14 ms·

Don't give up on having kids because of climate change

77 points by jger15 5y ago

throw3849 5y ago
I think it is more about rhetoric, fear mongering and climate "fight". My government wants to ban cars. Transporting kids on bike in rain, wind and 40 degree F is somehow good thing.
- consp 5y ago
  > Transporting kids on bike in rain, wind and 40 degree F is somehow good thing As a kid I did this every day for years and see absolutely no issue with it (-5 to +25c instead of 40F), all year long in any weather. My parents either brought me by bike or I went on my own when I was old enough.
  - throw3849 5y ago
    I think mother of 3 years old and 1 year old may have different opinion :)
    - wffurr 5y ago
      It's not difficult at all with the right equipment which is much cheaper than a car. And that's even before you consider what a game-changer e-bikes are. Weather is a non-issue. The main problem is fear of cars. It's a classic tragedy of the commons / race to the bottom for "safety" with giant SUVs. Maybe ADAS systems are one way out, but real safety ultimately requires safe bicycle infrastructure and scaling back the number of cars on the road.
      - throw3849 5y ago
        Please. Weather is a big issue. It is impossible to put kid into buggy/trolley in rain without it getting wet. 1 year old with pneumonia is a horrible thing. Add shopping in rain etc... Bikes have horrible safety record on their own, even in "safe" bicycle infrastructure. Crashing into pole on bike and in car is a big difference. Common bike-buggies have zero protection for kids.
        wffurr 5y ago
        Are you speaking from experience? I am. Proper equipment solves for rain and snow. Crashing into a pole with your kid on board? A) don't do that? B) you'll all be fine as the speeds you should be riding with children along. Not sure what you mean by a "bike buggy", but bike-mounted seats do provide protection against falls, and bike-towed trailers are essentially immune to them. Longtail cargo bikes put the children in the rear and have a bar that also protects during a fall. Box bikes are very difficult to overturn completely and also provide protection. If you want to talk safety records, cars are by far the worst. They're extremely dangerous for the occupants and everyone around them.
    - OJFord 5y ago
      I know one whose two children are younger than that who doesn't, so that is a provably useless generalisation. (And afaik it's not climate-motivated, could be, just no idea and wouldn't assume so.)
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  It is possible to have safe, effective biking infrastructure in any weather. Kids in Finland bike to school when the temperature is in the teens (Fahrenheit). This isn’t an impediment.
- dempseye 5y ago
  What government is that?
Miner49er 5y ago
IMO this is a very unconvincing article. I think most people bring children into this world hoping their kids will have a better life then they do. If you're already unhappy with your life, why bring in kids when you know the world is going to be even worse for them?
- amelius 5y ago
  Because only smart people think like that. If only the not-so-smart part of the population has kids, then do you think the world will be better off?
  - chucksta 5y ago
    Maybe not, but the kids I didn't have could be
  - yesco 5y ago
    This is a question of morals, intelligence has nothing to do with it
    - amelius 5y ago
      Ok, so we end up with a population lacking moral sense. Is that much better?
      - yesco 5y ago
        I actually disagree that it is immoral in the first place. I see nothing wrong with having children, knowing full well that they may face greater adversity in their life than I have. For generations throughout human history many have had similar thoughts, that having children was sinful since they would have to suffer through the human experience. Whether ultimately right or wrong, they failed to propagate and so their opinions didn't matter. I said that this was a question of morality not intelligence. If one believes they are at least more capable than their peers at raising a child, then to refuse is what I consider to be ultimately immoral. The future generation comes regardless of you decide.
ahD5zae7 5y ago
I think that one of the other and rather important reason for people giving up on having kids is money, or rather lack of them. I feel the general feeling is that the wealth disparity is only getting bigger and therefore more and more people may not afford having babies. On the other hand poor people will probably not "die out" within a couple decades...
mdrzn 5y ago
So what you're saying is "Americans, don't give up on having kids" but for the rest of the planet, especially the 2nd and 3rd world, I don't think this argument is worth it.
pc86 5y ago
How is this not a ridiculous fringe idea? There are plenty of completely valid reasons not to want to have children. Climate change is absolutely not one of them. If you told me 0.39% of people actually felt that way I'd be wondering why it's such a huge number (in absolute terms). The fact that it's up to 100x that is pretty surprising, in a bad way.
- unnamed76ri 5y ago
  The sad reality of this poll just shows what a couple decades of fear mongering on any given subject can do to the populace.
  - chris123 5y ago
    Exactly, fear mongering and money printing. Bitcoin fixes this
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      "Western people don't want to have kids" HN: "... Bitcoin fixes this"
- Miner49er 5y ago
  This is just your opinion. I think maybe climate change is the primary reason to not have kids in like .39% of people not having kids, but one of several or many reasons, doesn't mean much. Not drinking gasoline because it tastes bad is a reason I don't do it. Not the primary reason, sure, but still one of the many reasons. Same thing here, there's a long list of reasons, and climate change is one of them for many people.
  - guscost 5y ago
    I think rationalizing any parenting choice as a duty to society is pathological, since we’re sharing.
- watwut 5y ago
mkr-hn 5y ago
Of all the people I know who list this as a reason, it barely ranks. The bigger one is the growing gap between income and cost of living right above time and energy. Most of the reasons have intersecting causes.
- selykg 5y ago
  Not married, but if I were and kids were a topic of discussion my, ranked, reasons: * Money - It's hard enough to retire with a late start on planning, kids totally throw another monkey wrench in it * Time - I don't have the time, or the patience, for kids. I'm sure it's rewarding for those that do it, but every time I look at my friends with kids and the sacrifices they make for their own lives, during their prime years of living, for the sake of their kids... yea, it's like birth control on steroids for me. I was going to put freedom as a separate line item, but I think time and money both take the point for freedom. * An extension of money, I would have to move at some point, and it seems to me doing it earlier would be better. My house is small, and it'd be fine for two people, maybe three. But it'll start to feel cramped with three. This isn't as big a deal, hence it's lower on the list, but with house prices and availability the way they are right now... plus, the time necessary to move. * Climate change, the world ending, whatever the case may be. I find it utterly difficult to willingly bring another child into this world when it feels like no one actually gives a damn about the future. That all said, I feel like I'd be more interested in adopting if I were to ever jump on this "got to have kids" thing. Skip the potty training and terrible (twos, threes and fours), jump right into the "I hate you" teens I guess. Yea, you can tell I'm not a kid person huh? lol Edit: because holy hell, even in 2021 Hacker News can't do Markdown for shit.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - circlefavshape 5y ago
    So you're in a local maximum, and are afraid to leave it? That's fine, but ... well, forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but your words give the impression that you're striving for mastery over life. One of the big gifts that parenthood gives you is freedom from the illusion that life is something that can be mastered
nikanj 5y ago
I gave up on having kids because of the housing crisis. There's no hope of -ever- being afford a home large enough for kids, let alone childcare at $2500 per kid per mo
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mam3 5y ago
  Change cities then. Its all about your life project at the end.. if you are happier eating overprice avocado toasts in the Bay instead of having children then good for you. Im not even judging despitz the sarcasm
  - akudha 5y ago
    Instead of asking your parent commenter to change cities, how about change the housing rules in the bay area to something sane? So more housing can be built, within reason? I find it depressing that 95%+ of the population needs to adjust to the other 5% of the population because of NIMBY, racism, entitlement etc etc.
    - prepend 5y ago
      These are mutually inclusive choices. Vote to improve housing laws. And leave. It comes to a point where I can’t improve my situation so I move so as not to be a martyr.
    - twodave 5y ago
      One is much easier than the other. To be fair, OP didn’t use the “too busy dedicating my life to local government activism” excuse. IMO one way you vote for change is by controlling what you can directly control. If the difference between having kids or not means moving to a more affordable area, then those who really would rather have kids will move. This will have the largest impact to the one who moves out of the area, of course, but it also has an impact on both the old and new hometown. I’ve seen this first hand as many are migrating to my city in the wake of the pandemic. They’re finding a better lifestyle for themselves while house prices in my area have risen 25% and still rising.
lemoncookiechip 5y ago
Economic reasons, lack of time due to work hours, wanting to live ones own life without the responsibility of raising children, difficulty forming relationships that could end up in a willing pregnancy due to some of the previous reasons as well as others... Are all reasons that you'd expect to hear. Citing climate change as a reason seems unreal. I guess it makes more sense when you realize the poll was mostly late teens and young adults. People who are yet to experience life as "adults" know it, and are citing idealistic reasons, rather than more realistic ones.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  > Are all reasons that you'd expect to hear. Citing climate change as a reason seems unreal. The difference between climate change and the other things you cited is that "climate change" is easily externalized. "I can't have kids because of my unresolved issues I should be working on" implies a burden of action. "The world is ending because other people suck" is a much more ego-saving answer.
bongoman37 5y ago
If one truly believes that people are a net negative then you could argue that any events that lead to mass casualties are a net good. Also, that the best thing to do would be to kill yourself. Nobody is as green as someone six feet under.
chiyc 5y ago
I liked my friend's take on this: that humanity can use more potential people to help solve these problems than avoid that possibility by not having children.
- xwdv 5y ago
  I do not like that take. Most new people will not contribute much to solving climate change compared to simply not existing at all.
- rronalddas 5y ago
  Very well said
- nisegami 5y ago
