A fifth of female climate scientists who responded to Guardian survey said they had opted to have no or fewer children
Ihad the hormonal urges,” said Prof Camille Parmesan, a leading climate scientist based in France. “Oh my gosh, it was very strong. But it was: ‘Do I really want to bring a child into this world that we’re creating?’ Even 30 years ago, it was very clear the world was going to hell in a handbasket. I’m 62 now and I’m actually really glad I did not have children.”
Parmesan is not alone. An exclusive Guardian survey has found that almost a fifth of the female climate experts who responded have chosen to have no children, or fewer children, due to the environmental crises afflicting the world.
…
An Indian scientist who chose to be anonymous decided to adopt rather than have children of her own. “There are too many children in India who do not get a fair chance and we can offer that to someone who is already born,” she said. “We are not so special that our genes need to be transmitted: values matter more.”
The population is actually tipped to massively reduce on the next 100 years due to a large portion of people not have babies simply due to crappy economic conditions, inflation, war the lying flat movement in china and the ever increasing destruction of the middle class into the homeless poor. Aside from rich people destroying peoples ability to have happy lives, there’s also the plastic problem that’s quite literally made every male living thing have a reduced sperm count and it continues to drop as plastic is in the air, our clothes carpet and oceans. Endocrine disruptors in our bodies are being effected by chemicals found in vinyl products, thermal receipts and Tupperware releasing chemicals when heated in microwaves. These things are so small they enter the bloodstream and pass through the blood brain barrier… Fuuuck
So if you want to save the future start by sniping off rich oligarchs and ban plastic completely
It’ll start to level off around 10 billion, in 35 years.
The thing about a growing population is that fewer people having babies has a diminished effect when there are so many more people. Each new pair having a slightly smaller chance of reproducing doesn’t matter when there are twice as many new pairs.
The population won’t decrease dramatically, save for some catastrophic event.
The population very well might drop suddenly. Clearly that 10B is too many, but what happens after that. Some projections have a very steep decline, looking at developed countries approach an average closer to one child instead of closer to replacement value. What happens when most of those 10B age then pass, but there are only 5B to replace them? In the time of one generation, we could see a very serious depopulation in places
i agree with your general idea, but not with all the reasons. war, crappy economic conditions and inflation have all happened multiple times before (and much worse that the current situation), but I’ve never heard that there were large portion of people choosing not to have kids before (please, correct me if I am wrong)
i think that the current mental health crisis (which is caused by all those problems + the housing crisis, destruction of middle class, climate change concerns + social media) makes it different this time
war, crappy economic conditions and inflation have all happened multiple times before
And they’ve all been paired with downturns in new births. The Thirty Years War, the Bengali Famine, and the Great Depression all resulted in sharp declines in birth rates.
i think that the current mental health crisis (which is caused by all those problems + the housing crisis, destruction of middle class, climate change concerns + social media) makes it different this time
I don’t think its limited to mental health. Two big changes from historical periods have been the sharp decline in dying kids and introduction of effective contraception. Historically, the only thing that countered a human’s innate horniness was malnutrition, massacre, and high rates of infant mortality. With vaccines and contraception, the idea of family planning isn’t “Have five kids and hope two live” but “Have two kids and hope you can pay for their college”.
A big contribution to the 40s-era Baby Boom was the fertilizer revolution, which dramatically boosted crop yields. This, combined with early vaccine technology, saw a drop in maternal deaths and infant deaths, leading to parents with enormous family sizes who all lived to adulthood. These adults arrived just in time to start taking The Pill. Consequently, the Millennial second-tier Boom was much smaller than the first. And now Millennials are having even fewer kids, because contraception is trivial to obtain and large families are stigmatized against.
