5 ms·

* (sociologic) fear of climate change (will the world still be habitable in 20 years' time) or commitment to make a small positive impact on climate change by n

* (sociologic) fear of climate change (will the world still be habitable in 20 years' time) or commitment to make a small positive impact on climate change by not having kids I'm not saying this is true or rational (there are actually blog posts in the rationalist community along the lines of "no, having kids does not cause climate change") but it's definitely a sentiment I've encountered.

hardware2win 3y ago
>will the world still be habitable in 20 years' time I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way And dont get me wrong - we arent climate change deniers, just... pick your battles Why waste your life worrying about something you have tiny impact on?
- crooked-v 3y ago
  It's anecdotal, of course, but I've definitely seen a number of posts online that amount to 'my spouse and I have decided not to have children, because we don't want to inflict them with the terrible state of the planet in 30 or 40 or 50 years'.
  - hardware2win 3y ago
    Ive seen crazy stuff on the internet too! But until I or you manage to meet at least one person with such approach, then I do recommend to do not take it seriously
    - generic92034 3y ago
      I have met several people with that idea in "real life". And now?
      - bitlax 3y ago
        You're just someone on the internet.
        generic92034 3y ago
        Same as the poster I was replying to. ;)
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Before having a child, it was something I thought about and my wife and I would occasionally discuss. Now my son asks, "How can you do this to me? You've screwed up our planet and there is nothing I can do for at least ten years," (direct quote after coming home from school yesterday -- he's 9). Our kids are worried about it, more so than our generation, that's for sure.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    Man this must be hard on everyone. You and your son included.
    - hanselot 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - anjc 3y ago
    Are you going to raise this with the school? It seems highly inappropriate on their part
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Why would I bring my son’s opinions up with the school? Because they learned about global warming? Nah, we had a sit down talk about it and how it isn’t “any one specific person’s” fault.
      - anjc 3y ago
        Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed that he learned it was your fault, rather than this being an opinion he formed.
        withinboredom 3y ago
        I mean it slightly is. I leave lights on, take long showers, drive a car, and lots of other things.
- Aeolos 3y ago
  A lot of people in the 18-35 demographic I am talking to are keenly aware of the environmental issues, and have taken steps to change their lifestyle to match. No cars, becoming vegetarian, buying second-hand, reducing travel, reducing consumption. Yes, I may be seeing a bubble - but that is across three different countries, and clearly reflected in car-ownership statistics (down dramatically in younger generations) and in voting preferences.
  - hardware2win 3y ago
    We werent talking about consumption reduction and similar. Decision to not have kids because earth may be not livable is infinitly more drastic
- chx 3y ago
  > I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way there's an entire Voluntary Human Extinction Movement...
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way In 20 years not, but it's reasonable to believe for anyone outside America and Central Europe that wide swaths of the planet - particularly the entirety of Africa and lots of Asia - will be unable to support human life. Hell, we're already seeing issues with water supply even in Central Europe, with France restricting water consumptions because of drought [2], and Germany's water reserves are dwindling as well. India is suffering from a massive heat wave [1], and last year's devastation in Australia should still be in living memory. Anyone who is not worried about the future of the planet is either ridiculously ignorant to reality or completely incompetent. And the worst thing is, politicians in power play down climate change, act like future technology (anything from nuclear fusion to desalination plants) will save us, or deny it entirely - and wide swaths to outright majorities of people believe that. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/17/weather-tracker-india-temperatures-hit-40c-heatwave-continues https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/17/weather-... [2] https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/05/10/southern-france-region-to-declare-crisis-drought-level-from-wednesday https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/05/10/southern-france-re...
  - hardware2win 3y ago
    >Anyone who is not worried about the future of the planet is either ridiculously ignorant to reality or completely incompetent. Worrying here was reflected by drastic actions. Not worrying didnt mean not worrying at all.
- r00fus 3y ago
  > I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way Do you happen to remember the global wildfires/rivers drying up/massive heat waves in 2020? About a few billion people worldwide / 100m Americans sure do. A larger and larger portion of them are starting to understanding what the cause to that is and are acting accordingly. Every year, we keep hearing how even the most aggressive estimates for climate change were underestimated. That's terrifying and existential to a lot of people including me.
mihaic 3y ago
That feels actually anti-rational, since if the people that care about the environment stop having children that means the people that are passing on their life outlook are mostly ignorant of the environment. It must be a US thing more though, as I haven't personally heard people say fear of environmental damage to keep them from having kids.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  >if the people that care about the environment stop having children that means the people that are passing on their life outlook are mostly ignorant of the environment. That argument seems rather doubtful to me.
  - mihaic 3y ago
