Can having no children save the planet? GINK – green inclinations, no kids

Saw this poll yesterday and aside from whether you believe in climate change or not this post is on whether having no children is a solution to Co2 emission and thus reduction in climate change.

https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/432956 Have an opinion in that thread and poll on climate change.

The population is known to be 1 of the factors in Co2 production. We were at 1B and now heading well into 7.7b and more.

1 child produces 58.6T of emissions a year.

This is a loaded topic. Interested to see what others think and I'll make a conclusion IMO from what I've read as to whether its the right thing to do to save the planet

IN CONCLUSION: IMO and some other experts.
Not having children will not make much difference what so ever in reality. There are many lifestyle factors that need to be taken into account. As GINKs with double income no kids they are more likely to have higher income and thus more likely to spend that on non environmental friendly activities and pseudo environmental causes(well you dont just need to not have kids to be in this group). They end up travelling more by plane which is another large emissions producer. Use other non environmental friendly transport to get around on their travels. They buy an electric car that really isnt all that environmentally friendly as its charged by non green sources. At least they feel good about it. Those batteries once requiring removal as they are no longer effective become environmetal issues.

MORE: GINKs are a bit deluded if they think they can use not having kids to save the world. Just have kids and be more environmenatally aware of how you do your day to day things. If everyone makes a smaller carbon foodprint in their day to day lives it will make more of a difference.

Comments

  • +63 votes

    I recommend you always follow your beliefs. I think it best you not have children.

  • +37 votes

    I read somewhere that uneducated and poor countries tend to be the ones that have lots and lots of kids. Until that problem gets solved then the world will still get overpopulated.

    • +11 votes

      In Africa a couple will have avg. 7 children. In saying that though their overall Co2 emissions are less than say a developed country in comparison. We are starting to see some miss guidance from the GINKs justification.

      • +6 votes

        So if you put all those Africans in a developed country and give them welfare? What then?

      • +1 vote

        You also have to take into account infant mortality. How many of those children will reach adulthood and reproduce?

        • +3 votes

          Also alot of it is due to no contraception.

        •  

          Define adulthood, because biologically adulthood can be at 12, you are talking about countries where child brides are commonplace. So adulthood and reproduction aren't exclusive there.

      •  

        Emission talk aside.

        How does anyone have 7 Children and be comfortable with the idea if they knowingly can't afford it. I'm sitting here contemplating only having one kid because it just isn't affordable for my gen in Sydney to have 3 or more kids without a silver spoon.

        I feel like it's a heavy burden on a kid to be born into a struggling family.

        • +1 vote

          If you could talk to your ancestors of a few generations ago you might find some insight. My great-grandmother had 13 children, but only eight lived until adulthood, because infant and child mortality was much higher in those days. Of those eight, only five have surviving descendants. It might have easily been four if the bullet that hit my grandfather in the chest in World War One had been a little further to the left. Conditions were harsh for my Aussie ancestors as they are for many Africans today.

          By the way, that number is decades out of date. The average fertility rate of women in Africa is down to about 4.7 and predicted to keep falling over the coming decades as Africa develops. The trend is consistent with that seen previously in other parts of the developing world. Societal factors such as increased educational level for females and and increased female participation in the paid workforce are strongly correlated with decreased fertility rate.

    • +4 votes

      You should also read that their CO2 emissions are (profanity) all compared to you and your children.

      • +2 votes

        and their CO2 impact is just the start. Having children will not help the planet, unless they can fix a lot of what you and the rest of us have failed to fix.

        If people had stopped having children 50 years ago, we might have a hope despite ourselves. As it is, what hope is there for the poverty stricken masses, let alone the DINKS and the rising one percenters?

    • +8 votes

      This is a very complex topic, but in general, the more educated a woman, the fewer children she has. This isn't necessarily causation though - more correlation.

      • +1 vote

        Agree. As this reporter and interesting article states:

        So if you are concerned about the growth in population, make yourself a champion of female empowerment in the developing world. You will be contributing to the most effective solution to the problem without any of the moral baggage.

        I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why.

      • +2 votes

        Although probably true. It is however not logical. For humans to progress, intelligent genes should be the most abundant.

        In other words, because unintelligent genes continue to increase - an educated woman should also breed more - as if she chooses to not breed at all, intelligence will slowly, but eventually become extinct.

