Even if you think it’s dumb, why should a dumb article on the Internet influence your decision whether or not to have kids? Also, basement flooding in Detroit doesn’t seem like a reason not to...
Even if you think it’s dumb, why should a dumb article on the Internet influence your decision whether or not to have kids?
Also, basement flooding in Detroit doesn’t seem like a reason not to have kids? I don’t know much about it, but it seems likely that flood control there will eventually be improved, and in any case kids can choose to live somewhere else when they grow up.
Even if there is some housing in Detroit that’s a hopeless cause, I don’t think there is anyone who can’t move given sufficient help and a place to go.
Well, I'm from Honduras and in the last years we've seen the emigration rates growing up uncontrollably. "Just go live somewhere else" should NOT be the solution, the climate issues[1] will still...
and in any case kids can choose to live somewhere else when they grow up.
Well, I'm from Honduras and in the last years we've seen the emigration rates growing up uncontrollably. "Just go live somewhere else" should NOT be the solution, the climate issues[1] will still be there, also is not that easy to emigrate, not everyone can afford it (being legal or not), and it brings all kind of psychological burdens to people who either leave or people who desperately want to leave but they cant.
[1]: And violence/corruption/imperialism issues, in Honduras' case
I didn’t mean “leave the country” but rather “choose a place to live that’s unlikely to be flooded when you find a place of your own.” How often do parents have any idea where their children will...
I didn’t mean “leave the country” but rather “choose a place to live that’s unlikely to be flooded when you find a place of your own.” How often do parents have any idea where their children will end up living?
Well, I don’t know how many, but I’d hope that most people in the US get enough of an education to get a job and a place of their own (or maybe with roommates) eventually. Are you saying that...
Well, I don’t know how many, but I’d hope that most people in the US get enough of an education to get a job and a place of their own (or maybe with roommates) eventually. Are you saying that doesn’t happen? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
More than half of all people between 19 and 29 live with their parents. Nearly 2/3 of Americans can't cover a $500 emergency. The moving cost alone is more than $500 in most cases, not even...
I'm wondering if there's a good way to dig up how often people move before having kids? This is interesting but out of date: From: Calculating Migration Expectancy Using ACS Data
I'm wondering if there's a good way to dig up how often people move before having kids? This is interesting but out of date:
Using 2007 ACS data, it is estimated that a person in the United States can expect to move 11.7 times in their lifetime based upon the current age structure and average rates and allowing for no more than one move per single year. At age 18, a person can expect to move another 9.1 times in their remaining lifetime, but by age 45, the expected number of moves is only 2.7.
Who is going to give them that help and a place to go? When was the last time you moved metropolitan areas, and how much did it cost you? Did you have people you knew where you were moving to? Did...
Who is going to give them that help and a place to go? When was the last time you moved metropolitan areas, and how much did it cost you? Did you have people you knew where you were moving to? Did you have a job waiting for you at the other end or sufficient assets to not work until you could find a job?
I'm not OP, but as a newly graduated single college student (no pets, no car, no children) moving across the country with a job lined up cost me about $10,000. I would imagine costs would only go...
When was the last time you moved metropolitan areas, and how much did it cost you?
I'm not OP, but as a newly graduated single college student (no pets, no car, no children) moving across the country with a job lined up cost me about $10,000. I would imagine costs would only go up from there, although to be fair I moved into the most expensive area of the country.
These are important questions for anyone who has to move. Especially having a job, which is often the most important consideration. As for friends, young people often expect they’ll make new...
These are important questions for anyone who has to move. Especially having a job, which is often the most important consideration. As for friends, young people often expect they’ll make new friends when they get there. (And that’s often part of the attraction of moving to a new city.)
So this doesn’t seem like a reason not to have kids. I don’t think anyone would decide not to have kids because they might move away when they grow up? Or at least not in the US.
I was specifically asking these questions of you. Because the fact that large portions of the city flood means that it's not a place anyone will necessarily stay voluntarily. It's not that it's a...
I was specifically asking these questions of you. Because the fact that large portions of the city flood means that it's not a place anyone will necessarily stay voluntarily. It's not that it's a fine feeder town, sending its youth off to the big city, it's that everyone will have to move, or at least a chunk of the population that can't be summed up as "young people moving away from home." And it's not easy.