    It's not a perfect correlation, but I'd find it hard to believe that children don't share on average more of their outlook on life with their parents than with a random member of society.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      It's a pretty bad, very risky "investment" in the environmental cause, though, because by the time your kids are old enough to vote, it'll be almost 20 years later already, the kids will be using up resources while they're growing up regardless of the ultimate outcome, and you can only pray in the end that they'll agree with you on values when they're adults. You can't just pump a new environmentalist out of the womb.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > That feels actually anti-rational, since if the people that care about the environment stop having children that means the people that are passing on their life outlook are mostly ignorant of the environment. This assumes that parents successfully pass on their life outlook to their children, but if that were true then society would have never changed. I don't share the life outlook of my parents.
krona 3y ago
If we're talking about mortality salience, then there's quite a lot of evidence that mortality salience predicts a greater desire to have children, which is the opposite to what you're suggesting. From an evolutionary point of view, this seems plausible. Obviously not having children because 'life is hard' is almost certainly dysgenic.
marvin 3y ago
For most people who say this, it’s just a rationalization. Acknowledging that kids are infeasible for economic reasons, like GP laid out, is just too painful and embarrassing. So the ‘environment’ fig leaf saves their dignity.
- wink 3y ago
  It's kinda down on the list of prios but "I can not in good conscience have children grow up in this world where I see only problems and no solutions." is definitely on it, and you can call me overly pessimistic, but not sure how this has anything with dignity.
X0Refraction 3y ago
This is one the factors as to why my partner and I have decided against having children. Not because we think it'll make the situation worse, but because we believe they shouldn't have to deal with the significant fallout from resource contention, climate migration etc. that is more than likely on the horizon when they had no hand in creating the problem
- berberous 3y ago
  This is a weird take to me. Even if climate change turns out to be significantly bad, I have a hard time imagining it would be worse than most times in human history. Only a few generations ago people lived through two world wars. We could have a third world war at some point, or the AI doomers could be right, but would that stop you from having children? This feels to me like someone who doesn’t leave their house because they are worried a car might hit them…it’s an unhealthy anxiety about one of many potential risks, that shouldn’t prevent you from living life.
  - X0Refraction 3y ago
    Keep in mind that I've said it's one of the factors, not the only factor. But why should my standards be just better than most times in human history? That seems a low bar to me, most times in human history were miserable for the majority of people compared to the living standards I've become accustomed to. To be clear, I don't feel there is any moral duty to continue my particular genes and the world population will continue to increase for the foreseeable regardless. If I were to have children I personally would feel guilty if they had it significantly harder than I have and I think the likelihood is that will be the case - it's really as simple as that.
    - orionsbelt 3y ago
      If you grew up with $50M+ and lived a luxurious life, but lost it all, would you not have children over worries they may not have the same standard of living that you did? If you could be born in America in 1925 and live until 2015, would you? Or would you decline because the standard of living dropped right away with a Great Depression followed by a world war? I agree with you that if I knew, with certainty, that my children’s lives would be filled with nothing but suffering, I would make the same choice. But a fear of a theoretical drop in a standard of living, and which may not even impact an American over the next 100 years all that much, does not seem to me like it should reach that threshold, and I suspect it is starting to for others because of the media playing into their anxieties. There are people living that lived through the holocaust and are still happy to have lived and, over their lifetime, have had fulfilled and happy lives. I suspect your children could likewise carve out a happy life, even if their standard of living is somewhat reduced. I agree you have no moral duty to have kids, and if you don’t want them, don’t have them. But if you want them, but are not having them because you find that to be cruel to your unborn kids, I question whether that is really a rational choice.
CalRobert 3y ago
It's not about whether your kids will cause climate change. It's about creating children just in time for them to suffer through the collapse of civilisation.
- fileeditview 3y ago
  The collapse of civilization is happening since the dawn of civilization. Jokes aside, I have heard both points made. Yours and the one from the parent poster.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    We had pretty stable temperatures from the dawn of civilization (the end of the last ice age) until about 30 years ago.
    - themaninthedark 3y ago
      From 1300 ~ about 1700 there was a "little" ice age that cuased widespread famine and cultural disruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age Yes, the current temperature shift now is greater but it has been ongoing for a much shorter period of time.
      - crooked-v 3y ago
        > but it has been ongoing for a much shorter period of time That's worse, not better! https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
    - revelio 3y ago
      We did not, that's the famously debunked hockey-stick graph claim. Temperature has varied drastically throughout time. There were Vikings growing barley in Greenland, something completely impossible today. The reason you believe otherwise is because climate doomers lie a lot.
tivert 3y ago
> I'm not saying this is true or rational (there are actually blog posts in the rationalist community along the lines of "no, having kids does not cause climate change") I would not use the "rationalist" community as a measure of what is rational.