But as to mental health? I think that’s tangential and hardly unique to the modern moment. If we didn’t have fertilizer and contraception and vaccination, we’d have just as many mentally ill people running around and making babies who died before they turned three years old. And the population downturn would look the same as any other 18th or 19th century trend line.
i think another factor is that we are reaching or have maybe surpassed the earth’s carrying capacity for humans, which is only going to get worse with climate change. in the past, more kids also meant more labor and there was still lots of land to colonize and spread into with those extra people. but we already have more than enough people and no realistic places left to expand.
but we already have more than enough people and no realistic places left to expand.
…in the current economic model. Currently we have enough built housing and grow enough food globally and produce enough consumer goods that ever single person can be fed, clothed and shelter. But the wealthiest few would rather crops rot in fields, hoard houses to extract rent and burn unsold clothing instead of slightly lowering ther profit margins.
i totally agree, i didn’t quite state it but was basing my comment in the status quo. without being able to personally change the world’s economic model, one has to make decisions in the context of the current one.
The earths carrying capacity thing is old eugenic nonsense.
I mean, yes eugenicits have used carrying capacity in bad faith arguments. But why do the same and discount carrying capacity entirely?
TLDR: carrying capacity has been used by eugenicists in bad-faith arguments, but the finite nature of Earthly resources is a fact; ignoring it entirely makes any counter-argument against eugenics inherently flawed and weaker. When paired with the uncertainty created by human invention and potential extra-planitary resources, carrying capacity can be acknowledged as fact but effectively caveated, and instead debate can be shifted away from absolute limits on resources we are unlikely to hit, and to the much more important matter of the distribution of resources.
There is a finite amount of stuff in/on this little space-ball we call home. Some of that stuff is more rare, and some of it we need more of. There are physical limits to resources on Earth and I think it is fair to acknowledge that as well as helpful to avoid being wasteful with those resources or blind to the disparity of how they are distributed. Not acknowledging such a clear fact instantly gives the people using carrying capacity in an argument ammo to support their other non-factual claims and discount any other claims you make because you made this clearly unfactual claim about carrying capacity being just a made-up thing.
However, no other earthly species is as adept as humans at modifying their environment and the way they use resources. We find new ways to use resources, or replace resources entirely. See anyone using whale oil for lamps anymore? Nope, we changed what resources we need by advancing our lighting and power technology. We can’t determine carrying capacity for humans on Earth because we don’t know the limits of our ability to invent and adapt.
Also, at some point people have the potential to get off our home rock and start exploiting resources on other space-balls. The actual carrying capacity for Earth suddenly becomes meaningless. Will we make it that far as a species? I donno, but the possibility needs to be considered when discussing carrying capacity.
Much more important than carrying capacity is the distribution of resources. Currently, our resource distribution systems are incredibly inequitable and wasteful. As other have pointed out in this thread, at current capacity the resources we extract could address the basic needs of all humans many times over. It’s a human issue that we don’t do that, and that we polute/waste/etc, not an environmental/system capacity issue. We have improved these systems in the past, and we could improve them going forward.
I decided that I personally felt unethical bringing people into this world nearly a decade ago
What if your kid was going to be the one to fix everything though? Lol now we are doomed
We’re not in a movie. Climate change isn’t going be solved by one brilliant scientist. It’s not even a scientific/technology problem at this point, it’s a political one.
You nailed it with this comment, I agree completely. We have the technology, we’ve HAD the technology to solve the problem, and we’ve KNOWN what the problem is for a long time now. We have GREEDY fucks in high positions of power who wouldn’t make any money solving it though, that’s the problem.
Maybe his kid was going to assassinate a bunch of billionaires.
Cool, now you, an educated, well intent person with good morals won’t have any offspring to pass those values to, and thus won’t have any representation in the next generations. Meanwhile redneck Terry will make 7 children with 3 different women and teach them to hate the libruls and that the earth is flat.
It is your decision not to have kids, I chose so myself too. But your line of thinking is in discord with the argument.
Have you met the kids of those rednecks? A lot are estranged from their parents.
Especially with the internet, parents have a limited amount of control over kids, the more important part is education.
the more important part is education.