I did a few searches to find out about flooding in Detroit and the best articles seem to be paywalled, so I don’t know very much. There seem to be ongoing projects to upgrade sewer and floodwater...
I did a few searches to find out about flooding in Detroit and the best articles seem to be paywalled, so I don’t know very much. There seem to be ongoing projects to upgrade sewer and floodwater systems.
I suspect there may be older housing that it would better to replace than fix, not that Detroit needs to be abandoned or anything drastic like that.
Okay, I'm not sure what you want to discuss. Could you clarify? Is it that sometimes people find it financially difficult to move, and don't have the resources? Or that finding a new job can be...
Okay, I'm not sure what you want to discuss. Could you clarify? Is it that sometimes people find it financially difficult to move, and don't have the resources? Or that finding a new job can be difficult? Or is it that moving can be hard emotionally? Or maybe something else?
My point was, that when you say that you don’t think there is anyone who can’t move given sufficient help and a place to go, you're eliding very significant difficulties. I was asking about your...
My point was, that when you say that you don’t think there is anyone who can’t move given sufficient help and a place to go, you're eliding very significant difficulties. I was asking about your familiarity with the cost of moving to see if you were skimming over that difficulty because of lack of familiarity with the costs and social impacts, or if there was some other reasoning there.
I was thinking more along the lines of federal assistance to either build better flood control (like they did in New Orleans) or, where that’s impractical, to help people in low-lying areas move...
I was thinking more along the lines of federal assistance to either build better flood control (like they did in New Orleans) or, where that’s impractical, to help people in low-lying areas move to higher ground. On a small scale, I have read about an entire village getting moved out of a river flood plain. Yes, these are big and expensive projects, not something people can do on their own.
For what people can do personally, I think my other comment might be a better starting point to continue discussion.
I definitely agree that if anything is to be done to move people out of degrading and at-risk areas, it's going to have to be done by the government, much the way that Centralia was entirely...
I definitely agree that if anything is to be done to move people out of degrading and at-risk areas, it's going to have to be done by the government, much the way that Centralia was entirely claimed by eminent domain to keep people from living within the cloud of an eternal coalfire. I'm glad you agree that it's not something that individuals really have the resources to do on their own.
As far as personal choices regarding procreation climate change, I think that most of the recognition of climate change as cause of a reduction in the number of kinds people decide to have is in the way that it in aggregate leads to a lower quality of life.
Yes, I agree that people do often take their own financial situation (and maybe their parents’ situation) into account when having kids, and climate change could sometimes indirectly affect that....
Yes, I agree that people do often take their own financial situation (and maybe their parents’ situation) into account when having kids, and climate change could sometimes indirectly affect that.
Like, for a young couple in their 20’s, should they take climate change into account? I think it would be more important to have a good place to live and good jobs. If you’re still living with your parents, getting a place of your own seems more important than climate change?
But sure, you don’t want to rent a place that floods. (And for those fortunate enough to buy a place, you’d want to think longer term about possible disasters and how it might affect insurance.)
Climate change seems like a natural thing to consider when deciding where to live, but kind of a peculiar question to consider directly when deciding whether to have kids. I expect only well-off college-educated liberals are likely to think about that, instead of just thinking about practical matters. Maybe I’m wrong, though?
Maybe I should write a disclaimer: none of this should be considered to be family-planning advice! I'm certainly not qualified, I don't know your particular situation, and so on. It seems like...
Maybe I should write a disclaimer: none of this should be considered to be family-planning advice! I'm certainly not qualified, I don't know your particular situation, and so on. It seems like this should go without saying though?
I was just trying to put myself in someone else's hypothetical position and try to think through some of the consequences. Maybe I did a bad job of that, since I haven't talked to anyone about it. It's based on speculation, not data.
If people want to talk about it, maybe we could do an ask.survey about why people decided to have (or not have) kids?
He is speaking to his audience, a largely white, relatively affluent, college-educated, pseudolibertarian slice of America. There's a reason the only maps are of Manhattan and San Francisco. He...
He is speaking to his audience, a largely white, relatively affluent, college-educated, pseudolibertarian slice of America. There's a reason the only maps are of Manhattan and San Francisco. He specifically is discussing surveys of privileged US Americans, and all but names his target audience of the blogpost as such. You're right, he's not talking to 99.9% of humanity.