hardware2win 3y ago

>will the world still be habitable in 20 years' time I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way And dont get me wrong - we arent climate change deniers, just... pick your battles Why waste your life worrying about something you have tiny impact on?

crooked-v 3y ago
It's anecdotal, of course, but I've definitely seen a number of posts online that amount to 'my spouse and I have decided not to have children, because we don't want to inflict them with the terrible state of the planet in 30 or 40 or 50 years'.
- hardware2win 3y ago
  Ive seen crazy stuff on the internet too! But until I or you manage to meet at least one person with such approach, then I do recommend to do not take it seriously
  - generic92034 3y ago
    I have met several people with that idea in "real life". And now?
    - bitlax 3y ago
      You're just someone on the internet.
      - generic92034 3y ago
        Same as the poster I was replying to. ;)
withinboredom 3y ago
Before having a child, it was something I thought about and my wife and I would occasionally discuss. Now my son asks, "How can you do this to me? You've screwed up our planet and there is nothing I can do for at least ten years," (direct quote after coming home from school yesterday -- he's 9). Our kids are worried about it, more so than our generation, that's for sure.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Man this must be hard on everyone. You and your son included.
  - hanselot 3y ago
    [flagged]
- anjc 3y ago
  Are you going to raise this with the school? It seems highly inappropriate on their part
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Why would I bring my son’s opinions up with the school? Because they learned about global warming? Nah, we had a sit down talk about it and how it isn’t “any one specific person’s” fault.
    - anjc 3y ago
      Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed that he learned it was your fault, rather than this being an opinion he formed.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        I mean it slightly is. I leave lights on, take long showers, drive a car, and lots of other things.
Aeolos 3y ago
A lot of people in the 18-35 demographic I am talking to are keenly aware of the environmental issues, and have taken steps to change their lifestyle to match. No cars, becoming vegetarian, buying second-hand, reducing travel, reducing consumption. Yes, I may be seeing a bubble - but that is across three different countries, and clearly reflected in car-ownership statistics (down dramatically in younger generations) and in voting preferences.
- hardware2win 3y ago
  We werent talking about consumption reduction and similar. Decision to not have kids because earth may be not livable is infinitly more drastic
chx 3y ago
> I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way there's an entire Voluntary Human Extinction Movement...
mschuster91 3y ago
> I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way In 20 years not, but it's reasonable to believe for anyone outside America and Central Europe that wide swaths of the planet - particularly the entirety of Africa and lots of Asia - will be unable to support human life. Hell, we're already seeing issues with water supply even in Central Europe, with France restricting water consumptions because of drought [2], and Germany's water reserves are dwindling as well. India is suffering from a massive heat wave [1], and last year's devastation in Australia should still be in living memory. Anyone who is not worried about the future of the planet is either ridiculously ignorant to reality or completely incompetent. And the worst thing is, politicians in power play down climate change, act like future technology (anything from nuclear fusion to desalination plants) will save us, or deny it entirely - and wide swaths to outright majorities of people believe that. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/17/weather-tracker-india-temperatures-hit-40c-heatwave-continues https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/17/weather-... [2] https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/05/10/southern-france-region-to-declare-crisis-drought-level-from-wednesday https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/05/10/southern-france-re...
- hardware2win 3y ago
  >Anyone who is not worried about the future of the planet is either ridiculously ignorant to reality or completely incompetent. Worrying here was reflected by drastic actions. Not worrying didnt mean not worrying at all.
r00fus 3y ago
> I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way Do you happen to remember the global wildfires/rivers drying up/massive heat waves in 2020? About a few billion people worldwide / 100m Americans sure do. A larger and larger portion of them are starting to understanding what the cause to that is and are acting accordingly. Every year, we keep hearing how even the most aggressive estimates for climate change were underestimated. That's terrifying and existential to a lot of people including me.

mihaic 3y ago

That feels actually anti-rational, since if the people that care about the environment stop having children that means the people that are passing on their life outlook are mostly ignorant of the environment. It must be a US thing more though, as I haven't personally heard people say fear of environmental damage to keep them from having kids.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago
>if the people that care about the environment stop having children that means the people that are passing on their life outlook are mostly ignorant of the environment. That argument seems rather doubtful to me.
- mihaic 3y ago
  It's not a perfect correlation, but I'd find it hard to believe that children don't share on average more of their outlook on life with their parents than with a random member of society.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    It's a pretty bad, very risky "investment" in the environmental cause, though, because by the time your kids are old enough to vote, it'll be almost 20 years later already, the kids will be using up resources while they're growing up regardless of the ultimate outcome, and you can only pray in the end that they'll agree with you on values when they're adults. You can't just pump a new environmentalist out of the womb.
lapcat 3y ago
> That feels actually anti-rational, since if the people that care about the environment stop having children that means the people that are passing on their life outlook are mostly ignorant of the environment. This assumes that parents successfully pass on their life outlook to their children, but if that were true then society would have never changed. I don't share the life outlook of my parents.