  We'd be much better served in that regard by enfranchising the people who are already here / would be born regardless.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    Let’s do both.
- fleddr 5y ago
  Your friend should read the article, which quotes an expert saying any future children will do nothing for climate change, because we don't even have that much time.
- caskstrength 5y ago
  What percentage of existing people are actively working on solving these problems?
akudha 5y ago
I find it very hard to share the article's optimism. I don't have kids, but I have a nephew and a niece. I see the difficulty of raising children in a world of super shitty social media, climate change, easy access to drugs/guns and on and on. I also feel bad for the kids - when I was a kid, my parents let me play outside, bike a few miles to my friends' place etc. Today's kids are just prisoners in their own homes, because "safety". All of this not even taking into account the cost of raising kids. If families with both parents making 6 figures a year have this much stress and difficulty, how about those who are making minimum wage or slightly higher than minimum wage? Instead of simply asking young people to have kids, how about improving conditions in society so young people will voluntarily have kids? How about having sane immigration policies (and not being racist and xenophobic) so countries like Japan can at least slow down population decline?
- ajvs 5y ago
  I'm confused why you lumped in that last line about improving immigration policies being relevant here. The mass importing of cheap foreign labour is a major factor in why wages have stagnated as well simply due to more competition for jobs.
- prepend 5y ago
  What countries have racist and xenophobic immigration policies? I think it’s a good idea to improve immigration policy.
- snidane 5y ago
  Every generation went through some kinds of struggles which they had to fight through. Our generation's is this one and it is not an excuse to not push through it, despite the incredible costs of having children. We could've had a war, we have high costs instead.
  - nisegami 5y ago
    >Every generation went through some kinds of struggles which they had to fight through. You're completely right, and I believe people should choose to spare their would-be-children those struggles by not having them. I see it as compassion, not giving up.
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> This has already been pretty bad, with unusually many hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts. It’s hard to tell how many people have died of climate-change-related causes. Maybe thousands? Maybe tens of thousands? Probably trillions of dollars have already been lost to disasters and agricultural problems. But tens of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars lost is completely compatible with the average person in the First World not really noticing much of a change to their daily lives. The next 75 years of global warming are going to be worse than we’ve gotten already, maybe millions of lives lost and tens of trillions of dollars in damage. In aggregate, they’re going to be a giant disaster. But the average person in the First World, probably including your child, still won’t notice much of a change to their daily lives. The author's arguments that the "First World" is somehow largely insulated from climate change are not very convincing. For example: > But so far, the droughts haven’t been bad enough that California stopped golf courses from watering their massive lawns to keep them perfectly green every day. So far, California has continued using 5.3 million acre-feet per year - more than enough water for every residential building in the state - to farm alfalfa. Alfalfa gets used to feed cows, and the beef industry lobby is very powerful, and so far California has preferred to ask citizens to conserve water rather than make the beef industry stop growing water-hungry alfalfa plants. But if anyone was actually dying of thirst, or even having enough trouble getting water that they might be motivated to vote out some politician over it, the government could redirect the alfalfa water, or the golf course water, or any of a thousand other things like this, and everyone would have more than enough. You see this everywhere - lots of resources are being wasted for stupid political reasons. If the political calculus ever changed - as it will, if these problems ever start inconveniencing privileged First World citizens - then we can stop wasting the resources, and use them to address the symptoms of climate change instead. Basically, the author's argument boils down to "it can't be that bad if people in the First World don't feel it, and once they do, somehow the problems will quickly be fixed". If that's the case though, I wonder why my friends and family back in the states keep complaining to me about the empty shelves, Amazon Prime delays, etc. Shouldn't fixing the symptoms of today's strained supply chain have been an easy task compared to climate change?
- prepend 5y ago
  > largely insulated from climate change I think the point wasn’t that the first world is insulated from climate change, but that the negative impact won’t be apocalyptically bad. And similar to how the first world is already better than being in the developing world. For example, the quality of life of being born in 2200 worst case scenario climate in San Francisco is better than being born in 2200 best case scenario climate change in Lagos. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t work on improving global health, social justice, and climate change. We should. But if I’m choosing not to have kids because of climate change, that doesn’t seem rational since the likely quality of that child’s life is much better than other people making similar decisions around the world. Regardless of climate change. So the author is saying that climate change will be extremely negative, but that it will be less felt in the first world. But still felt.
chubot 5y ago
we’ve already gotten about 25-30% of the global warming we’re likely to see by 2100. This logic is suspect -- the problem is that the effects aren't linear with respect to temperature increase. I agree we'll get through it as a species, and generally agree with the title, but we have no idea what the costs will be.
- fleddr 5y ago
  Plus consider that climate change is but one issue the human species is responsible for. There's pollution, the mass extinction of other species, overfishing the oceans, deforestation, desertification, the list goes on.
ziml77 5y ago
Why not? What is the issue with regressing the human population to something more easily sustainable? From a selfish angle (since that seems to be the natural state of humans), you will be able to waste more while in aggregate doing less damage to the environment. Even as someone who tries to care about not destroying the environment too badly, that sounds pretty awesome.
- falcolas 5y ago
  > What is the issue with regressing the human population to something more easily sustainable? The only reason I’ve been given has been related to the economy. There’s a limit to economic growth (there’s always been a limit, but this “accelerates” it) with a declining number of workers and consumers.
- martindbp 5y ago
  Unfortunately, increased population is a bit like a one-way door. A rapidly shrinking population would be disastrous to society. Think about it, for every childless person, the child of someone else will have to care for them in old age. Someone else's children will have to produce the goods and services that the childless old person needs to survive. I'm all for a lower population, but I think it'd have to happen very slowly, unless we have reached a level of automation and robotization that can sustain a huge aging population.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    >the child of someone else will have to care for them in old age. The old person might want someone else's child to care for them. But someone else's child will not have to care for them.
    - grondo4 5y ago
      >But some else's child will not have to care for them. Generally it's considered a burden of society to take care of their elderly. Thus 'someone else's child' will have to take care of the childless elderly in some form or another.
darksaints 5y ago
What about not having kids because of government corruption? A violent police state that keeps growing? A multi-trillion dollar deficit that will never go away? Housing, Health Care, and Education expenses that grow at >3× the inflation rate? Chemical, Nuclear, and Drone warfare?
- daxfohl 5y ago
  My guess is people of Afghanistan won't stop having kids even though their conditions are much worse, so none of that stuff probably makes a difference at scale. Though of course individual circumstances and decisions may vary.
  - darksaints 5y ago
    While still high, as in every other poor and uneducated country, Afghanistan has had a very interesting trajectory since the early 2000s: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=AF https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The women of Afghanistan would most certainly stop having kids if they had the choice. The only reason "people" of Afghanistan continue having kids is because the women there do not have a choice. They need access to effective and convenient birth control like IUDs, pills, vasectomies, condoms, and most importantly, women's financial independence. Given these things, birth rates drop around the world in almost all cultures since childbirth is a very costly thing for women, and who only in recent decades have gained control of it.
juanani 5y ago
Our greedy asses ripped the world apart for oil, imagine when the time comes to war for water. These fucks need slaves to run their future wars and since the world is being led by the MIC of all, who tf wants to bring in more soldiers for these greedy inbreds? The US military alone is the biggest polluter at this stage, oceans will have more plastic than fish. Your media psyop FUD did this and now it's time to patch the ship back up in your ductape. Have fun, these genes won't slave for you past this generation.
fleddr 5y ago
Summary: things will be bad but quite OK still for Californian high earners, so carry on. That is, if you produce "democratic" children. I would agree though that likely climate change is used as a virtue signal for people whom already decided to not have children for other reasons. Such as economical ones. It's expensive to raise children but more importantly, the quality of life of those children is in strong decline, economically speaking. High debt. Low job security. Low and stagnant wages. Unaffordable housing. Needing to compete with the entire world. High speed of change. Political instability. Accelerating inequality. I imagine these to be important reasons. The general feeling that younger generations have it worse, with things getting ever worse, and never better. We lost our humanity, our economic system is beyond repair.
orwin 5y ago
I don't know the author, but i'd bet he is neither an engineer nor a physicist (nor a chemist). Carbon removal is allegedly 1000$/Tons and prototype work for 500$/tons (i did not check this, i'll trust him). And then he add "There seems to be a Moore’s Law for this kind of thing, and when people calculate it out it looks like it’s going to get cheaper pretty quickly". Yeah, no, sorry, this is a weird take. It's like saying we have Moore's law for Carnot machines when our 10% efficient motor went to 20% efficiency and then 40%. Yes, looked like moore's law. But we do have physic constraints, and i think our best gas plant have a theorical efficiency of 55 to 60% max, and ICE motors are still around 30%, even for the best cars. When it's only size constraints, we can make Moore's law last for a while, but energetic and chemical constraints, you can have one or two breakthrough - and we had that historically- but you can't plot those breakthrough on a notebook chart. Agree with some of his other points, also i guess the main reason not to have kids is economical. But please, don't talk about climate drift solutions if you don't have studied the question. Physic is hard. I should know i failed and had to settle as a software engineer :)
