8 ms·

My partner and I are going through some anxiety thinking about all of this. We are not having children because of climate change, and are hoping that our friend

My partner and I are going through some anxiety thinking about all of this. We are not having children because of climate change, and are hoping that our friends and family will follow suit. We have decided against any further air travel, given our cats to a friend, and even had some grim conversations about what to do when we are too old to be effective. I don't know how we can't beat this without removing capitalism or a drastic change and reduction in the lifestyle a lot of the West lives on. When will we hit our breaking point and just say so to the lifestyles that depend on colonialism and exploitation which thrash our planet.

dessant 7y ago
Oh sweet pea, don't forbid yourselves from having children because of climate change. :( Your family can still live a conscious life, and you get to rise the most awesome climate change fighters the world has ever seen!
- brightball 7y ago
  Agreed. I don’t understand the mindset of not having kids because of climate change. You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet while others who won’t continue on. When I hear things like that, it sounds to me like giving up and preparing for the end. And at the same time I take that with what seems like numerous different acts of messaging directed towards guilting people into not having families...and I can’t help but wonder if that message is benign or malicious.
  - Daishiman 7y ago
    If statically speaking, preparing for the end is the sanest course of action because it does appear to be the most likely scenario within the next 50 years, why wouldn't it be the right mindset?
    - brightball 7y ago
      Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years. But more specifically, is everybody on earth getting the same message? If not...why?
      - Daishiman 7y ago
        > Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? For those of us who don't have a particularly strong desire to have children this is very much a dealbreaker. > It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years. The only way that would be the case is if you ignore the evidence that makes the current situation untentable in a way that no other prior instance of history has been.
        brightball 7y ago
        The current situation? We’ve previously had the threat of nuclear war situation and 2 world wars in the last 100 years. With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere, we could be having a totally different conversation.
        ForHackernews 7y ago
        > With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere ... and reverse the laws of thermodynamics, too! Recapturing atmospheric CO2 means working to transform from a high-entropy state to a lower-entropy state. That's not going to happen for free. So you need to have: 1) A fast efficient carbon-capture mechanism. 2) A way to generate lots and lots of power that doesn't itself produce CO2. You're not describing a "single scientific advance" as much as you're describing dozens or hundreds of major feats of engineering. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I would not bet the planet on it.
        7y ago
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    The mindset is not bringing more humans into the world to suffer on a planet with too little arable land and potable water left. > You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet It's too late for that. This is a crisis for people who are adults today to address, or it will be too late. The IPCC says we have to cut global emissions by 50% by 2030. We can't wait for your little Jr to grow up and maybe turn out to be an environmentalist.
- Daishiman 7y ago
  Or not? Children are free to follow suit with whatever life pursuits they desire. The vast majority of people won't be consciously fighhting the climate and consume vast amounts of resources. I feel that the excuses for having children when we know the collapse of most ecosystems is essentially inevitable at this point just hide the lack of ethics on the matter.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    It's not unethical to have children and no one needs an excuse to have them. Technically speaking, it's literally the only reason there is any life on earth. Don't have them if you don't want them, but this isn't an area where you can dictate someone else's choices.
    - jddj 7y ago
      There must exist a point where it becomes unethical to have children.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        Ethics are a human framework that doesn't exist if there are no humans. To end child birth isn't ethical, it's the end of ethics.
        jddj 7y ago