krona 3y ago

If we're talking about mortality salience, then there's quite a lot of evidence that mortality salience predicts a greater desire to have children, which is the opposite to what you're suggesting. From an evolutionary point of view, this seems plausible. Obviously not having children because 'life is hard' is almost certainly dysgenic.

marvin 3y ago

For most people who say this, it’s just a rationalization. Acknowledging that kids are infeasible for economic reasons, like GP laid out, is just too painful and embarrassing. So the ‘environment’ fig leaf saves their dignity.

wink 3y ago
It's kinda down on the list of prios but "I can not in good conscience have children grow up in this world where I see only problems and no solutions." is definitely on it, and you can call me overly pessimistic, but not sure how this has anything with dignity.

X0Refraction 3y ago

This is one the factors as to why my partner and I have decided against having children. Not because we think it'll make the situation worse, but because we believe they shouldn't have to deal with the significant fallout from resource contention, climate migration etc. that is more than likely on the horizon when they had no hand in creating the problem

berberous 3y ago
This is a weird take to me. Even if climate change turns out to be significantly bad, I have a hard time imagining it would be worse than most times in human history. Only a few generations ago people lived through two world wars. We could have a third world war at some point, or the AI doomers could be right, but would that stop you from having children? This feels to me like someone who doesn’t leave their house because they are worried a car might hit them…it’s an unhealthy anxiety about one of many potential risks, that shouldn’t prevent you from living life.
- X0Refraction 3y ago
  Keep in mind that I've said it's one of the factors, not the only factor. But why should my standards be just better than most times in human history? That seems a low bar to me, most times in human history were miserable for the majority of people compared to the living standards I've become accustomed to. To be clear, I don't feel there is any moral duty to continue my particular genes and the world population will continue to increase for the foreseeable regardless. If I were to have children I personally would feel guilty if they had it significantly harder than I have and I think the likelihood is that will be the case - it's really as simple as that.
  - orionsbelt 3y ago
    If you grew up with $50M+ and lived a luxurious life, but lost it all, would you not have children over worries they may not have the same standard of living that you did? If you could be born in America in 1925 and live until 2015, would you? Or would you decline because the standard of living dropped right away with a Great Depression followed by a world war? I agree with you that if I knew, with certainty, that my children’s lives would be filled with nothing but suffering, I would make the same choice. But a fear of a theoretical drop in a standard of living, and which may not even impact an American over the next 100 years all that much, does not seem to me like it should reach that threshold, and I suspect it is starting to for others because of the media playing into their anxieties. There are people living that lived through the holocaust and are still happy to have lived and, over their lifetime, have had fulfilled and happy lives. I suspect your children could likewise carve out a happy life, even if their standard of living is somewhat reduced. I agree you have no moral duty to have kids, and if you don’t want them, don’t have them. But if you want them, but are not having them because you find that to be cruel to your unborn kids, I question whether that is really a rational choice.

CalRobert 3y ago

It's not about whether your kids will cause climate change. It's about creating children just in time for them to suffer through the collapse of civilisation.

fileeditview 3y ago
The collapse of civilization is happening since the dawn of civilization. Jokes aside, I have heard both points made. Yours and the one from the parent poster.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  We had pretty stable temperatures from the dawn of civilization (the end of the last ice age) until about 30 years ago.
  - themaninthedark 3y ago
    From 1300 ~ about 1700 there was a "little" ice age that cuased widespread famine and cultural disruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age Yes, the current temperature shift now is greater but it has been ongoing for a much shorter period of time.
    - crooked-v 3y ago
      > but it has been ongoing for a much shorter period of time That's worse, not better! https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
  - revelio 3y ago
    We did not, that's the famously debunked hockey-stick graph claim. Temperature has varied drastically throughout time. There were Vikings growing barley in Greenland, something completely impossible today. The reason you believe otherwise is because climate doomers lie a lot.

tivert 3y ago

> I'm not saying this is true or rational (there are actually blog posts in the rationalist community along the lines of "no, having kids does not cause climate change") I would not use the "rationalist" community as a measure of what is rational.