- Yvain 5y ago
  I'm the author. Guilty as charged of not being an engineer. But did you see the paper I cited for this, https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619307772 https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art... ? I also think the fact that the price has come down by several times already and is still nowhere near an economy of scale suggests it can do so more in the future. I didn't mean Moore's Law as a literal "it will always go down by exactly the same amount every year"
  - orwin 5y ago
    I didn't want to accuse you of something like "not being an engineer" (which is perfectly fin as long as you're not working in digital marketing :) ), i'm sorry, it was poorly worded. I've read the paper, it is very interesting, it does not talk about machine pumping carbon out of the atmosphere however (the figure appeared low, now i know why). But yeah, DAC might be a solution. I'll rather take the IEA rapport on this [0]. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere and removing carbon is not the same thing. You then need to either seal the CO2, or transform it ( in a power-to-gas station? ). Also their base case of 15% capex/year can go outside see if i'm there. [0] https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture
prepend 5y ago
I remember 30 years ago listening to how people were choosing not to have kids because of nuclear war and whatnot. There’s always a reason for people with a negative outlook to choose not to have kids. And that’s fine as parenting is an extremely personal choice. It gets a bit annoying with use of the word “breeder” and stupid articles lauding #childfree and whatnot. But that’s easy for me to avoid along with other social media stupidity. I don’t think these are rational decisions so I stopped trying to discuss with rational bases (eg, people are creative and produce more than they consume).
- Zak 5y ago
  > It gets a bit annoying with use of the word “breeder” and stupid articles lauding #childfree and whatnot. I find calling people names unhelpful in virtually all situations, however normalizing being childfree is very helpful to some people facing unwelcome social pressure to have children.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    > facing unwelcome social pressure to have children. Any guess as to why the human species is predisposed to pressure each other into having kids?
    - tomjen3 5y ago
      We are predisposed to many other things as well, such as violence. Society frowns on that.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        Right, because society itself evolved where societies that promote too much violence don't survive and those which do not do, thus the societies that are extant and have survived for a period of time have accumulated wisdom stored in their transmitted values, beliefs, moral codes, and customs. Including the basic wisdom of understanding that having at least a replacement level of kids is a requirement for the society to survive. Societies that lacked this wisdom aren't around anymore. So both genetic and social pressures point the same direction, which is why there is both biological pressure as well as social pressure to have kids. I have yet to see any traditional society that discourages children. Deviate from this learned wisdom at your peril.
Traubenfuchs 5y ago
Embrace antinatalism. There are few reasons to have children and none of them are good.
lampe3 5y ago
I have a 3 months old daughter and for the people here writing that it should not be a point, or it should be a point, I can only say it is the wrong way of thinking about it. If you have a child, the first thing you want is that the child is safe and healthy. And you start to think what can you do better and what should change in the world so that your kid/baby has it better. So in the end, if just 50% of the scenarios of climate change are true, you will change your behavior. It's the same with eating candy or other unhealthy stuff. You will stop eating it because you want to show your kid/baby what is healthier for her/him. So I would say we need more kids in the world if we want to have a better future.
- falcolas 5y ago
  > we need more kids … if we want to have a better future Funny, a vast majority of folks have children (>85% in the US), and yet, here we are.
  - lampe3 5y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand your comment and what is funny. Birthrates in the US are going down from 25.000 per 100.000 to 10.000 per 100.000.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      Sorry, let me expand then. The assertion that is happening in this thread is “having children will improve the world”. Given this assertion, how is it possible that global warming even happened in the first place, when there were, as you state, bigger birth rates than we have now? Most of the issues we’re facing today - especially global warming - weren’t caused just yesterday. They’ve been in progress for decades, and we’ve known about the potential issues for decades (I remember such concerns when we started opening holes in the ozone some 30 years ago).
      - lampe3 5y ago
        So let's die out as humanity? Sorry, I find your assertion as a sign of depression and helplessness
ceilingcorner 5y ago
The idea is complete nonsense. Even with absolute worst case climate change scenarios, the average person will have a quality of life vastly above basically anyone in the past. Especially during the Middle Ages when plague was killing people in the street. Yet those people still had families and children. This is a cultural phenomenon, not a rational one, and has more to do with the West’s lack of a coherent worldview in our post-Christian age. It’s a problem of nihilism. The “interesting” part is that this, like all scenarios, has evolutionary consequences. People that don’t buy into the climate change = I don’t want kids narrative will out-reproduce and out last those that do. The future isn’t a small society of rationalist childfree vegans, it’s comprised of people that have a lot of kids.
- nisegami 5y ago
  >the average person will have a quality of life vastly above basically anyone in the past. Wasn't right then, isn't right now.
- fleddr 5y ago
  Past comparisons outside recent memory are useless. They are correct, but still useless. Already right now for younger generations their awesome "quality of life" means they can't even start a family. Everything is unaffordable. It's not a solution to say "you have it so easy compared to the worst part of the middle ages".
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    Everything isn’t unaffordable. Living at a high quality of life with iPhones and Uber eats might be unaffordable in certain cities. But the basic costs of having a family (food, shelter, etc.) are probably cheaper today than at any time in history. I don’t think people understand how poor the average person was even a century ago.
    - fleddr 5y ago
      Well, for sure it depends on where you live. In my country, young people can't ever own a home and rent eats up half their income. At age 30-35, they still don't have their basics in place, and the choice for kids is postponed until an ever higher age. But I'm sure it's all fine, because they have a phone.
xyzelement 5y ago
The idea that people should have fewer children struck me as cultural suicide when I first encountered it in the 1990s, way before climate change became a commonplace topic. Having kids has always been a leap of faith. Does anyone think it's "scarier" to have kids now than it was during the Depression, WW2, AIDS epidemic, Cold War, post-9/11, etc? If your philosophy includes not having kids, then your philosophy will go away on its own in a few decades. Whatever the world will look like 20-50 years from now, it will exclude those people and ideas who opted out of life. On one hand, it's those people's problems. On the other hand, as someone living in the West, I am very much "in the same boat" with these people. I suspect the danger to our the kids 20-50 years from now will be consequences of demographic decline much more than climate change. This feels sinister. Why is the idea that the best thing you can do for the future is to die out so popular? If you wanted to destroy a people/country/humanity, you'd work hard to spread the idea of not having kids. So who's doing this?
- nisegami 5y ago
  >I suspect the danger to our the kids 20-50 years from now will be consequences of demographic decline much more than climate change. My kids will face no such consequences on account of me not forcing them into this world. What the rest of you get up to is not of much concern to me.
  - dTal 5y ago
    Why do you only have empathy for your own (potential) children?
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I am not the person you responded to, but in the context of that reply, my answer would be because I played no part in other people’s decision to have children. Note that this is not about no empathy overall, but in the context of empathy due to effects of declining population.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Yes, it's sinister and really unhealthy. People, on balance, are a blessing, and love of humanity is a prerequisite to having a civil society. These misanthropic beliefs are primarily limited to elites, who have become so decadent as to hate mankind. You have Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburough saying "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." Also some of the more fanatical environmental groups are less about loving the environment than hating people. You also see similar sentiments expressed in modern architecture -- the idea that architecture shouldn't be beautiful or comfortable because people should be uncomfortable, etc, as in the famous debate between Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman. This idea of hating your own group or even hating all mankind is basically the extreme end of modern decadence, a luxury primarily afforded to a subset of people in the wealthiest western nations. Fortunately, it is not shared by the bulk of humanity, or even by ordinary blue collar people in wealthy nations.
alanwreath 5y ago
For the people who say, “I won’t have children because look at the present and it’s problems, how could the future be any better”, have kids. Have’em or adopt’em or mentor’em and help them be part of the difference. The future is bleak if people like you with real awareness of the issues don’t pass them on in some way. That includes having kids and raising them on your shoulders. The effects of good parenting/mentoring bleed far past the pupil. Your super child could influence communities even if not a recognized leader.
aogaili 5y ago
Because of climate change? no, because of Schopenhauer. Kidding aside, people don't have kids in developed world because it is costly to create a child that would operate in a competitive urban environment with high home prices, nurseries, healthcare, unstable job market, pandemics and cut throat competition. No body wants to bring kids just to see themselves and their kids struggle, millennials can barely offered a house. Modern day leaders and thinkers don't seem to offer a sensible pragmatic solution to the major issues facing humanity.