The author's belief that the Democratic party will actually make the kind of deep and sweeping changes necessary to alter course on climate change is touching, but rather naïve. We're not going to...
Suppose 1-2% of Democrats stop having children because they’re worried about climate change. Meanwhile, Republicans don’t care about this and have just as many children as ever. Since children tend to share their parents’ political beliefs, this skews elections in favor of the Republicans, who will prevent strong government action.
The author's belief that the Democratic party will actually make the kind of deep and sweeping changes necessary to alter course on climate change is touching, but rather naïve. We're not going to outbreed our political problems.
This also is incredibly optimistic. Very few people are spending anything close to $30,000 to remain carbon neutral. Right now there are highly efficient mechanisms that remove a ton of carbon for...
Right now the people with giant carbon-sucking machines charge $1000/ton to remove carbon.
my guess is you can offset your child’s lifetime carbon emissions for about $30,000.
This also is incredibly optimistic.
Very few people are spending anything close to $30,000 to remain carbon neutral.
Right now there are highly efficient mechanisms that remove a ton of carbon for free... trees!
We are cutting down more trees than we are growing.
Well, Idiocracy is a cartoonish “high concept” movie based on a false premise. For one thing, IQ’s are rising on average. This is called the Flynn Effect. I thought it was kind of funny how, in a...
Well, Idiocracy is a cartoonish “high concept” movie based on a false premise. For one thing, IQ’s are rising on average. This is called the Flynn Effect.
I thought it was kind of funny how, in a movie full of nonsense, there is an amusement park ride where everything is even more nonsense, which is a commentary on how the outer movie is also a sort of amusement park ride of nonsense, which is no more to be taken seriously than the inner ride.
Or maybe that’s your point, that nobody takes any of these arguments seriously? It does seem unlikely that anyone would take climate change into consideration when deciding whether to have kids, but Scott does start out with some references to news articles that seem to take the idea seriously.
Oh, I don't have a point, I just find it kinda absurd, lol. In any case "not having kids because climate change" is definitely a meme going around. I couldn't believe it either but there's...
Oh, I don't have a point, I just find it kinda absurd, lol.
In any case "not having kids because climate change" is definitely a meme going around. I couldn't believe it either but there's apparently kids diagnosed with "climate anxiety" now and everything so I don't know.
TBF, you could probably go back and do the same for any other looming disaster in history: People are going to be scared about things they can't change but that will affect them negatively at some...
I couldn't believe it either but there's apparently kids diagnosed with "climate anxiety" now and everything so I don't know.
TBF, you could probably go back and do the same for any other looming disaster in history: People are going to be scared about things they can't change but that will affect them negatively at some point in the future. The difference is that we have widespread access and awareness of mental healthcare nowadays. This might be amplified in the case of climate change because we desperately need people to pay attention to the problem; contrast that with e.g. the cold war where not paying attention might actually ease tensions.
I agree with the first comment on there. Not that everyone does it, but I certainly know people who don't ever want children and use climate change as an excuse so that they sound like they're...
I agree with the first comment on there. Not that everyone does it, but I certainly know people who don't ever want children and use climate change as an excuse so that they sound like they're taking a moral stance. I have a cousin who's been saying that since like 2010.
This reasoning was a large part of my thought processes when I was deciding whether to have kids. It's not "fake as hell," at least not from my lived experience.
This reasoning was a large part of my thought processes when I was deciding whether to have kids. It's not "fake as hell," at least not from my lived experience.
Disclosure: I have a kid. I agree, I think this is a perfectly valid argument that requires no further justification. However that's a slightly different argument than people choosing not to have...
Disclosure: I have a kid.
If you are displeased with the condition of the world, it's perfectly normal to not want your current displeasure to turn into fear or anxiety for the safety of your kid. To not want to have to deal with the stress of being a parent and having to keep safe a child. Just not wanting to deal with that for yourself is enough to make it a perfectly valid reason.
I agree, I think this is a perfectly valid argument that requires no further justification. However that's a slightly different argument than people choosing not to have kids to directly combat climate change i.e. as a positive moral decision. In my opinion that argument is flawed and is likely even counterproductive.