And that’s why there’s growing far-right movements around the world (especially the Western world) who want to defund education!
Maybe it is going to be solved by a brilliant political activist or leader. Jokes aside, of course it won’t be a couple of people who will magically solve something. Strong leaders will however ease the cause by promoting issues best.
If it is solved it will definitely be through technology of some sort. While I agree it will not be one brilliant scientist, technology will be the solution.
That technology may come in the form of a way to produce more energy without fucking up the climate, and the engineering and logistical capacity to roll out the change at a breakneck pace.
It may come in the form of simply developing a way to control the global climate directly.
It might come in the form of some technology to control the behavior of humans so that we can actually respond appropriately.
Or it might come in the form of the singularity, when self improving machines grow so far beyond us so fast that they can just do what is needed whether we like it or not.
But one way or another I guarantee that if it’s solved, it’ll largely be a technological solution, because getting humanity to just…stop using energy at our current rate…is just not going to happen.
The issue with technosolutionism is that it can’t fit the necessary parameters to address climate change. We already know we can’t go further with infinite growth. It’s not possible to tackle climate change. We need degrowth. Without it, it’s impossible.
The problem is that our economy is based on growth, and this growth will generate the new tech. If you’re for state developed and owned technologies, you have to change the political dogma et system first.
Addressing the climate crisis is a change in the politic and in the economic system. Without both of them, it will continue.
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=5vSUV1nii5k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Oh ok I guess we should stop trying and lose all hope then
Yes if your solution is to throw literal children at the problem you should quit while you’re ahead.
If the problem remains, you still haven’t thrown enough children at it.*
*) As a parent of wonderful kids /s of course.
Lmao…
Your two ideas are…
- “Someone’s child will solve the problem”
- Well there’s nothing we can do
?
No my ideas are that I’ll live my life and be the best person I can.
It was a joke when I said his kid could fix it. That guy’s obviously an idiot and his kids would be too
How do you people not know sarcasm? So I need to dumb it down for you with the /s like back in the day on Reddit? I thought we moved past that
Yes, it’s obvious that you were joking about the other commenter’s kid fixing the problem.
The issue is that it embodies the sentiment that it’s “not our problem” and it’s for the future generation to figure out…and then when that was called out, the first alternative you brought up was defeatism, as if that’s the only alternative to someone in the future fixing the problem, lol
The defeatism was obviously sarcasm too though. So stop making all these assumptions about me.
I obviously want the issues fixed and have hope that they will be since I said that I have my own children. I do my fair share as well.
Also you talk about “defeatism” and that’s all I see in this thread. People give up on the chance to have kids not because they don’t want them but because some rich assholes have started to destroy the environment, things cost too much, the pay isn’t right, etc… that’s defeatism. The rich assholes are still having plenty of kids and they will be the ones to inherit the world.
Political problems can be addressed through science and technology. Like the firearm, or the bicycle, or bittorrent. We need a way to coordinate a defense that won’t simply be shut down.
…. And all we needed was that brilliant orator, the Great Persuader on the side of good, someone to rally around to save the world!
They just get called woke gay snowflakes then the accusers go eat 10 steaks and jack off.
Theres no way to fix this with kind words, only through force
I would have done it, but when i looked around, looked to the future, and realized people had been horrible to me overall, i declined.
We don’t have time to wait for kids to grow up before doing what we can. Ah, sorry. Before putting all of that responsibility on them and screaming “NOT IT!”
Wow, bunch of twats not understanding a joke
Edit: about; it was not a joke, I repeat it was not a joke. Torpedo it
People are just so down on the world they want to crush all hope and joy for others too. In the long run I think people will be fine. The other planet’s residents probably not so much. But people will adapt. I’d rather experience life than worry too much about what I can’t solve.
I have kids too and seeing them experience joy and happiness is super rewarding. All you worry warts are just going to miss out.
People in developed countries will be fine. As long as you’re narcissistic enough to only look close by, we’re good to go!