hpcjoe 5y ago
I am biased, as I am the father of a wonderful (adult) child. Some thoughts. 1) Being a parent was the absolutely best thing that I've ever done and experienced. Nothing IMO, can compare to this. 2) Climate change was not (ever) a consideration for us in the late 90s. Though the climate wasn't that great back then (fairly hot preceeding decade, a few years before the pause). 3) Economics were definitely a consideration. I was making good income at my job, my wife was enjoying her life working at a museum. We could easily live on what I made alone (though not what she made alone). Additionally, we live(d) in a LCOL area, compared to the coasts. Honestly, the LCOL areas are IMO a much better place to consider raising a family anyway, from an economic viewpoint. Some LCOL areas aren't great from a security or environment standpoint, due to years/decades of pollution and terrible politics. But in this day and age you can choose where you want to be. There is nothing special about the coasts, and much to be gained by not living there. All this said, there are many valid reasons for not wanting to become a parent. But climate change isn't one of them. For the simple reason that, despite protestations of many, the climate has always changed, and humans have either adapted to these changes, or died out. I recall from middle school biology, a definition of adaptation to an environment given. When a species can reproduce in its environment, it is said to have adapted to it. This has quite a bit loaded into this definition that is not spelled out in detail, but the point remains that you need to have line of sight to food, shelter, security, etc. in order to be able to consider procreating. Some points about population collapse are worth noting. When a society fails to produce sufficient children such that it can sustain itself and its quality of life, it eventually reaches a point where there are too few young people to replenish what you lose. When that occurs, you get something similar to what we see today, in terms of insufficient number of workers available to work. That case could be "fixed" by improving the healthcare, compensation, and social security nets right now, but in the future, with insufficient offspring, no amount of additional incentive to work, will create new workers for you. Put another less sympathetic way, not having kids because of irrational reasons is an automatic Darwin Award nomination. It is species level self-own. An L. The gene pool only propagates the winners of adaptation. So if you don't adapt, i.e. reproduce, your genes are not going to be in the gene pool. Which, is the literal definition of the Darwin award. Have kids. Its worth it. Every last second of it.
- 5y ago
ideashower 5y ago
Ignoring the merits of whether or not it’s a good idea to have kids due to climate change: I feel like the author doesn’t appropriately consider the cascading effects of climate change. Kids aren’t in my present life plan (I’m too young atm) but I can already see that the biggest barrier to kids in my future right now is just the extreme wealth inequality and rising costs of having children. Compound that with an inevitable climate migration that will shift the balance of wealth in the USA, and you’re likely to see greater difficulties for new middle-income families (who are, as the author notes, still among the most privileged on the planet). Furthermore, the real effects of climate change that our children are likely to have great difficulties with, in my mind, are ecological destruction and the eradication of micro-ecosystems leading to global calamity with food. I feel, without much evidence to support it, that we’re likely to see a spectrum of symptoms that lead to targeted devastation and mass-death of various species. It’s not any one of those things, it’s everything all at once. Now, I love the argument that this all is not a reason to not bring in kids because we will need bright, young minds to dream and live futures that we won’t get to have. And that gives me hope, which is something we should all allow ourselves to have.
rubylark 5y ago
I find it interesting that those who don't want kids _must_ supply a reason, while the opposite isn't true. I'm at the age where all my friends are having their first and second children, and absolutely none of them had to give an answer to "Why?" If you plan to have kids, the only reason you need to supply is "because I want them." But people who don't plan on having kids tend to explain in a multi-part essay about their economic hardships, lack of time, and existential listlessness. I assume this is because people (especially potential grandparents) don't accept a simple "I don't want kids" as an answer.
- HKH2 5y ago
  If we have a natural inclination to have kids then there probably is a reason why you don't want them.
- kilbuz 5y ago
  Not in SF. For me, very rare to see a kid in my neighborhood, and no one talks about them. Pros and cons, sure, but it's been a while since I've heard a discussion like this.
daxfohl 5y ago
The author here jumps from "it probably won't make humans extinct", to "so it's probably nothing to worry about", with an agility that I can't quite wrap my head around.
tristor 5y ago
I gave a /significant/ amount of thought to the question of whether or not I should have children many years ago, and came to the conclusion that I should not. Climate change never even entered into the equation. For me, it was a simple decision, albeit one with many factors. I made an admittedly somewhat selfish choice, but one that I knew I would be satisfied with, to pursue a specific set of life goals and to avoid things which would impede or redirect me from those goals. While it's certainly true that many people throughout history have had children and mostly ignored them, I could never do that. If I did somehow end up having children, I would want to be a good parent and actively involved in their lives and their education, which would mean giving up on my other life goals. So, I decided I would not have children. Many of my friends have children, and many others do not. These things come up in conversation and the same kind of thinking seems to dominate, and we are all the same generation (Xennials/older Millennials). Everybody made their choice off the basis of what their goals in life were, with the next most important factor generally being economics. Nobody was concerned with whether climate change presented an existential crisis that they wouldn't want to bring children into... we're humans after all, and we rely on getting better over time as each generation discovers new knowledge built on top of the past. Given all that, I feel like this article is an argument against a straw man.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rhn_mk1 5y ago
> I am grateful for my parents’ decisions here and so I conclude that having children in a world with a 1% risk of apocalypse is fine. That's the is-ought fallacy. That people did it before doesn't make it fine. Or survivorship bias - you were lucky, but that doesn't negate the risk. > If you’re not one of [antinatalists], I think the quality-of-life argument for not having kids now is pretty weak. Again, what about those who think now, as well as under some, not even all conditions? > that’s not really the relevant timeframe for actually stabilizing the climate, given that we have this decade to cut emissions in half. That actually makes sense until you ask the question: what if we faill or struggle? Then the lowered population could really come in handy. This same argument also neutralizes the voting problem: your child won't have the right to vote in the next decade. Even in the longer term, who is going to guarantee that the child will vote for reduced emissions? I'm a fan of astral codex ten, but I had the impression that the usual writing has less blind spots.
JohnFen 5y ago
I'm struggling to find anything in this essay that I agree with. > But it won’t cause the collapse of civilization. It won’t kill everyone. The author seems to think that as long as everything isn't completely leveled, nobody should be shy about bringing children into the world. I disagree. The middle is being excluded here. > Life in the First World will continue, with worse weather and maybe a weaker economy, but more or less the same as always. Not in my part of the first world. Everything has changed for the worse, and all signs point to more extreme problems in the future. > One way to think of this is to notice that we’ve already gotten about 25-30% of the global warming we’re likely to see by 2100. Which is terrifying.
aazaa 5y ago
It's baffling how anyone can simultaneously believe: 1. climate change is an existential threat to humanity 2. having one or more children is a good thing If you believe one, you need to yield on the other. The article yields on (1) to support (2). The thing is that (2) faces headwinds that have nothing to do with climate, namely economics. It's insanely expensive to have children. Not just the actual out-of-pocket, but also the opportunity costs, not to mention the emotional toll if the marriage becomes unstable. Then there's the toll on children raised by people other than their parents due to the horrendous economics of both parents being at work. So in this sense, the climate crisis as broadly defined, has a finite amount of room to run. Economics acts to cap births in developed economies. The rest of the world eventually catches up. Before you know it having a couple of kids has become a status symbol.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > It's baffling how anyone can simultaneously believe: > 1. climate change is an existential threat to humanity > 2. having one or more children is a good thing What's baffling about that? Climate change is an existential threat, but it means we need to do something about it, it doesn't mean we put life on pause until it gets solved. Nuclear weapons are still an existential threat, but we keep going. And the children we have are probably the ones who finish solving these problems—or maybe their children, or their childrens' children. Either way, you keep moving, keep living.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The cause of climate change is total consumption of resources, and so the solution to climate change in a relevant timeframe requires a decrease in the total consumption of resources. That can be accomplished via decrease in per capita consumption, or per capita. The former is not realistic at all. And maybe neither is a legitimate timeframe for decreasing total consumption. However, the most effective option at this point seems to be reducing the number of humans themselves, especially the ones that are consuming a lot.
nunez 5y ago
We didn't give up on having kids b/c of climate change; we voluntarily decided not to have them because we don't want them!
nec4b 5y ago
In the end it is simple. If you don't have kids, other people with greater joy for life will. Nature self regulates. Evolution still works.
difosfor 5y ago
Please stop voting for people that mess up the climate
lamontcg 5y ago
Start doing serious changes which address things like climate change and people would magically acquire more confidence, and its the right thing to do anyway. This is really all about a crisis of confidence in political leadership at its core. Its also pretty rational and the correct thing to do is to address that leadership deficit rather than trying to convince people they're thinking about it wrong.