Climate change was not the only consideration for me. My partner and I listed out all pros and cons, and climate change was one of them. I think weighing the good vs. the bad is a totally...
Climate change was not the only consideration for me. My partner and I listed out all pros and cons, and climate change was one of them. I think weighing the good vs. the bad is a totally reasonable way to make a decision, personally!
(And I did decide to have a kid in the end, so climate change was not enough for me to justify not having a kid.)
People alive today are not responsible for their ancestors’ decisions to reproduce. It’s not contradictory to decide against having children because of the state of the world.
People alive today are not responsible for their ancestors’ decisions to reproduce. It’s not contradictory to decide against having children because of the state of the world.
I would expect many people using that argument don’t mean that the world is too fucked to to bring children into, but rather that they don’t have enough personal security to feel comfortable...
I would expect many people using that argument don’t mean that the world is too fucked to to bring children into, but rather that they don’t have enough personal security to feel comfortable raising children. If you’re rich and live in the US you’ll probably feel differently about how fucked up the world is from someone living in the same zip code working in retail. The modern industrialized world asked us to exchange the family safety net for one provided by our employers. That safety net isn’t there any more now that the minimum wage has plateaued, pensions are gone, and unions have been busted.
As a human being with parents I too have ran through a number of absolutist arguments against having children to make sure they’re off my back. Although at this point in my life I actually am...
As a human being with parents I too have ran through a number of absolutist arguments against having children to make sure they’re off my back. Although at this point in my life I actually am pretty sure I’d enjoy it and would do a great job. Not in any hurry though.
I feel like there's an argument here akin to how the US legal system handles firing people: "Because I don't want to" is certainly a sufficient reason and no one should question it. (As unwilling...
I feel like there's an argument here akin to how the US legal system handles firing people: "Because I don't want to" is certainly a sufficient reason and no one should question it. (As unwilling parents are going to be worse parents, in all likelihood.)
But you can certainly criticize a reason that you feel is unfair or illogical. "Because he's a [insert slur of choice]" is a bad reason to fire someone. "Because the world is going to shit" is - arguably - a bad reason to not have children. We can argue the validity of the argument for that till the cows come home, but I don't think the discussion of "your reason is bad" should be off limits. It isn't telling you you should have kids. It's telling you to reevaluate your opinions and to find a good reason or to shut up about your bad reason. (Again, don't want to debate the blog post here, I'm trying to stick to the meta and take the blog at face value.)
But does it even matter though? If someone's fired for a bad reason, it does matter because that person's livelihood is threatened and someone with the power to threaten a livelihood isn't afraid...
But does it even matter though? If someone's fired for a bad reason, it does matter because that person's livelihood is threatened and someone with the power to threaten a livelihood isn't afraid to do so for bad reasons. But if someone doesn't have kids for a "bad reason", they just don't have kids. Has zero direct impact on anyone else's life and their decision isn't a threat to anyone else. Nobody's obligated to reproduce and birth the next generation of <insert political party, religion, philosophy, or whatever here>.
I have kids, I struggled with whether or not I wanted them and then when I realized I did my wife went through the nightmare of fertility issues. Some folks with those problems publicly use other reasons to mask their shame, grief, etc. over not having kids. That's reason enough not to question someone's reasoning, imo, because you never know.
But like I said, ultimately it doesn't matter. If someone doesn't want kids because they think Elvis is going to return in 20 years with a legion of elvis-themed space invaders, more power to them. Their choice doesn't impact me or anyone else at all.
Of course the consequences of the reason you're not having kids are not material. You're not threatening someone's livelihood. Which is why nonsensical reasons not to have kids aren't considered...
Of course the consequences of the reason you're not having kids are not material. You're not threatening someone's livelihood. Which is why nonsensical reasons not to have kids aren't considered very illegal. But it does have consequences. If I'm stating I don't want kids because of elvis space invaders, then I might convince others to change their minds. If more people than my conspiracy ass believe in elvis space invaders and make irrational choices due to that, that's bad.
Again, the choice itself is fine. And I don't believe there is a obligation to birth the next generation (though maybe you shouldn't forget the possibility that you, being cognizant of the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced, might produce a child that will impact the world positively, but that's beside the point.) Anyway, you don't have an obligation. And no one should get to question your choice not to have children if you don't want to state a reason. No reason is fine in my book. But I don't think we need to shield bad reasoning from criticism here. Because if you give the reason, intentionally or not, you might convince others to adopt your faulty reasoning.