        And if you were to trace back in time one generation from there, you'd discover the point where it became unethical to have children.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      Parent comment isn't a dictator. He can't 'dictate' whether you procreate or not, but he's arguing that it may be unethical to cause more suffering by doing so.
      - 7y ago
- makerofspoons 7y ago
  There is little time to raise 'the most awesome climate change fighters the world has ever seen'. By some indications and projections you'll just be birthing these children to live a short, brutal life.
  - techrich 7y ago
    In 10 years it all over.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I'm very curious how someone who holds your beliefs imagines the world will be in 10 years. "Short, brutal life" sounds like you're picturing billions of people roasting to death in the sun or maybe some sort of ecological inspired genocide? When you visualize the human race on planet earth in 10 years, what are you imagining? This isn't a snarky question btw, I'm genuinely curious.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      Well, if you are in some places in India for example we expect heatwaves that are simply not survivable for anyone within a few decades. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-change-to-cause-humid-heatwaves-that-will-kill-even-healthy-people https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-...
    - makerofspoons 7y ago
      10 years is too soon- more like 20 in my worldview (still a very brief life for someone born today). Here are a few things I see in 20 years: - Human population in decline - Industrial output per capita in decline - Food production per capita in decline - Resources in decline - Pollution will ultimately peak We have not meaningfully deviated from the collapse predicted in 'The Limits of Growth': https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits...
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
phil248 7y ago
How does giving your cats to a friend relieve you of the burden they place on the planet? It seems like you're just passing the buck in that instance.
- 11235813213455 7y ago
  Think about more than 1 billions pets in the world, think about all the industry, transports, pollution related to them, think about the damages of outdoor/feral cats to the local fauna If more people have this in mind, imagine how much pollution can be saved
  - ssijak 7y ago
    Giving a cat to a friend does not remove a cat from planet Earth, unless that friend likes to eat cat burgers which is unlikely.
    - barkingcat 7y ago
      I would like a cat burger! Please give me a cat you don't need!
    - cvbczxbcxv 7y ago
      Because the friend was going to buy a cat anyways, therefore, globally, a new cat does not need to spawned.
      - futureastronaut 7y ago
        There are a ton of extra cats regardless of demand.
    - 11235813213455 7y ago
      obviously I'm more for neutering, gently eliminating them globally
      - 7y ago
11235813213455 7y ago
I agree with you, the important is that everyone reduce their environmental fingerprint (less consumption, this is what pull production and all the pollution) Our planet could welcome 10 billions 'respectful' persons with a low fingerprint. But it already can't support most of the 3 billions first-world people with very high fingerprint You can still have one child, and raise him well, in a non-consumerist way
false-mirror 7y ago
Remember that only 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate change. Obsessing with personal lifestyle changes will burn you out and have very little payoff. Sure if public transit or going vegan is easy for ya, then definitely go for it-- but save your energy for political activism imo. Power structures inform lifestyles more than the other way around.
- 11235813213455 7y ago
  Remember that lifestyles is actually what pull those companies production. It's easy to lower your environmental fingerprint to 5% of the average in first-world countries, if most people do this, the change is just massive No offense, but we are going nowhere with your mentality
  - joshypants 7y ago
    They're correct actually. We've been overcompensating on personal responsibility, but changing personal behaviors won't save us from climate change. It's not enough. We need massive political mobilization and aggressive government action.
    - WhompingWindows 7y ago
      We can both reduce individual footprints AND have companies reduce their footprints. No need for either/or thinking here.
      - joshypants 7y ago
        What we're talking about is putting a halt to expending political capital on shaming people into being "green," "eco-friendly," or "sustainable" to save "the environment" and instead recognizing that we need drastic action to remove literally billions of people from grave danger. We're not going to ask companies to reduce footprints, we need to decimate the fossil fuel industry as fast as possible or we're cooked.
  - 7y ago
pcstl 7y ago
Not having children because of climate change really seems like a terrible idea. More people increase humanity's power to solve problems.