77 points by jger15 5y ago

I think it is more about rhetoric, fear mongering and climate "fight". My government wants to ban cars. Transporting kids on bike in rain, wind and 40 degree F is somehow good thing.

consp 5y ago
> Transporting kids on bike in rain, wind and 40 degree F is somehow good thing As a kid I did this every day for years and see absolutely no issue with it (-5 to +25c instead of 40F), all year long in any weather. My parents either brought me by bike or I went on my own when I was old enough.
- throw3849 5y ago
  I think mother of 3 years old and 1 year old may have different opinion :)
  - wffurr 5y ago
    It's not difficult at all with the right equipment which is much cheaper than a car. And that's even before you consider what a game-changer e-bikes are. Weather is a non-issue. The main problem is fear of cars. It's a classic tragedy of the commons / race to the bottom for "safety" with giant SUVs. Maybe ADAS systems are one way out, but real safety ultimately requires safe bicycle infrastructure and scaling back the number of cars on the road.
    - throw3849 5y ago
      Please. Weather is a big issue. It is impossible to put kid into buggy/trolley in rain without it getting wet. 1 year old with pneumonia is a horrible thing. Add shopping in rain etc... Bikes have horrible safety record on their own, even in "safe" bicycle infrastructure. Crashing into pole on bike and in car is a big difference. Common bike-buggies have zero protection for kids.
      - wffurr 5y ago
        Are you speaking from experience? I am. Proper equipment solves for rain and snow. Crashing into a pole with your kid on board? A) don't do that? B) you'll all be fine as the speeds you should be riding with children along. Not sure what you mean by a "bike buggy", but bike-mounted seats do provide protection against falls, and bike-towed trailers are essentially immune to them. Longtail cargo bikes put the children in the rear and have a bar that also protects during a fall. Box bikes are very difficult to overturn completely and also provide protection. If you want to talk safety records, cars are by far the worst. They're extremely dangerous for the occupants and everyone around them.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    I know one whose two children are younger than that who doesn't, so that is a provably useless generalisation. (And afaik it's not climate-motivated, could be, just no idea and wouldn't assume so.)
brendoelfrendo 5y ago
It is possible to have safe, effective biking infrastructure in any weather. Kids in Finland bike to school when the temperature is in the teens (Fahrenheit). This isn’t an impediment.
dempseye 5y ago
What government is that?

Miner49er 5y ago

IMO this is a very unconvincing article. I think most people bring children into this world hoping their kids will have a better life then they do. If you're already unhappy with your life, why bring in kids when you know the world is going to be even worse for them?

amelius 5y ago
Because only smart people think like that. If only the not-so-smart part of the population has kids, then do you think the world will be better off?
- chucksta 5y ago
  Maybe not, but the kids I didn't have could be
- yesco 5y ago
  This is a question of morals, intelligence has nothing to do with it
  - amelius 5y ago
    Ok, so we end up with a population lacking moral sense. Is that much better?
    - yesco 5y ago
      I actually disagree that it is immoral in the first place. I see nothing wrong with having children, knowing full well that they may face greater adversity in their life than I have. For generations throughout human history many have had similar thoughts, that having children was sinful since they would have to suffer through the human experience. Whether ultimately right or wrong, they failed to propagate and so their opinions didn't matter. I said that this was a question of morality not intelligence. If one believes they are at least more capable than their peers at raising a child, then to refuse is what I consider to be ultimately immoral. The future generation comes regardless of you decide.

ahD5zae7 5y ago

I think that one of the other and rather important reason for people giving up on having kids is money, or rather lack of them. I feel the general feeling is that the wealth disparity is only getting bigger and therefore more and more people may not afford having babies. On the other hand poor people will probably not "die out" within a couple decades...

mdrzn 5y ago

So what you're saying is "Americans, don't give up on having kids" but for the rest of the planet, especially the 2nd and 3rd world, I don't think this argument is worth it.

pc86 5y ago

How is this not a ridiculous fringe idea? There are plenty of completely valid reasons not to want to have children. Climate change is absolutely not one of them. If you told me 0.39% of people actually felt that way I'd be wondering why it's such a huge number (in absolute terms). The fact that it's up to 100x that is pretty surprising, in a bad way.

unnamed76ri 5y ago
The sad reality of this poll just shows what a couple decades of fear mongering on any given subject can do to the populace.
- chris123 5y ago
  Exactly, fear mongering and money printing. Bitcoin fixes this
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    "Western people don't want to have kids" HN: "... Bitcoin fixes this"
Miner49er 5y ago
This is just your opinion. I think maybe climate change is the primary reason to not have kids in like .39% of people not having kids, but one of several or many reasons, doesn't mean much. Not drinking gasoline because it tastes bad is a reason I don't do it. Not the primary reason, sure, but still one of the many reasons. Same thing here, there's a long list of reasons, and climate change is one of them for many people.
- guscost 5y ago
  I think rationalizing any parenting choice as a duty to society is pathological, since we’re sharing.
watwut 5y ago

mkr-hn 5y ago

Of all the people I know who list this as a reason, it barely ranks. The bigger one is the growing gap between income and cost of living right above time and energy. Most of the reasons have intersecting causes.

selykg 5y ago
Not married, but if I were and kids were a topic of discussion my, ranked, reasons: * Money - It's hard enough to retire with a late start on planning, kids totally throw another monkey wrench in it * Time - I don't have the time, or the patience, for kids. I'm sure it's rewarding for those that do it, but every time I look at my friends with kids and the sacrifices they make for their own lives, during their prime years of living, for the sake of their kids... yea, it's like birth control on steroids for me. I was going to put freedom as a separate line item, but I think time and money both take the point for freedom. * An extension of money, I would have to move at some point, and it seems to me doing it earlier would be better. My house is small, and it'd be fine for two people, maybe three. But it'll start to feel cramped with three. This isn't as big a deal, hence it's lower on the list, but with house prices and availability the way they are right now... plus, the time necessary to move. * Climate change, the world ending, whatever the case may be. I find it utterly difficult to willingly bring another child into this world when it feels like no one actually gives a damn about the future. That all said, I feel like I'd be more interested in adopting if I were to ever jump on this "got to have kids" thing. Skip the potty training and terrible (twos, threes and fours), jump right into the "I hate you" teens I guess. Yea, you can tell I'm not a kid person huh? lol Edit: because holy hell, even in 2021 Hacker News can't do Markdown for shit.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- circlefavshape 5y ago
  So you're in a local maximum, and are afraid to leave it? That's fine, but ... well, forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but your words give the impression that you're striving for mastery over life. One of the big gifts that parenthood gives you is freedom from the illusion that life is something that can be mastered

nikanj 5y ago

I gave up on having kids because of the housing crisis. There's no hope of -ever- being afford a home large enough for kids, let alone childcare at $2500 per kid per mo

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mam3 5y ago
Change cities then. Its all about your life project at the end.. if you are happier eating overprice avocado toasts in the Bay instead of having children then good for you. Im not even judging despitz the sarcasm
- akudha 5y ago
  Instead of asking your parent commenter to change cities, how about change the housing rules in the bay area to something sane? So more housing can be built, within reason? I find it depressing that 95%+ of the population needs to adjust to the other 5% of the population because of NIMBY, racism, entitlement etc etc.
  - prepend 5y ago
    These are mutually inclusive choices. Vote to improve housing laws. And leave. It comes to a point where I can’t improve my situation so I move so as not to be a martyr.
  - twodave 5y ago
    One is much easier than the other. To be fair, OP didn’t use the “too busy dedicating my life to local government activism” excuse. IMO one way you vote for change is by controlling what you can directly control. If the difference between having kids or not means moving to a more affordable area, then those who really would rather have kids will move. This will have the largest impact to the one who moves out of the area, of course, but it also has an impact on both the old and new hometown. I’ve seen this first hand as many are migrating to my city in the wake of the pandemic. They’re finding a better lifestyle for themselves while house prices in my area have risen 25% and still rising.

lemoncookiechip 5y ago

Economic reasons, lack of time due to work hours, wanting to live ones own life without the responsibility of raising children, difficulty forming relationships that could end up in a willing pregnancy due to some of the previous reasons as well as others... Are all reasons that you'd expect to hear. Citing climate change as a reason seems unreal. I guess it makes more sense when you realize the poll was mostly late teens and young adults. People who are yet to experience life as "adults" know it, and are citing idealistic reasons, rather than more realistic ones.

xyzelement 5y ago
> Are all reasons that you'd expect to hear. Citing climate change as a reason seems unreal. The difference between climate change and the other things you cited is that "climate change" is easily externalized. "I can't have kids because of my unresolved issues I should be working on" implies a burden of action. "The world is ending because other people suck" is a much more ego-saving answer.