Of course, all of the above considered: Don't be an ass about it. Even if we completely accept the premise that climate change is not a good reason; having kids is personal. So while I think it should be completely fair to state that for yourself it's not a reason not to have kids, and maybe even to attack the reasoning in general, at no point should you attack someone for having that reason. In part because of some of the things you mentioned, but also because "don't be an ass". It's too personal.
The problem here isn't that this hypothetical person isn't having children because of this incorrect reason, the problem is them spreading a conspiracy theory that is incorrect and potentially...
If more people than my conspiracy ass believe in elvis space invaders and make irrational choices due to that, that's bad.
The problem here isn't that this hypothetical person isn't having children because of this incorrect reason, the problem is them spreading a conspiracy theory that is incorrect and potentially dangerous. The bad thing in this situation is the belief itself, but its effect on whether that individual will have children or not is immaterial. I feel like this analogy isn't a good analogue for the climate change stance because, well, climate change is real and a material threat to the future of this planet. Elvis space invaders are not real and are not a threat.
Again, I'm completely ignoring that for the purposes of this meta-discussion: I don't care whether climate change should influence your choice one way or another; I'm assuming that the article is...
Again, I'm completely ignoring that for the purposes of this meta-discussion: I don't care whether climate change should influence your choice one way or another; I'm assuming that the article is correct and that it should not influence your choice, and from that PoV, it's no different from Elvis space invaders. I'm talking solely about to what degree disagreeing with people who believe in Elvis space invaders is warranted. If you believe the article has no/little merit, I don't care because I assumed it away. (Well, I do, but it's not part of this meta-discussion then.)
To put it differently: If you're convinced that climate change has no significant bearing on the choice of whether or not to have children, then you can regard it as a conspiracy theory (or something alike). Well, maybe one should apply a high standard of conviction there.
How about not having kids because I don't want them? Limiting my carbon footprint by not bringing more carbon-spewing humans into the world is just a nice bonus.
How about not having kids because I don't want them? Limiting my carbon footprint by not bringing more carbon-spewing humans into the world is just a nice bonus.
I think the author is missing the part where "climate change" is a convenient excuse for just not wanting kids. As someone who doesn't want kids, it is not uncommon for me to encounter people who...
I think the author is missing the part where "climate change" is a convenient excuse for just not wanting kids. As someone who doesn't want kids, it is not uncommon for me to encounter people who think I am selfish or lazy for it.
Articles like this are part of the problem. It very much feels like the author is trying to guilt me into wanting kids for political reasons.
Yes, spot on. The author is indeed white, college educated, working a white-collar job, and works in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Even if you think it’s dumb, why should a dumb article on the Internet influence your decision whether or not to have kids?
Also, basement flooding in Detroit doesn’t seem like a reason not to have kids? I don’t know much about it, but it seems likely that flood control there will eventually be improved, and in any case kids can choose to live somewhere else when they grow up.
Even if there is some housing in Detroit that’s a hopeless cause, I don’t think there is anyone who can’t move given sufficient help and a place to go.
Well, I'm from Honduras and in the last years we've seen the emigration rates growing up uncontrollably. "Just go live somewhere else" should NOT be the solution, the climate issues[1] will still be there, also is not that easy to emigrate, not everyone can afford it (being legal or not), and it brings all kind of psychological burdens to people who either leave or people who desperately want to leave but they cant.
[1]: And violence/corruption/imperialism issues, in Honduras' case
I didn’t mean “leave the country” but rather “choose a place to live that’s unlikely to be flooded when you find a place of your own.” How often do parents have any idea where their children will end up living?
How many children of the people who are unable to move will themselves have the resources to move?
Well, I don’t know how many, but I’d hope that most people in the US get enough of an education to get a job and a place of their own (or maybe with roommates) eventually. Are you saying that doesn’t happen? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
More than half of all people between 19 and 29 live with their parents.
Nearly 2/3 of Americans can't cover a $500 emergency.
The moving cost alone is more than $500 in most cases, not even talking about the need for security deposit of two months rent.
