based on tonnes of CO2 per year for one person undertaking each action. So for one fewer child, it's 58.6 tonnes per year. For avoiding one return transatlantic trip, it's 1.60 tonnes per year. Naturally if one person takes several transatlantic trips, that 1.60 tonne figure will increase, but a childless person would have to take around 34 return transatlantic trips every year, and run a car every year, to equal just one child.

Cornettoninja · 16/08/2022 10:07

Thank you!

I was trying to figure out how it was right that if I did all my washing on cold and hung it out I might ‘save’ enough to put towards one return flight but I presume they’ve already worked that out on an average years usage

LuftBalloons · 16/08/2022 12:28

It's based on tonnes of CO2 per year for one person undertaking each action. So for one fewer child, it's 58.6 tonnes per year. For avoiding one return transatlantic trip, it's 1.60 tonnes per year. Naturally if one person takes several transatlantic trips, that 1.60 tonne figure will increase, but a childless person would have to take around 34 return transatlantic trips every year, and run a car every year, to equal just one child

Thanks for laying this out so clearly @rainbowmilk. I find people who go on about not flying, and going onto a plant-based diet, are a bit taken aback when one says to them that a) their several DC are using up more resources than my overseas flights ever will; and b) they should give up all their cars.

rainbowmilk · 16/08/2022 12:35

LuftBalloons · 16/08/2022 12:28

It's based on tonnes of CO2 per year for one person undertaking each action. So for one fewer child, it's 58.6 tonnes per year. For avoiding one return transatlantic trip, it's 1.60 tonnes per year. Naturally if one person takes several transatlantic trips, that 1.60 tonne figure will increase, but a childless person would have to take around 34 return transatlantic trips every year, and run a car every year, to equal just one child

Thanks for laying this out so clearly @rainbowmilk. I find people who go on about not flying, and going onto a plant-based diet, are a bit taken aback when one says to them that a) their several DC are using up more resources than my overseas flights ever will; and b) they should give up all their cars.

You're welcome. I'm a vegetarian carless childless person and I got tired of being lectured about not doing enough to combat climate change by one of my colleagues (who has 5 children and runs a diesel van). I dug out the statistics and she's not spoken to me since. Climate illiteracy is a big problem. Of course plane flights aren't great and should be avoided (I haven't flown in four years), and car use should be minimised, but they're a drop in the ocean compared to having children. And yet all I hear is that parents are apparently most environmentally-conscious that us selfish childless people. Very odd.

IRememberXanadu · 16/08/2022 14:21

Very easy to see here - this is from www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children