bongoman37 5y ago

If one truly believes that people are a net negative then you could argue that any events that lead to mass casualties are a net good. Also, that the best thing to do would be to kill yourself. Nobody is as green as someone six feet under.

chiyc 5y ago

I liked my friend's take on this: that humanity can use more potential people to help solve these problems than avoid that possibility by not having children.

xwdv 5y ago
I do not like that take. Most new people will not contribute much to solving climate change compared to simply not existing at all.
rronalddas 5y ago
Very well said
nisegami 5y ago
We'd be much better served in that regard by enfranchising the people who are already here / would be born regardless.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  Let’s do both.
fleddr 5y ago
Your friend should read the article, which quotes an expert saying any future children will do nothing for climate change, because we don't even have that much time.
caskstrength 5y ago
What percentage of existing people are actively working on solving these problems?

akudha 5y ago

I find it very hard to share the article's optimism. I don't have kids, but I have a nephew and a niece. I see the difficulty of raising children in a world of super shitty social media, climate change, easy access to drugs/guns and on and on. I also feel bad for the kids - when I was a kid, my parents let me play outside, bike a few miles to my friends' place etc. Today's kids are just prisoners in their own homes, because "safety". All of this not even taking into account the cost of raising kids. If families with both parents making 6 figures a year have this much stress and difficulty, how about those who are making minimum wage or slightly higher than minimum wage? Instead of simply asking young people to have kids, how about improving conditions in society so young people will voluntarily have kids? How about having sane immigration policies (and not being racist and xenophobic) so countries like Japan can at least slow down population decline?

ajvs 5y ago
I'm confused why you lumped in that last line about improving immigration policies being relevant here. The mass importing of cheap foreign labour is a major factor in why wages have stagnated as well simply due to more competition for jobs.
prepend 5y ago
What countries have racist and xenophobic immigration policies? I think it’s a good idea to improve immigration policy.
snidane 5y ago
Every generation went through some kinds of struggles which they had to fight through. Our generation's is this one and it is not an excuse to not push through it, despite the incredible costs of having children. We could've had a war, we have high costs instead.
- nisegami 5y ago
  >Every generation went through some kinds of struggles which they had to fight through. You're completely right, and I believe people should choose to spare their would-be-children those struggles by not having them. I see it as compassion, not giving up.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

> This has already been pretty bad, with unusually many hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts. It’s hard to tell how many people have died of climate-change-related causes. Maybe thousands? Maybe tens of thousands? Probably trillions of dollars have already been lost to disasters and agricultural problems. But tens of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars lost is completely compatible with the average person in the First World not really noticing much of a change to their daily lives. The next 75 years of global warming are going to be worse than we’ve gotten already, maybe millions of lives lost and tens of trillions of dollars in damage. In aggregate, they’re going to be a giant disaster. But the average person in the First World, probably including your child, still won’t notice much of a change to their daily lives. The author's arguments that the "First World" is somehow largely insulated from climate change are not very convincing. For example: > But so far, the droughts haven’t been bad enough that California stopped golf courses from watering their massive lawns to keep them perfectly green every day. So far, California has continued using 5.3 million acre-feet per year - more than enough water for every residential building in the state - to farm alfalfa. Alfalfa gets used to feed cows, and the beef industry lobby is very powerful, and so far California has preferred to ask citizens to conserve water rather than make the beef industry stop growing water-hungry alfalfa plants. But if anyone was actually dying of thirst, or even having enough trouble getting water that they might be motivated to vote out some politician over it, the government could redirect the alfalfa water, or the golf course water, or any of a thousand other things like this, and everyone would have more than enough. You see this everywhere - lots of resources are being wasted for stupid political reasons. If the political calculus ever changed - as it will, if these problems ever start inconveniencing privileged First World citizens - then we can stop wasting the resources, and use them to address the symptoms of climate change instead. Basically, the author's argument boils down to "it can't be that bad if people in the First World don't feel it, and once they do, somehow the problems will quickly be fixed". If that's the case though, I wonder why my friends and family back in the states keep complaining to me about the empty shelves, Amazon Prime delays, etc. Shouldn't fixing the symptoms of today's strained supply chain have been an easy task compared to climate change?

prepend 5y ago
> largely insulated from climate change I think the point wasn’t that the first world is insulated from climate change, but that the negative impact won’t be apocalyptically bad. And similar to how the first world is already better than being in the developing world. For example, the quality of life of being born in 2200 worst case scenario climate in San Francisco is better than being born in 2200 best case scenario climate change in Lagos. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t work on improving global health, social justice, and climate change. We should. But if I’m choosing not to have kids because of climate change, that doesn’t seem rational since the likely quality of that child’s life is much better than other people making similar decisions around the world. Regardless of climate change. So the author is saying that climate change will be extremely negative, but that it will be less felt in the first world. But still felt.

chubot 5y ago

we’ve already gotten about 25-30% of the global warming we’re likely to see by 2100. This logic is suspect -- the problem is that the effects aren't linear with respect to temperature increase. I agree we'll get through it as a species, and generally agree with the title, but we have no idea what the costs will be.

fleddr 5y ago
Plus consider that climate change is but one issue the human species is responsible for. There's pollution, the mass extinction of other species, overfishing the oceans, deforestation, desertification, the list goes on.

ziml77 5y ago

Why not? What is the issue with regressing the human population to something more easily sustainable? From a selfish angle (since that seems to be the natural state of humans), you will be able to waste more while in aggregate doing less damage to the environment. Even as someone who tries to care about not destroying the environment too badly, that sounds pretty awesome.

falcolas 5y ago
> What is the issue with regressing the human population to something more easily sustainable? The only reason I’ve been given has been related to the economy. There’s a limit to economic growth (there’s always been a limit, but this “accelerates” it) with a declining number of workers and consumers.
martindbp 5y ago
Unfortunately, increased population is a bit like a one-way door. A rapidly shrinking population would be disastrous to society. Think about it, for every childless person, the child of someone else will have to care for them in old age. Someone else's children will have to produce the goods and services that the childless old person needs to survive. I'm all for a lower population, but I think it'd have to happen very slowly, unless we have reached a level of automation and robotization that can sustain a huge aging population.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  >the child of someone else will have to care for them in old age. The old person might want someone else's child to care for them. But someone else's child will not have to care for them.
  - grondo4 5y ago
    >But some else's child will not have to care for them. Generally it's considered a burden of society to take care of their elderly. Thus 'someone else's child' will have to take care of the childless elderly in some form or another.

darksaints 5y ago

What about not having kids because of government corruption? A violent police state that keeps growing? A multi-trillion dollar deficit that will never go away? Housing, Health Care, and Education expenses that grow at >3× the inflation rate? Chemical, Nuclear, and Drone warfare?

daxfohl 5y ago
My guess is people of Afghanistan won't stop having kids even though their conditions are much worse, so none of that stuff probably makes a difference at scale. Though of course individual circumstances and decisions may vary.
- darksaints 5y ago
  While still high, as in every other poor and uneducated country, Afghanistan has had a very interesting trajectory since the early 2000s: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=AF https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The women of Afghanistan would most certainly stop having kids if they had the choice. The only reason "people" of Afghanistan continue having kids is because the women there do not have a choice. They need access to effective and convenient birth control like IUDs, pills, vasectomies, condoms, and most importantly, women's financial independence. Given these things, birth rates drop around the world in almost all cultures since childbirth is a very costly thing for women, and who only in recent decades have gained control of it.

juanani 5y ago

Our greedy asses ripped the world apart for oil, imagine when the time comes to war for water. These fucks need slaves to run their future wars and since the world is being led by the MIC of all, who tf wants to bring in more soldiers for these greedy inbreds? The US military alone is the biggest polluter at this stage, oceans will have more plastic than fish. Your media psyop FUD did this and now it's time to patch the ship back up in your ductape. Have fun, these genes won't slave for you past this generation.

fleddr 5y ago

Summary: things will be bad but quite OK still for Californian high earners, so carry on. That is, if you produce "democratic" children. I would agree though that likely climate change is used as a virtue signal for people whom already decided to not have children for other reasons. Such as economical ones. It's expensive to raise children but more importantly, the quality of life of those children is in strong decline, economically speaking. High debt. Low job security. Low and stagnant wages. Unaffordable housing. Needing to compete with the entire world. High speed of change. Political instability. Accelerating inequality. I imagine these to be important reasons. The general feeling that younger generations have it worse, with things getting ever worse, and never better. We lost our humanity, our economic system is beyond repair.