- mempko 7y ago
  What if climate change isn't a problem but a predicament with no solution?
  - pcstl 7y ago
    Then not having children won't change anything.
    - makerofspoons 7y ago
      It will prevent bringing a human being in the world to live briefly and then starve to death.
      - kgwgk 7y ago
        Climate warming or not, every human lives briefly and dies.
        makerofspoons 7y ago
        ~70 years versus ~30 years, dying of cancer or old age vs. starvation or resource-motivated violence. They really are not comparable.
        kgwgk 7y ago
        People who think starvation or resource-motivated violence due to global warming will be a leading cause of death in 30 years are delusional. Unrelated, but funny: The NPS Removes all “Glaciers Gone by 2020” signs at Glacier National Park, Montana after “Larger-than-Average Snowfall over Several Winters” https://electroverse.net/the-nps-removes-all-glaciers-gone-by-2020-signs-at-glacier-national-park-montana-after-larger-than-average-snowfall-over-several-winters/ https://electroverse.net/the-nps-removes-all-glaciers-gone-b...
christiansakai 7y ago
Not sure why you are downvoted. I've been thinking about this as well. One individual change probably can't do much but, what I've been trying to do: - consume less food - eat more vegetables - less red meat - spend less in eating out or buying drinks out - if I do buy drinks, I try to get paper cup - stick with boring phone and mac and don't chase shiny toys - use less plastic - drink water vs coffee/tea - use public transportation - travel just once a year - use more efficient language (i.e., Rust) - if I have a home one day I'll be filling it with plants
- mempko 7y ago
  This is my guess. They are being downvoted because the downvoters are offended by any criticism of capitalism. I mean, global warming is kind of a huge problem where we need to re-evaluate everything. That's scary.
- evandev 7y ago
  Is using a more efficient language really going to help anything? See Jevons Paradox[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
natalyarostova 7y ago
There have been very very few, if any, cohorts of humans who have not faced existential dread head on. Whether it was the tribe across the valley that wants to kill you, the barbarians raiding from foreign lands, the meat grinder of trench warfare, plagues that wipe out 60% of your society, burning fire dropped on your head from a warring nation, or just the dull, banal, existential dread of personal tragedy and the fragility of life. Your ancestors managed to get through it, and have children, and their children managed to solve problems that they couldn't fathom at the time. They didn't just give up. This modern fatalism is pathetic.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  The first thing that came to mind reading some of these comments was Bill Pullman's speech from Independence Day: "We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!” https://youtu.be/9t1IK_9apWs https://youtu.be/9t1IK_9apWs To just roll over and say "Meh, screw life and the very instinct of overcoming adversity to survive under any conditions, I'll just concede defeat instead.".....you described it accurately: pathetic.
- antisthenes 7y ago
  We are not fundamentally giving anything up if we reduce our energy usage. All the stuff on the hierarchy of needs - love, accomplishment, community, knowledge, none of it is especially energy intensive. Food and housing are, somewhat, but it's pretty clear that the pendulum in that area has swung too far in the other direction (obesity/mcmansions, etc.) I think you're right and we'll be just fine. We'll just use less stuff. And stuff will generally be more energy efficient.
  - natalyarostova 7y ago
    I think what will probably happen* is things will get really really bad, then humanity will finally band together, and teams of engineers will put 50-100 year advances of technology to use and figure out how to solve this problem, along the way creating some heroes of humanity that will go down in history. * This will probably not happen, as forecasts 50-100 years in the future never come true.
petermcneeley 7y ago
This is called a conscientious tax and game theory does not support your decision.
simongr3dal 7y ago
Screwing up the bottom of the population pyramid will probably not do the world much good, it needs to be a very gradual ramp down or it will create havok by tanking production in the future to where we might not be able to sustain anything at all. Wether having that extra thing to worry about beyond climate change is preferable to having a harder time fighting climate change is beyond me.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lorcan 7y ago
Dont worry, the 3rd world will more than make up for your abstinence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#/media/File:World_population_(UN).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...