        Perhaps we can already start to see this trend.

        •  

          So an educated person is therefore is more intelligent?
          Not sure there is a close correlation there. Look at your typical student of any subject ending in “studies"

          How did Hayek put it?
          oh, yes:

          In a civilized society it is indeed not so much the greater knowledge that the individual can acquire, as the greater benefit he receives from the knowledge posssessed by others, which is the cause of his ability to pursue an infinitely wider range of ends than merely the satisfaction of his most pressing physical needs. Indeed, a ‘civilized’ individual may be very ignorant, more ignorant than many a savage, and yet greatly benefit from the civilization in which he lives.

    • +3 votes

      I don't imagine a child in a poor country living a subsitence life in a house with no power, or running water, car, etc would produce any where near the 58T of emissions.

      • +1 vote

        From these few comments, it seems you all agree that population isn't an issue. It's the Western/developed countries way of living.

    •  

      Religion and Condoms my friend. They do not mix well…

  • +15 votes

    1 child produces 58.6T of emissions a year.

    Another way of looking at it is 1 person produces …

    Instead of someone not having a child, you could sacrifice yourself…


    That's why Thanos was such a compelling baddy.

    • +1 vote

      Well I always thought that we are the problem. A war is in order to cull the population numbers. Or wars do aid in some way to emissions reduction. Then again with all the energy we use to make weapons and the use of these weapons. Sort of probably counter acts that. We just need a bomb droped here and there, but from a land based missile not from a Co2 emitting plane.

      • +4 votes

        You need a disease epidemic. Not a bomb. Wars will just cause more CO2 and further impact your cause. Something like an immediate aids, you get it, you die within a week and there is no cure. There are plenty of depopulation agendas underway already which I think you could consider joining and are quite smart. Western Societies have 1 kid when your 40, Joining the homosexual movement as a participant and promoter, promoting and executing the Gender transformation movement for children at primary school, capitalism and becoming a corporate slave the list goes on - typically you will only find these fads in western countries. The trick is to promote it in third world countries to really curb population growth.

  • +35 votes

    my personal view is you should only have kids if you really, really want them. They are a lot of effort, and expense, and if you aren’t willing to put in the kid suffers. Never felt that way about kids so I didn’t have any. I don’t dislike kids, happy to see my friends kids and nieces and nephews, just wasn’t interested in one of my own. People choosing not to have kids aren’t demons or saints, just people with a different view.

    •  

      Yes. Correct. I think the GINKs are miss guided. If you don't want kids that fine. Personal choice. I do have further arguments on the GINKS though for their justification. Just waiting on more discussion.

    • +8 votes

      Very balanced and logical view. I like it. As a parent I would 100% agree and have decided to keep it at 1 for this exact reason. Better to raise one good child than quarter raise 4 shit bags. The only challenge is to implement this mentality in places like India or Africa. China is not so difficult they can reimplement their one child policy.

      • +5 votes

        There are many social and other skills that children learn as siblings, which aren't exactly reproducible when an only child with friends.

        •  

          Can I get examples? I may reconsider my stance if I believe they are worthwhile skills.

          • +1 vote

            @TheBilly: We comsidered this scenario. Glad we had a 2nd.
            They may fight sometimes, but they also play together A LOT. Consider if you want to be the only source of (human) entertainment for the 1st child.

          • +3 votes

            @TheBilly: Hey Billy,

            We were once happy with just one kid.
            BUT having the 2nd one was the best thing ever, with the 2nd one, we are much more carefree - and therefore less stress, as we know what to expect. Watching them interact, play, laugh together now, you realise that at least - they have each other still for love and support (when us parents are no longer here).

    • -8 votes

      The only adjustment I would suggest is that you don’t “have” children. They have themselves ultimately, as adults. A better representation in language is to raise children. That provides a better context for decision making and ultimately letting go as a parent, which is the only sensible thing to do.

    • +2 votes

      A friend of mine once said to me "if you are happy without them then why have them?" Very wise words indeed.

      •  

        some other wise person said if your happy and you know it clap your hands

        as i dont people on the streets clapping all the time…the exists with too many unhappy people in the world right now

      •  

        What if there lies more happiness after you have them?

    • +1 vote

      "really, really want" shouldnt be the standard.