orwin 5y ago

I don't know the author, but i'd bet he is neither an engineer nor a physicist (nor a chemist). Carbon removal is allegedly 1000$/Tons and prototype work for 500$/tons (i did not check this, i'll trust him). And then he add "There seems to be a Moore’s Law for this kind of thing, and when people calculate it out it looks like it’s going to get cheaper pretty quickly". Yeah, no, sorry, this is a weird take. It's like saying we have Moore's law for Carnot machines when our 10% efficient motor went to 20% efficiency and then 40%. Yes, looked like moore's law. But we do have physic constraints, and i think our best gas plant have a theorical efficiency of 55 to 60% max, and ICE motors are still around 30%, even for the best cars. When it's only size constraints, we can make Moore's law last for a while, but energetic and chemical constraints, you can have one or two breakthrough - and we had that historically- but you can't plot those breakthrough on a notebook chart. Agree with some of his other points, also i guess the main reason not to have kids is economical. But please, don't talk about climate drift solutions if you don't have studied the question. Physic is hard. I should know i failed and had to settle as a software engineer :)

Yvain 5y ago
I'm the author. Guilty as charged of not being an engineer. But did you see the paper I cited for this, https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619307772 https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art... ? I also think the fact that the price has come down by several times already and is still nowhere near an economy of scale suggests it can do so more in the future. I didn't mean Moore's Law as a literal "it will always go down by exactly the same amount every year"
- orwin 5y ago
  I didn't want to accuse you of something like "not being an engineer" (which is perfectly fin as long as you're not working in digital marketing :) ), i'm sorry, it was poorly worded. I've read the paper, it is very interesting, it does not talk about machine pumping carbon out of the atmosphere however (the figure appeared low, now i know why). But yeah, DAC might be a solution. I'll rather take the IEA rapport on this [0]. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere and removing carbon is not the same thing. You then need to either seal the CO2, or transform it ( in a power-to-gas station? ). Also their base case of 15% capex/year can go outside see if i'm there. [0] https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture

prepend 5y ago

I remember 30 years ago listening to how people were choosing not to have kids because of nuclear war and whatnot. There’s always a reason for people with a negative outlook to choose not to have kids. And that’s fine as parenting is an extremely personal choice. It gets a bit annoying with use of the word “breeder” and stupid articles lauding #childfree and whatnot. But that’s easy for me to avoid along with other social media stupidity. I don’t think these are rational decisions so I stopped trying to discuss with rational bases (eg, people are creative and produce more than they consume).

Zak 5y ago
> It gets a bit annoying with use of the word “breeder” and stupid articles lauding #childfree and whatnot. I find calling people names unhelpful in virtually all situations, however normalizing being childfree is very helpful to some people facing unwelcome social pressure to have children.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  > facing unwelcome social pressure to have children. Any guess as to why the human species is predisposed to pressure each other into having kids?
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    We are predisposed to many other things as well, such as violence. Society frowns on that.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      Right, because society itself evolved where societies that promote too much violence don't survive and those which do not do, thus the societies that are extant and have survived for a period of time have accumulated wisdom stored in their transmitted values, beliefs, moral codes, and customs. Including the basic wisdom of understanding that having at least a replacement level of kids is a requirement for the society to survive. Societies that lacked this wisdom aren't around anymore. So both genetic and social pressures point the same direction, which is why there is both biological pressure as well as social pressure to have kids. I have yet to see any traditional society that discourages children. Deviate from this learned wisdom at your peril.

Traubenfuchs 5y ago

Embrace antinatalism. There are few reasons to have children and none of them are good.

lampe3 5y ago

I have a 3 months old daughter and for the people here writing that it should not be a point, or it should be a point, I can only say it is the wrong way of thinking about it. If you have a child, the first thing you want is that the child is safe and healthy. And you start to think what can you do better and what should change in the world so that your kid/baby has it better. So in the end, if just 50% of the scenarios of climate change are true, you will change your behavior. It's the same with eating candy or other unhealthy stuff. You will stop eating it because you want to show your kid/baby what is healthier for her/him. So I would say we need more kids in the world if we want to have a better future.

falcolas 5y ago
> we need more kids … if we want to have a better future Funny, a vast majority of folks have children (>85% in the US), and yet, here we are.
- lampe3 5y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand your comment and what is funny. Birthrates in the US are going down from 25.000 per 100.000 to 10.000 per 100.000.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    Sorry, let me expand then. The assertion that is happening in this thread is “having children will improve the world”. Given this assertion, how is it possible that global warming even happened in the first place, when there were, as you state, bigger birth rates than we have now? Most of the issues we’re facing today - especially global warming - weren’t caused just yesterday. They’ve been in progress for decades, and we’ve known about the potential issues for decades (I remember such concerns when we started opening holes in the ozone some 30 years ago).
    - lampe3 5y ago
      So let's die out as humanity? Sorry, I find your assertion as a sign of depression and helplessness

ceilingcorner 5y ago

The idea is complete nonsense. Even with absolute worst case climate change scenarios, the average person will have a quality of life vastly above basically anyone in the past. Especially during the Middle Ages when plague was killing people in the street. Yet those people still had families and children. This is a cultural phenomenon, not a rational one, and has more to do with the West’s lack of a coherent worldview in our post-Christian age. It’s a problem of nihilism. The “interesting” part is that this, like all scenarios, has evolutionary consequences. People that don’t buy into the climate change = I don’t want kids narrative will out-reproduce and out last those that do. The future isn’t a small society of rationalist childfree vegans, it’s comprised of people that have a lot of kids.

nisegami 5y ago
>the average person will have a quality of life vastly above basically anyone in the past. Wasn't right then, isn't right now.
fleddr 5y ago
Past comparisons outside recent memory are useless. They are correct, but still useless. Already right now for younger generations their awesome "quality of life" means they can't even start a family. Everything is unaffordable. It's not a solution to say "you have it so easy compared to the worst part of the middle ages".
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  Everything isn’t unaffordable. Living at a high quality of life with iPhones and Uber eats might be unaffordable in certain cities. But the basic costs of having a family (food, shelter, etc.) are probably cheaper today than at any time in history. I don’t think people understand how poor the average person was even a century ago.
  - fleddr 5y ago
    Well, for sure it depends on where you live. In my country, young people can't ever own a home and rent eats up half their income. At age 30-35, they still don't have their basics in place, and the choice for kids is postponed until an ever higher age. But I'm sure it's all fine, because they have a phone.

xyzelement 5y ago

The idea that people should have fewer children struck me as cultural suicide when I first encountered it in the 1990s, way before climate change became a commonplace topic. Having kids has always been a leap of faith. Does anyone think it's "scarier" to have kids now than it was during the Depression, WW2, AIDS epidemic, Cold War, post-9/11, etc? If your philosophy includes not having kids, then your philosophy will go away on its own in a few decades. Whatever the world will look like 20-50 years from now, it will exclude those people and ideas who opted out of life. On one hand, it's those people's problems. On the other hand, as someone living in the West, I am very much "in the same boat" with these people. I suspect the danger to our the kids 20-50 years from now will be consequences of demographic decline much more than climate change. This feels sinister. Why is the idea that the best thing you can do for the future is to die out so popular? If you wanted to destroy a people/country/humanity, you'd work hard to spread the idea of not having kids. So who's doing this?

nisegami 5y ago
>I suspect the danger to our the kids 20-50 years from now will be consequences of demographic decline much more than climate change. My kids will face no such consequences on account of me not forcing them into this world. What the rest of you get up to is not of much concern to me.
- dTal 5y ago
  Why do you only have empathy for your own (potential) children?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I am not the person you responded to, but in the context of that reply, my answer would be because I played no part in other people’s decision to have children. Note that this is not about no empathy overall, but in the context of empathy due to effects of declining population.
rsj_hn 5y ago
Yes, it's sinister and really unhealthy. People, on balance, are a blessing, and love of humanity is a prerequisite to having a civil society. These misanthropic beliefs are primarily limited to elites, who have become so decadent as to hate mankind. You have Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburough saying "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." Also some of the more fanatical environmental groups are less about loving the environment than hating people. You also see similar sentiments expressed in modern architecture -- the idea that architecture shouldn't be beautiful or comfortable because people should be uncomfortable, etc, as in the famous debate between Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman. This idea of hating your own group or even hating all mankind is basically the extreme end of modern decadence, a luxury primarily afforded to a subset of people in the wealthiest western nations. Fortunately, it is not shared by the bulk of humanity, or even by ordinary blue collar people in wealthy nations.

alanwreath 5y ago

For the people who say, “I won’t have children because look at the present and it’s problems, how could the future be any better”, have kids. Have’em or adopt’em or mentor’em and help them be part of the difference. The future is bleak if people like you with real awareness of the issues don’t pass them on in some way. That includes having kids and raising them on your shoulders. The effects of good parenting/mentoring bleed far past the pupil. Your super child could influence communities even if not a recognized leader.

aogaili 5y ago

Because of climate change? no, because of Schopenhauer. Kidding aside, people don't have kids in developed world because it is costly to create a child that would operate in a competitive urban environment with high home prices, nurseries, healthcare, unstable job market, pandemics and cut throat competition. No body wants to bring kids just to see themselves and their kids struggle, millennials can barely offered a house. Modern day leaders and thinkers don't seem to offer a sensible pragmatic solution to the major issues facing humanity.