dessant 7y ago

Oh sweet pea, don't forbid yourselves from having children because of climate change. :( Your family can still live a conscious life, and you get to rise the most awesome climate change fighters the world has ever seen!

brightball 7y ago
Agreed. I don’t understand the mindset of not having kids because of climate change. You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet while others who won’t continue on. When I hear things like that, it sounds to me like giving up and preparing for the end. And at the same time I take that with what seems like numerous different acts of messaging directed towards guilting people into not having families...and I can’t help but wonder if that message is benign or malicious.
- Daishiman 7y ago
  If statically speaking, preparing for the end is the sanest course of action because it does appear to be the most likely scenario within the next 50 years, why wouldn't it be the right mindset?
  - brightball 7y ago
    Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years. But more specifically, is everybody on earth getting the same message? If not...why?
    - Daishiman 7y ago
      > Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? For those of us who don't have a particularly strong desire to have children this is very much a dealbreaker. > It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years. The only way that would be the case is if you ignore the evidence that makes the current situation untentable in a way that no other prior instance of history has been.
      - brightball 7y ago
        The current situation? We’ve previously had the threat of nuclear war situation and 2 world wars in the last 100 years. With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere, we could be having a totally different conversation.
        ForHackernews 7y ago
        > With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere ... and reverse the laws of thermodynamics, too! Recapturing atmospheric CO2 means working to transform from a high-entropy state to a lower-entropy state. That's not going to happen for free. So you need to have: 1) A fast efficient carbon-capture mechanism. 2) A way to generate lots and lots of power that doesn't itself produce CO2. You're not describing a "single scientific advance" as much as you're describing dozens or hundreds of major feats of engineering. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I would not bet the planet on it.
        7y ago
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  The mindset is not bringing more humans into the world to suffer on a planet with too little arable land and potable water left. > You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet It's too late for that. This is a crisis for people who are adults today to address, or it will be too late. The IPCC says we have to cut global emissions by 50% by 2030. We can't wait for your little Jr to grow up and maybe turn out to be an environmentalist.
Daishiman 7y ago
Or not? Children are free to follow suit with whatever life pursuits they desire. The vast majority of people won't be consciously fighhting the climate and consume vast amounts of resources. I feel that the excuses for having children when we know the collapse of most ecosystems is essentially inevitable at this point just hide the lack of ethics on the matter.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  It's not unethical to have children and no one needs an excuse to have them. Technically speaking, it's literally the only reason there is any life on earth. Don't have them if you don't want them, but this isn't an area where you can dictate someone else's choices.
  - jddj 7y ago
    There must exist a point where it becomes unethical to have children.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Ethics are a human framework that doesn't exist if there are no humans. To end child birth isn't ethical, it's the end of ethics.
      - jddj 7y ago
        And if you were to trace back in time one generation from there, you'd discover the point where it became unethical to have children.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Parent comment isn't a dictator. He can't 'dictate' whether you procreate or not, but he's arguing that it may be unethical to cause more suffering by doing so.
    - 7y ago
makerofspoons 7y ago
There is little time to raise 'the most awesome climate change fighters the world has ever seen'. By some indications and projections you'll just be birthing these children to live a short, brutal life.
- techrich 7y ago
  In 10 years it all over.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I'm very curious how someone who holds your beliefs imagines the world will be in 10 years. "Short, brutal life" sounds like you're picturing billions of people roasting to death in the sun or maybe some sort of ecological inspired genocide? When you visualize the human race on planet earth in 10 years, what are you imagining? This isn't a snarky question btw, I'm genuinely curious.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Well, if you are in some places in India for example we expect heatwaves that are simply not survivable for anyone within a few decades. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-change-to-cause-humid-heatwaves-that-will-kill-even-healthy-people https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-...
  - makerofspoons 7y ago
    10 years is too soon- more like 20 in my worldview (still a very brief life for someone born today). Here are a few things I see in 20 years: - Human population in decline - Industrial output per capita in decline - Food production per capita in decline - Resources in decline - Pollution will ultimately peak We have not meaningfully deviated from the collapse predicted in 'The Limits of Growth': https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits...
  - ForHackernews 7y ago

phil248 7y ago

How does giving your cats to a friend relieve you of the burden they place on the planet? It seems like you're just passing the buck in that instance.

11235813213455 7y ago
Think about more than 1 billions pets in the world, think about all the industry, transports, pollution related to them, think about the damages of outdoor/feral cats to the local fauna If more people have this in mind, imagine how much pollution can be saved
- ssijak 7y ago
  Giving a cat to a friend does not remove a cat from planet Earth, unless that friend likes to eat cat burgers which is unlikely.
  - barkingcat 7y ago
    I would like a cat burger! Please give me a cat you don't need!
  - cvbczxbcxv 7y ago
    Because the friend was going to buy a cat anyways, therefore, globally, a new cat does not need to spawned.
    - futureastronaut 7y ago
      There are a ton of extra cats regardless of demand.
  - 11235813213455 7y ago
    obviously I'm more for neutering, gently eliminating them globally
    - 7y ago

11235813213455 7y ago

I agree with you, the important is that everyone reduce their environmental fingerprint (less consumption, this is what pull production and all the pollution) Our planet could welcome 10 billions 'respectful' persons with a low fingerprint. But it already can't support most of the 3 billions first-world people with very high fingerprint You can still have one child, and raise him well, in a non-consumerist way

false-mirror 7y ago

Remember that only 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate change. Obsessing with personal lifestyle changes will burn you out and have very little payoff. Sure if public transit or going vegan is easy for ya, then definitely go for it-- but save your energy for political activism imo. Power structures inform lifestyles more than the other way around.