I think you may be out of touch with what's accessible to most Americans.
I'm wondering if there's a good way to dig up how often people move before having kids? This is interesting but out of date:
From: Calculating Migration Expectancy Using ACS Data
There's this, from the Social Security Administration showing the decrease over the last twenty years, which has data through 2016.
Who is going to give them that help and a place to go? When was the last time you moved metropolitan areas, and how much did it cost you? Did you have people you knew where you were moving to? Did you have a job waiting for you at the other end or sufficient assets to not work until you could find a job?
I'm not OP, but as a newly graduated single college student (no pets, no car, no children) moving across the country with a job lined up cost me about $10,000. I would imagine costs would only go up from there, although to be fair I moved into the most expensive area of the country.
These are important questions for anyone who has to move. Especially having a job, which is often the most important consideration. As for friends, young people often expect they’ll make new friends when they get there. (And that’s often part of the attraction of moving to a new city.)
So this doesn’t seem like a reason not to have kids. I don’t think anyone would decide not to have kids because they might move away when they grow up? Or at least not in the US.
I was specifically asking these questions of you. Because the fact that large portions of the city flood means that it's not a place anyone will necessarily stay voluntarily. It's not that it's a fine feeder town, sending its youth off to the big city, it's that everyone will have to move, or at least a chunk of the population that can't be summed up as "young people moving away from home." And it's not easy.
I did a few searches to find out about flooding in Detroit and the best articles seem to be paywalled, so I don’t know very much. There seem to be ongoing projects to upgrade sewer and floodwater systems.
I suspect there may be older housing that it would better to replace than fix, not that Detroit needs to be abandoned or anything drastic like that.
You're evading the fundamental point by trying to redirect to Detroit in particular. This isn't about one town. Will you engage with what I'm saying?
Okay, I'm not sure what you want to discuss. Could you clarify? Is it that sometimes people find it financially difficult to move, and don't have the resources? Or that finding a new job can be difficult? Or is it that moving can be hard emotionally? Or maybe something else?
My point was, that when you say that you don’t think there is anyone who can’t move given sufficient help and a place to go, you're eliding very significant difficulties. I was asking about your familiarity with the cost of moving to see if you were skimming over that difficulty because of lack of familiarity with the costs and social impacts, or if there was some other reasoning there.
I was thinking more along the lines of federal assistance to either build better flood control (like they did in New Orleans) or, where that’s impractical, to help people in low-lying areas move to higher ground. On a small scale, I have read about an entire village getting moved out of a river flood plain. Yes, these are big and expensive projects, not something people can do on their own.
For what people can do personally, I think my other comment might be a better starting point to continue discussion.
I definitely agree that if anything is to be done to move people out of degrading and at-risk areas, it's going to have to be done by the government, much the way that Centralia was entirely claimed by eminent domain to keep people from living within the cloud of an eternal coalfire. I'm glad you agree that it's not something that individuals really have the resources to do on their own.
As far as personal choices regarding procreation climate change, I think that most of the recognition of climate change as cause of a reduction in the number of kinds people decide to have is in the way that it in aggregate leads to a lower quality of life.
I find this is best demonstrated by this clip from
Philosophy TubeHbomberguy (Leftist YouTube channel) countering Ben Shapiro's claims.The clip is actually from hbomberguy
Yes, I agree that people do often take their own financial situation (and maybe their parents’ situation) into account when having kids, and climate change could sometimes indirectly affect that.
Like, for a young couple in their 20’s, should they take climate change into account? I think it would be more important to have a good place to live and good jobs. If you’re still living with your parents, getting a place of your own seems more important than climate change?
But sure, you don’t want to rent a place that floods. (And for those fortunate enough to buy a place, you’d want to think longer term about possible disasters and how it might affect insurance.)
Climate change seems like a natural thing to consider when deciding where to live, but kind of a peculiar question to consider directly when deciding whether to have kids. I expect only well-off college-educated liberals are likely to think about that, instead of just thinking about practical matters. Maybe I’m wrong, though?
Maybe I should write a disclaimer: none of this should be considered to be family-planning advice! I'm certainly not qualified, I don't know your particular situation, and so on. It seems like this should go without saying though?
I was just trying to put myself in someone else's hypothetical position and try to think through some of the consequences. Maybe I did a bad job of that, since I haven't talked to anyone about it. It's based on speculation, not data.
