Climate change and not having kids

[Appleofmyeye2023]

Not really AIBU, more chat and getting insight

DS up visiting this weekend. Aged 29 , living with partner in London and can’t afford to buy yet. So, really not ready to think about marriage or babies etc

but, we got chatting and it came up that his partner was opposed to having kids , and he was a bit, because it would be cruel and horrendous for them, that by the time those kids got to their 50s and 60s the world would be so effected by climate change that it would be at war for precious resources, thousands of people dying, and mass migration to find a way to survive .

im of the view, that yep, while things will get a lot tougher, humans have a capacity to make changes and adapt - technology will develop to meet those challenges, but all the time there isn’t a literal burning platform in developed countries, there won’t be the pressure and will politically to throw resources to really solve the issue- we’re playing around with the low hanging fruit currently, but things have to get a lot worse before there is a collective and money to really tackle climate change. So, I’m a bit more optimistic on this one. It seems so sad for that generation to be so “we’re doomed” to stop having children?

I am wondering, how common is this amongst the late 20s and early 30s generation? Or is this a bit extreme?

Should say they are both pretty intelligent and DS’s partner works in field of sustainability in developing countries, has lived all over the world, she’s not British by birth, and is not a conspiracy theorist !

I can understand why young people might choose not to have children (even with things other than environment) and I don't think I'll have any grandchildren. From that perspective, I feel free from worry about what happens in 100+ years. With or without us, this earth will continue.

You think it's fine to have billions of elderly people and not enough young people to keep the world running?

People that don’t believe those who say climate change is the reason they don’t have kids...why not? Those people usually care more and want to look after the living beings & nature that are alive now. Not some make believe baby that doesn’t exist!

I wonder what makes people so sure that, after millions of years, this is the generation that won't be able to cope. If I look back to 1860s Ireland I see a country devastated by famine and emigration - at the point people could have said 'no point in having children, let's just stop' but they didn't and now Ireland is a fantastic place to live with huge opportunity. Every generation has had challenges - sometimes massive ones - but this decision to just not carry on seems to be new (or maybe not spoken about so much in previous generations?)

Do you really think just adding more and more people into the equation will solve that issue?

To use your own reasoning, people are basing their decision on something that may or may not happen in the future - a 'make believe' future. What if they find in their later years that none of the dire predictions came true?

On a slightly related note, I don't think someone having a difficult life is any reason for them not to exist. My children might have an extremely rough time. I'm still very glad they're here.

There's loads of research that concludes that under population is the biggest threat ! Where have people been? Are you only reading within an echo chamber?

Ridiculous reasoning…are you really condoning breeding children to look after you in your old age? You might be in for a nasty shock if they have other ideas!

A lot of jobs, including care of the elderly will be replaced with technology, AI, robots, so less people is a good thing all round in my opinion, especially for the environment.

You don't seem to understand, it's not about number of people, it's about balance. Previous generations had a lot more children than the current generation. Those people already exist and will get old. Without a supply of younger people, there will be a huge imbalance. It's fine for the population to go down, in fact, it's a good thing. But it's not a good thing for one generation to just opt out of having children wholesale - a huge sudden drop is not manageable.

What an extremely odd thing to say.

Let me explain more clearly. I thought this was easy to understand but it's not.

If you have billions of elderly people but a lack of younger people to grow food, there will be a food shortage.

If you have billions of elderly people but a lack of younger people to provide medical care, there will be a lack of medical care.

If you have billions of elderly people but no younger people to run the transport system, it will fall apart.

If you have a particular country full of retired people and a lack of younger people in work and paying taxes, the country will struggle economically.

It might be true that when you're elderly a robot will give you your pills. Who will service that robot? Who will repair it when it breaks? Who will talk to you, take you out for a walk?

The challenges of the past didn't tent to be global and / or permanent in their nature i.e., you could move somewhere or wait it out.

Climate change on the other hand IS permanent and global. For example, there's about a 2.5% reduction in total insect mass recorded every year and this is already impacting other areas including food production and flora / fauna biodiversity.

How do you propose someone in Ireland or Nigeria or Brazil cope when yeilds from global food systems become severely
reduced and / or collapse?

What I'm wondering is why no one imagines things could be different? As in, that the disaster scenario isn't inevitable? Or that yes there will be horrible times but we'll get through as before and a new equilibrium will be found?

In the 50s and 60s there was the constant threat of nuclear war and some were convinced the world was going to end - ie a global threat. Had people made a decision not to have children based on that they'd find it wasn't necessary - their child would be in its 60s or 70s and likely have had a pretty ordinary life. The world could end tomorrow due to some unforeseen circumstance. Who knows?

Ireland's population is still not at 1845 levels after a ma-made famine, and in the past women had less/no choice about family planning. It is only relatively recently women have had access to reliable contraception and the ability to plan families....

Climate change is one of the reasons I don’t have children, but it’s by no means the primary one. Far higher up the list is that there are plenty of children and if I really wanted to look after one, I could consider adoption.

I just don’t think my genes are amazing enough to warrant passing them on. The world will do just fine without another me.

True. That doesn't change the fact that people kept going in the face of huge obstacles and I'm bloody glad they did!

Well maybe previous generations should have planned better on how they'd manage this situation? There's nothing stopping them from taking action now to address the situation, other than they don't want to as it'll impact their standard of living.

Well me and DH decided over 40 years ago that bringing children into this world was not a good idea. We mainly based that on overpopulation but now as well as the UK being far too overcrowded there is also climate change that makes us so so glad we made the right choice.

There have always been reasons not to have kids at any point in human history. It's only extremely recently that there has been a choice in the matter.

This is a genuine question - what do you mean? What actions could they take? Population collapse is caused by the next generation choosing not to have children, the previous generation doesn't have control over that.

This is a relevant point. In the past it was a case of two options: have children, or never have sex (fertility dependent of course). There has always been a belief that there's a biological drive to have children but that doesn't seem quite true given that when people have a genuine choice, many choose not to have them. It's very interesting - something I'm very curious about.

We're just going to have to adapt and move away from an economic model that relies on population growth.

As I am not having grandchildren, I have just stuck my head in the sand and choose not to stress about it all. That doesn't mean I live an environmentally irresponsible life.

@TheaBrandt "And yet there are threads on here with women merrily planning to ttc their third
or even fourth child. Deluded"

Who's deluded? The ones having children or the ones not?

Because any attempt at making things different is met with complete resistance from those who need to change. Just look at any thread about climate change or sustainability. It's filled with "well I'm not changing the way I live" posts.

Nuclear war and climate change are incomparable. Nuclear war was only ever a threat, climate change isn't under the control of a specific government or person. It can't be reasoned with or bought and it is already happening, right in front of our eyes AND still there's a refusal to accept it.

We know what needs to be done, we have the ability and technology to do it, but we don't have the will. That's why people are losing hope.

Can you cite some credible sources?

I see. It's not really about an economic model, it's just pure practicality. You need young bodies to balance out the old bodies. Population can decline (and really should) but not suddenly - it leaves a gap.

My concern is that when the men of the world suddenly start to see the economic impact of population decline they'll start to take the action men take (ie coercion, aggression etc). Some countries have started to do a softer version of this but I foresee it getting more persuasive over time. The Roe v Wade debacle in the US is not a chance event.