      So many story of people "really, really want", but does not have the capacity to raise the kids.

      Some die on the hospital bed while giving birth after already had 5,6,7,8,9…kids.
      Then what?

      •  

        “Really, really want” should be the starting point; then you look at capacity to give birth to and raise. Some people die in a hospital bed after giving birth to one, giving birth is still a dangerous time for some women. Society should look after the vulnerable if things go wrong.

        •  

          If they died on the hospital bed, they're dead aren't they? But no - just like having car insurance, have life insurance, medical insurance, a spouse to raise the kids, etc would be a good start.

          • +1 vote

            @HighAndDry: That is where we differ, society should look after people who can't look after themselves. It would be a lot more efficient than insurance, given the insurance companies have to make a profit as well.

            •  

              @try2bhelpful:

              It would be a lot more efficient than insurance, given the insurance companies have to make a profit as well.

              Putting aside "should", this is the case… hypothetically. In real life, I've never seen a government body deliver more efficient results than a private company. The fact of unlimited taxpayer funding throws any motivation for efficiency out the window.


              Moving back to:

              That is where we differ, society should look after people who can't look after themselves.

              Okay, in this world of yours, every poor, homeless, disabled, criminally insane or just career criminal person who can't look after themselves much less any children decide to have a dozen kids. What then? You can't just "handwave" and say "society". Society is a finite pool of people with finite resources and their own needs and wants.

              • +4 votes

                @HighAndDry: government departments can be as efficient as private industry. I’ve worked in both and it isn’t that much different. The utilities are so much more affordable now they have been privatised, arent they? The banks are much better now they have all been privatised, aren’t they and public transport is a lot more efficient, isn’t it? Yeah, nah. I think most people would prefer essentials in the hands of people they can hold accountable. People aren’t going to stop having kids just because they can’t afford them and I don’t think children should be made to suffer because of the choice of their parents. If people aren’t fit parents then find the children alternate homes and look at long term contraception option, if need be. The courts can already order this for the mentally impaired. However, i don’t see how insurance will help any of this. Hitler had a way of dealing with people he didn’t think were “fit”, but it does seem a tad drastic.

                •  

                  @try2bhelpful:

                  government departments can be as efficient as private industry.

                  Can be. In reality, they're not.

                  The utilities are so much more affordable now they have been privatised, arent they?

                  Affordable != Efficient. The SA government had to bring in outside help to help with load-balancing across their network. Who did they call in? Oh, Tesla, a private company.

                  The banks are much better now they have all been privatised, aren’t they

                  You really really don't want me to bring up publicly owned banks. One example is KfW in Germany, once called by The Bild as "the dumbest bank in Germany". Other examples? Oh, just those beacons of efficiency like the Chinese ones where losses are written off in the billions in the interests of promoting development, the Argentinian National Bank (you know, the country that filed for bankruptcy once), Chile, Italy, Portugal, Spain, or… Russia.

                  and public transport is a lot more efficient, isn’t it?

                  Public transport is a natural monopoly. You'll never hear me advocating for the privatisation of a natural monopoly. The mere idea is stupid. Though if you're pointing to publicly run public transport as an example of efficiency hahahahahahahaha.

                  However, i don’t see how insurance will help any of this.

                  Insurance will make sure that you get charged according to your risk profile. The more likely you're to need payouts (think provisionally licenced drivers, male drivers under 25, etc) the higher premiums you're charged. I think that's fair.

  •  

    Well, it will work, because eventually if we, as humans, stop breeding, we will all die out.

    And if you limit breeding, who gets to control that? The government? Where only the wealthy and elite will be permitted to have children. Who will work in the sweat shops and factories then?

    You could always start the trend by setting the example and not breeding yourself.

    • +2 votes

      Who will work in the sweat shops and factories then?

      We're not too stupid and we're not too bright, to be a Gamma is to be just right.

  • +1 vote

    No, but it can CONTRIBUTE. Simply you not having kids won't save the world alone.

    •  

      Well that is the question. Less Co2 from population growth. The rest of us could survive longer.

    • +1 vote

      Simply you not having kids won't save the world alone.

      If I had children, I wouldn't have time to save the world.

  • +6 votes

    Instead of having babies, people need to look into adoption. But the process here is screwed up

  • Top