Seriously though, definitely not my line of thinking and I’m very happy I had kids. There are many problems in the world and climate is just one of them. De-population of developed countries is another: we’ve started a population bomb that on 50 years will destabilize society as developed countries suddenly shrink. People are not only the cause of most of the worlds problems, they’re also the solution
Anyway, having kids is a personal choice, regardless of the world careening from one potential catastrophe to the next.
The other planet’s residents probably not so much.
Which other planet? Lol
Is there some plan to invade an alien world? Maybe that’ll be our solution, huh?
Other residents of this planet
I knew when I was 12 I never wanted children. I got married at 20. I got fixed at 24. I am almost 40 and have no regrets other than not getting fixed sooner, but finding a doc to fix a lady at 18 is damn near impossible.
A friend of mine had the same issue at 22. She even had already had a child at 16 but multiple doctors refused, claiming “she might want more”. One doctor would do it but wanted a signed permission slip from her husband first.
All women deserve bodily autonomy.
Yeah I also needed my husband to approve for some reason. So demeaning.
deleted by creator
Wow, wtf, that’s crazy.
fixed
Sorry but does it mean that you cut your tubes?
In my case I had a procedure called Essure done. But yeah I’m sterilized.
Recently cut, myself! Happy to have done so.
Nice. I’m getting snipped this week at 37. I felt comfort in keeping that door slightly ajar, but recently a lot of my friends having kids really pushed me over the line.
1/5th is low, and doesn’t appear very different to the general female population.
This really just highlights the underlying problem and why our “efforts” are destined to amount to little more than shuffling deck chairs on the titanic — humans are selfish, and most of us are not willing to make major sacrifices to avert disaster; hell, most struggle to accept minor inconveniences.
most struggle to accept minor inconveniences.
This is the really jaw dropping thing whenever I see it. I just have no idea what to say and don’t get how people don’t have an instinct for when there might be a bigger picture.
Some are really cruising through life just trying to maximise convenience and comfort.
COVID lockdowns demonstrated that we could kick climate change with enough will power. Id start by mandating work from home where possible.
Exactly so.
COVID lockdowns weren’t sustainable and while they reduced pollution to some extent they didn’t come close to eliminating it. Like in my country we turned off coal, but only because we don’t have much coal to begin with. We were still using plenty of gas power, as that’s our second largest energy source. Here in the UK our largest energy source is Wind, and we aren’t even doing that well compared to France or Spain on the energy front.
Things also still got manufactured and sold, and that’s where a lot of pollution comes from. Food and goods production. Eliminating transport pollution would help for sure, but it’s like 14% of the problem. Electricity generation, heating, and agriculture are the things we need to fix the most. Fixing electricity generation would also help with transport emissions as we could use more electric vehicles and trains.
Is that really surprising to you?
due to the environmental crises afflicting the world
You’re removing the context behind the reasoning. Unless you’re claiming 1/5th of the general female population does not want to have kids due to climate change as well.
I was referring to the general female population not having kids for any reason.
A quick search resulted in articles indicating that the average for the 21st century is somewhere between 1/6 - 1/9 around the developed world. One would expect the people most aware of how fucked the future will be would be dramatically less likely to expose their own children to that — not 20-80% less likely.
humans are selfish, and most of us are not willing to make major sacrifices to avert disaster
I am sick and tired of this cynical bullshit argument. It’s wrong in two ways (and neither are the way you think):
- It assumes that we have to reduce our standard of living in order to reduce our fossil fuels consumption, instead of innovating
- It presumes that the lifestyle changes that we do have to make (e.g. higher density zoning and walkablity) represent some kind of deprivation, rather than the improvement they would actually be.
Starting
Lol
1/5th want no or fewer kids… so 4/5 were pushing forward like normal.
Ohe of the 4/5. I have 3 kids under 13. You gotta.be optimistic that they’re the generation to finally fix the mess we made.
If everyone stops having kids then hope disappears.
When we have exhausted all other options, we will do the right thing.
Edit - I love that having hope and optimism for a future is downvotes lol
I’d say they are accelerating! Gotta make up for the people choosing reality.
“We’ll figure it out in time. Even the oligarchs can’t be that greedy and short sighted.”
lmao ‘starting’ ?? I believe starting should have been done years ago.
Reminds me of this South Park clip XD (youtube link)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Title could have said majority of millennials
I think the opinions of experts are more relevant than the trends of a generation.
Also consider that many millennials are having fewer children because of the rising cost of living. Personal, rather than worldwide circumstances.
no or fewer children
So… they killed other people’s children?
Gotta fight climate change somehow
Fewer than they otherwise would have had.
Adopting counts as -1?
How do you have fewer than no children? (=P tongue in cheek purposeful misunderstanding, not true pedantry)
Edit: (Damn, even being clear I was being cheeky I still managed to piss someone off xD)
Someone’s gotta have that half child from the 2.5 average!
But that would be like going to the gym 3.5 times a week! How do you go 3.5 times?! Do a half workout or something?
That’s where this originated from, the forum is still online, a highlight of human history:
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=eECjjLNAOd4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
-0.5 children
im surprised its a fifth have no or fewer and not the other way around.
deleted by creator
Oh no! Think of the hypothetical children!
This is a powerful lyric from the song masters of war by bob dylan.
It is a song about how the Rich and powerful use and abuse normal people as Grist for the war mill or in this case Grist for the oil mill.
How the fuck is this being downvoted?
Because on face value it looks like an anti-abortion lyric.
deleted by creator
I personally don’t see how. But this is probably the correct answer. Cheers.
deleted by creator
I didn’t recognize it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Even 30 years ago, it was very clear the world was going to hell in a handbasket.
And 30 years before that. And 30 years before that.
I mean, if you don’t want to have kids more power to you. I get it.
But what I’m reading is far more a consequence of a social stigma against having kids without sufficient economic independence. And extraordinary rates of inflation in housing, food, health care, and education make kids utterly unaffordable even if the climate situation looks great.
“We are not so special that our genes need to be transmitted: values matter more.”
I think that’s true up until a point. When I see the genocide in Gaza or forced sterilization policies aimed at black and Hispanic women in police custody in the US or caste violence in India or Myanmar or the Bill Gates Foundation’s effort to quash population size in West Africa…
What values are we transmitting when we’ve got a policy of eugenics? What does it say about the western impulse to homogenize and euthanize everything it comes into contact with?
I can very easily see a world in which the impulse towards mass extermination gets us before the heat pushes us all into the upper reaches of Canada and Russia. And I’m loathe to see anti-natalism harnessed as one more tool in the bigot’s bag of tricks, to justify why a population with high birth rates is an efficient target for population rightsizing.
lol… so wait, what you’re saying is, believers of the climate change doomsday scenario are less likely to have kids?
Climate change is real! And we only have 20 years left… again. And again. And again… Annnnd again.
Bruh, we practically only have 2 seasons where I live now.
deleted by creator
“Current policies alone likely keep warming below 3°C (5.4°F), nowhere near the “worst-case” scenarios.”
- Dr Michael Mann, rather well-known climate scientist
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202310/backpage.cfm
Hey I found this cool post from that guy you’re quoting.
So only most of us die instead of all of us?
You might want to read the article. Doomism isn’t climate science.
you might wanna read the article.
We can avoid catastrophic climate impacts if we take meaningful actions to address the climate crisis. Yes, that’s an important “if.”
this asshole buried the actual crux of the issue way deep in the fluff. these two sentences contradict the headline.
which part of what is currently happening in the world is making you pretend that the “if” qualification is being even remotely met?
The whole point of the article (written by Mann) is that the policies already in place keeps us below 3 degrees.