hpcjoe 5y ago

I am biased, as I am the father of a wonderful (adult) child. Some thoughts. 1) Being a parent was the absolutely best thing that I've ever done and experienced. Nothing IMO, can compare to this. 2) Climate change was not (ever) a consideration for us in the late 90s. Though the climate wasn't that great back then (fairly hot preceeding decade, a few years before the pause). 3) Economics were definitely a consideration. I was making good income at my job, my wife was enjoying her life working at a museum. We could easily live on what I made alone (though not what she made alone). Additionally, we live(d) in a LCOL area, compared to the coasts. Honestly, the LCOL areas are IMO a much better place to consider raising a family anyway, from an economic viewpoint. Some LCOL areas aren't great from a security or environment standpoint, due to years/decades of pollution and terrible politics. But in this day and age you can choose where you want to be. There is nothing special about the coasts, and much to be gained by not living there. All this said, there are many valid reasons for not wanting to become a parent. But climate change isn't one of them. For the simple reason that, despite protestations of many, the climate has always changed, and humans have either adapted to these changes, or died out. I recall from middle school biology, a definition of adaptation to an environment given. When a species can reproduce in its environment, it is said to have adapted to it. This has quite a bit loaded into this definition that is not spelled out in detail, but the point remains that you need to have line of sight to food, shelter, security, etc. in order to be able to consider procreating. Some points about population collapse are worth noting. When a society fails to produce sufficient children such that it can sustain itself and its quality of life, it eventually reaches a point where there are too few young people to replenish what you lose. When that occurs, you get something similar to what we see today, in terms of insufficient number of workers available to work. That case could be "fixed" by improving the healthcare, compensation, and social security nets right now, but in the future, with insufficient offspring, no amount of additional incentive to work, will create new workers for you. Put another less sympathetic way, not having kids because of irrational reasons is an automatic Darwin Award nomination. It is species level self-own. An L. The gene pool only propagates the winners of adaptation. So if you don't adapt, i.e. reproduce, your genes are not going to be in the gene pool. Which, is the literal definition of the Darwin award. Have kids. Its worth it. Every last second of it.

5y ago

ideashower 5y ago

Ignoring the merits of whether or not it’s a good idea to have kids due to climate change: I feel like the author doesn’t appropriately consider the cascading effects of climate change. Kids aren’t in my present life plan (I’m too young atm) but I can already see that the biggest barrier to kids in my future right now is just the extreme wealth inequality and rising costs of having children. Compound that with an inevitable climate migration that will shift the balance of wealth in the USA, and you’re likely to see greater difficulties for new middle-income families (who are, as the author notes, still among the most privileged on the planet). Furthermore, the real effects of climate change that our children are likely to have great difficulties with, in my mind, are ecological destruction and the eradication of micro-ecosystems leading to global calamity with food. I feel, without much evidence to support it, that we’re likely to see a spectrum of symptoms that lead to targeted devastation and mass-death of various species. It’s not any one of those things, it’s everything all at once. Now, I love the argument that this all is not a reason to not bring in kids because we will need bright, young minds to dream and live futures that we won’t get to have. And that gives me hope, which is something we should all allow ourselves to have.

rubylark 5y ago

I find it interesting that those who don't want kids _must_ supply a reason, while the opposite isn't true. I'm at the age where all my friends are having their first and second children, and absolutely none of them had to give an answer to "Why?" If you plan to have kids, the only reason you need to supply is "because I want them." But people who don't plan on having kids tend to explain in a multi-part essay about their economic hardships, lack of time, and existential listlessness. I assume this is because people (especially potential grandparents) don't accept a simple "I don't want kids" as an answer.

HKH2 5y ago
If we have a natural inclination to have kids then there probably is a reason why you don't want them.
kilbuz 5y ago
Not in SF. For me, very rare to see a kid in my neighborhood, and no one talks about them. Pros and cons, sure, but it's been a while since I've heard a discussion like this.

daxfohl 5y ago

The author here jumps from "it probably won't make humans extinct", to "so it's probably nothing to worry about", with an agility that I can't quite wrap my head around.

tristor 5y ago

I gave a /significant/ amount of thought to the question of whether or not I should have children many years ago, and came to the conclusion that I should not. Climate change never even entered into the equation. For me, it was a simple decision, albeit one with many factors. I made an admittedly somewhat selfish choice, but one that I knew I would be satisfied with, to pursue a specific set of life goals and to avoid things which would impede or redirect me from those goals. While it's certainly true that many people throughout history have had children and mostly ignored them, I could never do that. If I did somehow end up having children, I would want to be a good parent and actively involved in their lives and their education, which would mean giving up on my other life goals. So, I decided I would not have children. Many of my friends have children, and many others do not. These things come up in conversation and the same kind of thinking seems to dominate, and we are all the same generation (Xennials/older Millennials). Everybody made their choice off the basis of what their goals in life were, with the next most important factor generally being economics. Nobody was concerned with whether climate change presented an existential crisis that they wouldn't want to bring children into... we're humans after all, and we rely on getting better over time as each generation discovers new knowledge built on top of the past. Given all that, I feel like this article is an argument against a straw man.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rhn_mk1 5y ago

> I am grateful for my parents’ decisions here and so I conclude that having children in a world with a 1% risk of apocalypse is fine. That's the is-ought fallacy. That people did it before doesn't make it fine. Or survivorship bias - you were lucky, but that doesn't negate the risk. > If you’re not one of [antinatalists], I think the quality-of-life argument for not having kids now is pretty weak. Again, what about those who think now, as well as under some, not even all conditions? > that’s not really the relevant timeframe for actually stabilizing the climate, given that we have this decade to cut emissions in half. That actually makes sense until you ask the question: what if we faill or struggle? Then the lowered population could really come in handy. This same argument also neutralizes the voting problem: your child won't have the right to vote in the next decade. Even in the longer term, who is going to guarantee that the child will vote for reduced emissions? I'm a fan of astral codex ten, but I had the impression that the usual writing has less blind spots.

JohnFen 5y ago

I'm struggling to find anything in this essay that I agree with. > But it won’t cause the collapse of civilization. It won’t kill everyone. The author seems to think that as long as everything isn't completely leveled, nobody should be shy about bringing children into the world. I disagree. The middle is being excluded here. > Life in the First World will continue, with worse weather and maybe a weaker economy, but more or less the same as always. Not in my part of the first world. Everything has changed for the worse, and all signs point to more extreme problems in the future. > One way to think of this is to notice that we’ve already gotten about 25-30% of the global warming we’re likely to see by 2100. Which is terrifying.

aazaa 5y ago

It's baffling how anyone can simultaneously believe: 1. climate change is an existential threat to humanity 2. having one or more children is a good thing If you believe one, you need to yield on the other. The article yields on (1) to support (2). The thing is that (2) faces headwinds that have nothing to do with climate, namely economics. It's insanely expensive to have children. Not just the actual out-of-pocket, but also the opportunity costs, not to mention the emotional toll if the marriage becomes unstable. Then there's the toll on children raised by people other than their parents due to the horrendous economics of both parents being at work. So in this sense, the climate crisis as broadly defined, has a finite amount of room to run. Economics acts to cap births in developed economies. The rest of the world eventually catches up. Before you know it having a couple of kids has become a status symbol.

mcphage 5y ago
> It's baffling how anyone can simultaneously believe: > 1. climate change is an existential threat to humanity > 2. having one or more children is a good thing What's baffling about that? Climate change is an existential threat, but it means we need to do something about it, it doesn't mean we put life on pause until it gets solved. Nuclear weapons are still an existential threat, but we keep going. And the children we have are probably the ones who finish solving these problems—or maybe their children, or their childrens' children. Either way, you keep moving, keep living.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The cause of climate change is total consumption of resources, and so the solution to climate change in a relevant timeframe requires a decrease in the total consumption of resources. That can be accomplished via decrease in per capita consumption, or per capita. The former is not realistic at all. And maybe neither is a legitimate timeframe for decreasing total consumption. However, the most effective option at this point seems to be reducing the number of humans themselves, especially the ones that are consuming a lot.

nunez 5y ago

We didn't give up on having kids b/c of climate change; we voluntarily decided not to have them because we don't want them!

nec4b 5y ago

In the end it is simple. If you don't have kids, other people with greater joy for life will. Nature self regulates. Evolution still works.

difosfor 5y ago

Please stop voting for people that mess up the climate

lamontcg 5y ago

Start doing serious changes which address things like climate change and people would magically acquire more confidence, and its the right thing to do anyway. This is really all about a crisis of confidence in political leadership at its core. Its also pretty rational and the correct thing to do is to address that leadership deficit rather than trying to convince people they're thinking about it wrong.