11235813213455 7y ago
Remember that lifestyles is actually what pull those companies production. It's easy to lower your environmental fingerprint to 5% of the average in first-world countries, if most people do this, the change is just massive No offense, but we are going nowhere with your mentality
- joshypants 7y ago
  They're correct actually. We've been overcompensating on personal responsibility, but changing personal behaviors won't save us from climate change. It's not enough. We need massive political mobilization and aggressive government action.
  - WhompingWindows 7y ago
    We can both reduce individual footprints AND have companies reduce their footprints. No need for either/or thinking here.
    - joshypants 7y ago
      What we're talking about is putting a halt to expending political capital on shaming people into being "green," "eco-friendly," or "sustainable" to save "the environment" and instead recognizing that we need drastic action to remove literally billions of people from grave danger. We're not going to ask companies to reduce footprints, we need to decimate the fossil fuel industry as fast as possible or we're cooked.
- 7y ago

pcstl 7y ago

Not having children because of climate change really seems like a terrible idea. More people increase humanity's power to solve problems.

mempko 7y ago
What if climate change isn't a problem but a predicament with no solution?
- pcstl 7y ago
  Then not having children won't change anything.
  - makerofspoons 7y ago
    It will prevent bringing a human being in the world to live briefly and then starve to death.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      Climate warming or not, every human lives briefly and dies.
      - makerofspoons 7y ago
        ~70 years versus ~30 years, dying of cancer or old age vs. starvation or resource-motivated violence. They really are not comparable.
        kgwgk 7y ago
        People who think starvation or resource-motivated violence due to global warming will be a leading cause of death in 30 years are delusional. Unrelated, but funny: The NPS Removes all “Glaciers Gone by 2020” signs at Glacier National Park, Montana after “Larger-than-Average Snowfall over Several Winters” https://electroverse.net/the-nps-removes-all-glaciers-gone-by-2020-signs-at-glacier-national-park-montana-after-larger-than-average-snowfall-over-several-winters/ https://electroverse.net/the-nps-removes-all-glaciers-gone-b...

christiansakai 7y ago

Not sure why you are downvoted. I've been thinking about this as well. One individual change probably can't do much but, what I've been trying to do: - consume less food - eat more vegetables - less red meat - spend less in eating out or buying drinks out - if I do buy drinks, I try to get paper cup - stick with boring phone and mac and don't chase shiny toys - use less plastic - drink water vs coffee/tea - use public transportation - travel just once a year - use more efficient language (i.e., Rust) - if I have a home one day I'll be filling it with plants

mempko 7y ago
This is my guess. They are being downvoted because the downvoters are offended by any criticism of capitalism. I mean, global warming is kind of a huge problem where we need to re-evaluate everything. That's scary.
evandev 7y ago
Is using a more efficient language really going to help anything? See Jevons Paradox[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

natalyarostova 7y ago

There have been very very few, if any, cohorts of humans who have not faced existential dread head on. Whether it was the tribe across the valley that wants to kill you, the barbarians raiding from foreign lands, the meat grinder of trench warfare, plagues that wipe out 60% of your society, burning fire dropped on your head from a warring nation, or just the dull, banal, existential dread of personal tragedy and the fragility of life. Your ancestors managed to get through it, and have children, and their children managed to solve problems that they couldn't fathom at the time. They didn't just give up. This modern fatalism is pathetic.

CapricornNoble 7y ago
The first thing that came to mind reading some of these comments was Bill Pullman's speech from Independence Day: "We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!” https://youtu.be/9t1IK_9apWs https://youtu.be/9t1IK_9apWs To just roll over and say "Meh, screw life and the very instinct of overcoming adversity to survive under any conditions, I'll just concede defeat instead.".....you described it accurately: pathetic.
antisthenes 7y ago
We are not fundamentally giving anything up if we reduce our energy usage. All the stuff on the hierarchy of needs - love, accomplishment, community, knowledge, none of it is especially energy intensive. Food and housing are, somewhat, but it's pretty clear that the pendulum in that area has swung too far in the other direction (obesity/mcmansions, etc.) I think you're right and we'll be just fine. We'll just use less stuff. And stuff will generally be more energy efficient.
- natalyarostova 7y ago
  I think what will probably happen* is things will get really really bad, then humanity will finally band together, and teams of engineers will put 50-100 year advances of technology to use and figure out how to solve this problem, along the way creating some heroes of humanity that will go down in history. * This will probably not happen, as forecasts 50-100 years in the future never come true.

petermcneeley 7y ago

This is called a conscientious tax and game theory does not support your decision.

simongr3dal 7y ago

Screwing up the bottom of the population pyramid will probably not do the world much good, it needs to be a very gradual ramp down or it will create havok by tanking production in the future to where we might not be able to sustain anything at all. Wether having that extra thing to worry about beyond climate change is preferable to having a harder time fighting climate change is beyond me.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lorcan 7y ago

Dont worry, the 3rd world will more than make up for your abstinence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#/media/File:World_population_(UN).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...