Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
One-child families

Got questions about only having one child? Find the answers here.

Original poster

Has anyone decided not to have more DC for environmental reasons?

118 replies

KlingybunFistelvase · 06/12/2016 16:33

Just that really.

DH and I were about to start TTC DC2, but we're having a rethink ATM. One of the big factors for me is carbon footprint / impact on the environment. Wondered if this is something other people considered when deciding whether to try for a second / third / fourth?

OP posts:
ppeatfruit · 13/12/2016 09:19

I hope you can find a high enough mountain to live on with your family so that you can continue being so carefree when the seas (which are already warming up) continue to warm up and rise northern Hmm

ProfYaffle · 13/12/2016 09:26

We have 2 dc but dh felt very strongly we shouldn't have any more for Environmental reasons. I didn't have his depth of feeling on that issue but didn't want a 3rd for other reasons.

(btw I'm an only. I used to love being at home precisely because there were no other kids there to mess with my stuff!)

Northernlurker · 13/12/2016 16:51

It's just so Guardian reading worthy to factor this in. Heaven forbid anybody have a baby because they want to Wink
I'm sure if you have the gravitas to include this issue in your decision making, you also have the resilience to cope with me finding it amusing.

MaryBerrybeard · 14/12/2016 00:35

Northern - this is the one child families section of MN so I'm not sure why you're sticking your beak in here if you have 3 DC. I don't spout off on the larger families, lone parents or bi-lingual families boards.

Am also bemused by your anecdote about the only child who said his lacking a sibling was a form of child abuse Hmm but I don't think you knew where you were going with that either...

madnessdescending · 14/12/2016 00:52

I don't think I would have a child now, with the current knowledge about global warming. I know that that's easy to say though, as I already have 2 (teenagers). I do talk to my DDs about what a mess the world is in, and advise them to think very carefully about what they do, and talk about the option of adopting. I'm the opposite of the mum who pressurises her dds into giving her grandchildren - I really hope that they don't.

madnessdescending · 14/12/2016 01:00

Not impressed by the argument that you have 4 children because that's what you want, and teach them about the environment, and that's fine. So do they never get in a car or a plane, buy imported food and clothes, etc etc?

GardenGeek · 14/12/2016 01:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BroadBeanSlippers · 14/12/2016 01:10

If I knew five years ago what I know now (am much more aware these days) I would definitely not have had children. As it is, I won't be having anymore children as we decided to stop at two.

BroadBeanSlippers · 14/12/2016 01:11

Oh sorry - I didn't realise I'd posted in the "one child" section. But I guess my comment might still be relevant.

OliviaBensonOnAGoodDay · 14/12/2016 01:18

Yes OP it's a factor for us.

OliviaBensonOnAGoodDay · 14/12/2016 01:19

And I don't get why people are scoffing at it - yes, what dicks we are, caring about the world and other people in it Hmm

ppeatfruit · 14/12/2016 10:00

I get why people scoff Olivia It's because they know in their hearts that we're right but it's upsetting, which of course it is Xmas Sad

OliviaBensonOnAGoodDay · 14/12/2016 11:42

Yes I think you're right ppeat

titchy · 14/12/2016 11:59

Ok well I think you're barking to base such a personal decision on a very flawed environmental argument. Assuming you live in the west you have enough resources to feed clothe and educate any subsequent children. If you don't you shouldn't have had any...

Globally the population increase will stop in around 30 years regardless of what you do.

Rising sea levels? What's that got to do with subsequent children?

BroadBeanSlippers · 14/12/2016 14:20

titchy have a read about climate change. Its impacts on our children will be far, far greater than rising sea levels.

LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett · 14/12/2016 14:25

Yes, it was a factor for us too. Both in the resources they would consume and in the compromises we would have to make. For eg we only eat organic meat and as much of it as possible is local, we get an organic veg box, etc. A lot of the choices we have made would be unaffordable if we had a larger number of children.

Muppetslikecoco · 14/12/2016 14:57

A factor for us too. We have almost certainly decided to stop at one and it helps confirm the choice for us.

titchy · 14/12/2016 15:03

broadbeanslippers so why did you have ANY children then if you think climate change will be so disastrous for them?

You see those arguments don't stack up unless you choose to be childfree. You're effectively saying 'Hey first born you're futuresfucked: deal with it, but we love your non-existent sibling enough not to inflict a dreadful future on them.'

BroadBeanSlippers · 14/12/2016 15:09

As I already mentioned above, if I knew then what I know now I would not have had children, 100%. I am greatly worried for their future. Unfortunately I had no idea about the reality of the situation seven or so years ago.

Original poster
KlingybunFistelvase · 14/12/2016 16:02

I can't really say if I would have a first child now, knowing what I do now. Probably not, but I couldn't swear to that. I did love being pregnant and having a child was something I'd always wanted. Now I'm really worried for her future and just hope she can cobble together a reasonable existence. Grandchildren? I'm not hoping to have any.

OP posts:
LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett · 14/12/2016 17:07

I had no intention of ever having a child titchy. I can only describe the longing that came over me as a biological imperative - it was irresistable. Once I had DS that feeling never came back, so the discussion about having another child was based on much more rational factors. I'm aware that's not particularly logical, but hey.

You do seem rather irked by this debate though. I would echo pps and say we're not stomping all over the large families boards sneering at other people's choices...

ppeatfruit · 14/12/2016 17:24

Titchy When I say rising sea levels, I mean in 30 or more years 1\2 to 3\4 of the world could be under water. If the ice cap continues melting at the rate that it is now. (There was a frightening programme about 'civilisation' in Alaska a month or so ago already melting the permafrost) Don't you think that that might affect our children and grandchildren?

titchy · 14/12/2016 17:29

ppea - over 70% of the world NOW is covered with water!

ppeatfruit · 14/12/2016 17:37

You know what I mean! The occupied earth, or the bits that aren't covered by the ocean now,will be.

Original poster
KlingybunFistelvase · 14/12/2016 17:44

Fucking hell pp! That is such a scary figure! I thought I'd read all of the terrifying predictions but hadn't heard that one. Do you have a link to it? I'm not doubting you at all, I'm genuinely interested to read it.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread