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.”
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
Have them. Just raise them to be resilient little cockroaches.
Or better yet, adopt!
… “starting” feels like a horrible word to use in this context, in my humble opinion. Not as bad as not thinking about it tho.
I always thought my children, if I’d have them, might die a horrible death due to climate change.
Now, knowing that humanity with climate change in mind, only increased spewing CO2 in to the atmosphere, I think I actually eillmdie a horrible death due to climate change.
The no children thing for the climate is multiple generations too late already.
Also, keep the idiocracy effect in mind. Only the good and caring people decide not to have children, the idiots and selfish assholes will have ten for them.
As an adoptive parent of two kids from foster care, I know this is biased. And actually now that I’ve got a few years of parenting kids with trauma under my belt I actually think most people shouldn’t take on this challenge, because they actually wouldn’t be able to handle it. That said, I think that’s the only real way to counter the idiocracy effect. Adopt kids of the least responsible people to those who are most responsible. It’s mostly an opt-in, self selecting process that generally only moves things in the right direction. It’s also not really enough to actually offset the problem as a whole.
Still a good thing for folks to pursue though.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, wtf, that’s crazy.
Yeah I also needed my husband to approve for some reason. So demeaning.
deleted by creator
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.
no or fewer children
So… they killed other people’s children?
Fewer than they otherwise would have had.
Gotta fight climate change somehow
Climate scientists out here doing 40+ week abortions.
Adopting counts as -1?
Something something literally Idiocracy (2006)
+ Don’t look up
At least the president in Idocracy had the humility and self awareness let the smartest guy in the room advise him on policy.
Yeah, you quote that meme! Don’t go having any original thoughts there champ!
Hmmm, what would Krishnamurti do?
I donno, you really think that guy was that smart? He wanted to give plants water. Like, you know, what is in the toilet.
Seriously. Plants crave Brawndo.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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!
Everything is a science problem. Big refrigerators. Really big. Cool the whole world. Store heat in barrels and shoot them into the sun. Time machines. A whole host of solutions!
it’s a political one.
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.
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.
…. 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
Oh ok I guess we should stop trying and lose all hope then
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ninety-seven female scientists responded, with 17, including women from Brazil, Chile, Germany, India and Kenya, saying they had chosen to have fewer children.
Most of the female scientists interviewed had made their decisions about children in past decades, when they were younger and the grave danger of global heating was less apparent.
They said they had not wanted to add to the global human population that is exacting a heavy environmental toll on the planet, and some also expressed fears about the climate chaos through which a child might now have to live.
Compulsory population control is not part of today’s population-environment debate, with better educational opportunities for girls and access to contraception for women who want it seen as effective and humane policies.
Prof Regina Rodrigues, an oceanographer at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil, who also chose not to have children, was influenced by the environmental destruction she saw in the fast-expanding coastal town near São Paulo where she grew up.
A study of Americans aged 27 to 45 – younger than the IPCC scientists surveyed – found concern about the wellbeing of children in a climate-changed world was a much bigger factor than worries over the carbon footprint of their offspring.
The original article contains 1,186 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
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.
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.
“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
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.
Hey I found this cool post from that guy you’re quoting.
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 🤷🏻♀️
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
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.
Getting snipped this week!
Starting
Lol
“We’ll figure it out in time. Even the oligarchs can’t be that greedy and short sighted.”
Yeeaah, that is what I thought too, 25 years ago, when we still could make a difference.
Now we’re in it and we’re only going harder. Gotta get richer sooner!
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.