If people want to talk about it, maybe we could do an ask.survey about why people decided to have (or not have) kids?
He is speaking to his audience, a largely white, relatively affluent, college-educated, pseudolibertarian slice of America. There's a reason the only maps are of Manhattan and San Francisco. He specifically is discussing surveys of privileged US Americans, and all but names his target audience of the blogpost as such. You're right, he's not talking to 99.9% of humanity.
The author's belief that the Democratic party will actually make the kind of deep and sweeping changes necessary to alter course on climate change is touching, but rather naïve. We're not going to outbreed our political problems.
This also is incredibly optimistic.
Very few people are spending anything close to $30,000 to remain carbon neutral.
Right now there are highly efficient mechanisms that remove a ton of carbon for free... trees!
We are cutting down more trees than we are growing.
That's literally the premise of Idiocracy.
Well, Idiocracy is a cartoonish “high concept” movie based on a false premise. For one thing, IQ’s are rising on average. This is called the Flynn Effect.
I thought it was kind of funny how, in a movie full of nonsense, there is an amusement park ride where everything is even more nonsense, which is a commentary on how the outer movie is also a sort of amusement park ride of nonsense, which is no more to be taken seriously than the inner ride.
Or maybe that’s your point, that nobody takes any of these arguments seriously? It does seem unlikely that anyone would take climate change into consideration when deciding whether to have kids, but Scott does start out with some references to news articles that seem to take the idea seriously.
Oh, I don't have a point, I just find it kinda absurd, lol.
In any case "not having kids because climate change" is definitely a meme going around. I couldn't believe it either but there's apparently kids diagnosed with "climate anxiety" now and everything so I don't know.
TBF, you could probably go back and do the same for any other looming disaster in history: People are going to be scared about things they can't change but that will affect them negatively at some point in the future. The difference is that we have widespread access and awareness of mental healthcare nowadays. This might be amplified in the case of climate change because we desperately need people to pay attention to the problem; contrast that with e.g. the cold war where not paying attention might actually ease tensions.
I’m not sure what you mean. What do the people in your circles believe? What majority opinion are you referring to?
I agree with the first comment on there. Not that everyone does it, but I certainly know people who don't ever want children and use climate change as an excuse so that they sound like they're taking a moral stance. I have a cousin who's been saying that since like 2010.
This reasoning was a large part of my thought processes when I was deciding whether to have kids. It's not "fake as hell," at least not from my lived experience.
Disclosure: I have a kid.
I agree, I think this is a perfectly valid argument that requires no further justification. However that's a slightly different argument than people choosing not to have kids to directly combat climate change i.e. as a positive moral decision. In my opinion that argument is flawed and is likely even counterproductive.
Climate change was not the only consideration for me. My partner and I listed out all pros and cons, and climate change was one of them. I think weighing the good vs. the bad is a totally reasonable way to make a decision, personally!
(And I did decide to have a kid in the end, so climate change was not enough for me to justify not having a kid.)
People alive today are not responsible for their ancestors’ decisions to reproduce. It’s not contradictory to decide against having children because of the state of the world.
I would expect many people using that argument don’t mean that the world is too fucked to to bring children into, but rather that they don’t have enough personal security to feel comfortable raising children. If you’re rich and live in the US you’ll probably feel differently about how fucked up the world is from someone living in the same zip code working in retail. The modern industrialized world asked us to exchange the family safety net for one provided by our employers. That safety net isn’t there any more now that the minimum wage has plateaued, pensions are gone, and unions have been busted.
I call those armchair antinatalists.
As a human being with parents I too have ran through a number of absolutist arguments against having children to make sure they’re off my back. Although at this point in my life I actually am pretty sure I’d enjoy it and would do a great job. Not in any hurry though.
I don't think anyone should question anyone else's reasons for not wanting to have kids.
"Because I don't want to" should be enough.
I feel like there's an argument here akin to how the US legal system handles firing people: "Because I don't want to" is certainly a sufficient reason and no one should question it. (As unwilling parents are going to be worse parents, in all likelihood.)