Regarding your “currently happening”, this quote seems fitting:
“I often encounter, especially on social media, individuals who are convinced that the latest extreme weather event is confirmation that the climate crisis is far worse than we thought, and scientists and climate communicators are intentionally “hiding” the scary truth from the public. It is the sort of conspiratorial thinking that we used to find among climate change deniers, but increasingly today we see it with climate doomists.”
Do you consider yourself better educated on climate science than Mann?
point of order, madam speaker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I do appear to have better reading comprehension than Mann expected from his audience. otherwise he wouldn’t have have tried something underhanded like that.
tell me, do you place value in peer review and consensus when it comes to science? you know Mann is out of step with scientific consensus in his view, yeah? I am inclined to believe you’ve cherry picked the one opinion piece which affirms a pre-existing perspective on your part.
also I adore that you completely failed to acknowledge a direct question I posed to you: which part of what is happening in the world right now is causing you to behave like Mann’s “if” condition is fulfilled in any way whatsoever? I want an answer from you in your own words. don’t quote an appeal to authority again.
Nobel prize-winning climate scientist
As the article correctly points out, 3 C warming is still really fucking bad. Just because it can technically be worse and we won’t all die does not mean it’ll be nice to live through. Bringing about the extinction of 29% of all species is madness. To quote the article:
“The most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of risk across all sectors — health, food, water, conflict, poverty, and the natural ecosystem — by the IPCC in 2018 basically concluded that we don’t want to warm the planet beyond 1.5°C (2.7°F), and we really don’t want to warm it beyond 2°C (3.6°F). And if we do happen to overshoot those targets, we want to keep the duration of overshoot to a minimum.”
yeah and this is through the narrow lens of just temperature. If there was no climate change we would still be pretty effed up due to habitat loss and pollution and such. Climate change is just sorta a knock on effect.
“Current policies alone likely keep warming below 3°C (5.4°F), nowhere near the “worst-case” scenarios.”
Dr Michael Mann, rather well-known climate scientist
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202310/backpage.cfm
3 degrees Celsius is already social collapse type of threateningly bad. Sure, we might not go extinct (aka the “worst case”, although tipping points could bring us the rest of the way there), but that doesn’t mean we’ll enjoy any sort of comfortable and stable life. We’d see major food and water shortages, we’d see terrible weather events such as prolonged droughts and massive flooding, we’d see vast areas of the equator becoming unlivable hellscapes, we’d see hundreds of thousands climate refugees, we’d see hundreds of thousands climate fatalities, we’d see exploding prices in every single sector, we’d see civil unrest dismantling the very fabric of our societies.
So maybe inform yourself what those 3 degrees would actually mean for the world.
You might want to read the article. Doomism isn’t climate science.
Highly ironic considering of your cherry picking and hiding of the truth. The author very much points out that the hope there is if we finally take action, consequently limiting us to not even reach those 3 degrees Celsius, which so far is still not happening.
We can avoid catastrophic climate impacts if we take meaningful actions to address the climate crisis.
But frankly, what you’re doing is even worse, because you simply call everyone a “doomer” who literally just wants the world to take the proper action needed to tackle this crisis, to even properly ACKNOWLEDGE this crisis. None of this is happening. Just because I think we’re fucked, does not mean I am not doing my part. My footprint is ridiculously small even compared to your average one person household, and there’s a lot of people in the middle and upper class who live so much worse due to their lavish lifestyles.
What’s with all the climate science deniers here downvoting a statement from an actual climate scientist … !?
you’re trying too hard. read the article again, this author is lying to you.
“this author” being Dr Michael Mann, climate scientist.
Why do you claim Mann is lying?
Mann being a human being who is not infallible, yes that Mann.
I am the same person from the other thread where I quoted to you the the bit in the article where Mann does intellectual dishonesty.
giving your opinion piece a clickbait and dishonest headline, and then burying two sentences deep in the body of the text which contradict your headline, is incompetent at best and corrupt at worst.
It’s because we have brains and can read further than the headline 🤷🏻♀️