But you can certainly criticize a reason that you feel is unfair or illogical. "Because he's a [insert slur of choice]" is a bad reason to fire someone. "Because the world is going to shit" is - arguably - a bad reason to not have children. We can argue the validity of the argument for that till the cows come home, but I don't think the discussion of "your reason is bad" should be off limits. It isn't telling you you should have kids. It's telling you to reevaluate your opinions and to find a good reason or to shut up about your bad reason. (Again, don't want to debate the blog post here, I'm trying to stick to the meta and take the blog at face value.)
But does it even matter though? If someone's fired for a bad reason, it does matter because that person's livelihood is threatened and someone with the power to threaten a livelihood isn't afraid to do so for bad reasons. But if someone doesn't have kids for a "bad reason", they just don't have kids. Has zero direct impact on anyone else's life and their decision isn't a threat to anyone else. Nobody's obligated to reproduce and birth the next generation of <insert political party, religion, philosophy, or whatever here>.
I have kids, I struggled with whether or not I wanted them and then when I realized I did my wife went through the nightmare of fertility issues. Some folks with those problems publicly use other reasons to mask their shame, grief, etc. over not having kids. That's reason enough not to question someone's reasoning, imo, because you never know.
But like I said, ultimately it doesn't matter. If someone doesn't want kids because they think Elvis is going to return in 20 years with a legion of elvis-themed space invaders, more power to them. Their choice doesn't impact me or anyone else at all.
Of course the consequences of the reason you're not having kids are not material. You're not threatening someone's livelihood. Which is why nonsensical reasons not to have kids aren't considered very illegal. But it does have consequences. If I'm stating I don't want kids because of elvis space invaders, then I might convince others to change their minds. If more people than my conspiracy ass believe in elvis space invaders and make irrational choices due to that, that's bad.
Again, the choice itself is fine. And I don't believe there is a obligation to birth the next generation (though maybe you shouldn't forget the possibility that you, being cognizant of the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced, might produce a child that will impact the world positively, but that's beside the point.) Anyway, you don't have an obligation. And no one should get to question your choice not to have children if you don't want to state a reason. No reason is fine in my book. But I don't think we need to shield bad reasoning from criticism here. Because if you give the reason, intentionally or not, you might convince others to adopt your faulty reasoning.
Of course, all of the above considered: Don't be an ass about it. Even if we completely accept the premise that climate change is not a good reason; having kids is personal. So while I think it should be completely fair to state that for yourself it's not a reason not to have kids, and maybe even to attack the reasoning in general, at no point should you attack someone for having that reason. In part because of some of the things you mentioned, but also because "don't be an ass". It's too personal.
The problem here isn't that this hypothetical person isn't having children because of this incorrect reason, the problem is them spreading a conspiracy theory that is incorrect and potentially dangerous. The bad thing in this situation is the belief itself, but its effect on whether that individual will have children or not is immaterial. I feel like this analogy isn't a good analogue for the climate change stance because, well, climate change is real and a material threat to the future of this planet. Elvis space invaders are not real and are not a threat.
Again, I'm completely ignoring that for the purposes of this meta-discussion: I don't care whether climate change should influence your choice one way or another; I'm assuming that the article is correct and that it should not influence your choice, and from that PoV, it's no different from Elvis space invaders. I'm talking solely about to what degree disagreeing with people who believe in Elvis space invaders is warranted. If you believe the article has no/little merit, I don't care because I assumed it away. (Well, I do, but it's not part of this meta-discussion then.)
To put it differently: If you're convinced that climate change has no significant bearing on the choice of whether or not to have children, then you can regard it as a conspiracy theory (or something alike). Well, maybe one should apply a high standard of conviction there.
Highlights From The Comments On Kids And Climate Change
It seems like there were some good points made over there.
How about not having kids because I don't want them? Limiting my carbon footprint by not bringing more carbon-spewing humans into the world is just a nice bonus.
Right? And climate change is a great and unarguable reason, whereas "I don't want to" left my mom harassing me about it for a decade.
That's not what he's talking about, though.
I think the author is missing the part where "climate change" is a convenient excuse for just not wanting kids. As someone who doesn't want kids, it is not uncommon for me to encounter people who think I am selfish or lazy for it.
Articles like this are part of the problem. It very much feels like the author is trying to guilt me into wanting kids for political reasons.
Armchair antinatalists: "not on my watch!"