Wow! The NYT has uncovered the anti-child crowd. Great idea, let's try to make responsible adults guilty about forming families. And for reasons that defy reality. This is especially distressing given the sub-set of the population from which NYT readers belong. Anti-child means anti-family. Anti-family means anti-society. This is one of the most ignorant and misguided set of comments I have ever read.
News flash for the author: The next generation will not be fighting global warming; they will instead be using their smarts to adapt to a new and warmer and wetter and more violent environment. The good ship CO2 has not only sailed but has been lost at sea.
3
The planet groans
Everytime it registers
another birth.
30
No thanks, Gracie Olmstead.
I have kids & should NOT have. When we take a look at the earth's population less than 100 years ago of less than 2 billion & now have over 7.5 billion, common sense tells us we are creating too many appetites while exhausting the food supply on the other side of that equation. I made a choice clearly expressed not to but others took their desire to procreate & lied about it.
The earth caught a break with the Chinese 1 family 1 child policy & even the slow down in procreation in Asia of certain countries but not including India. Because of 1 Child policy, the world's population is 500 million less than it would be had that not been the Chinese edict.
Many of the nations least prepared to support the needs of the burgeoning populations are the ones heavily procreating. Please do NOT get us sounding the horns of caution wrong, most of us truly love young people and babies just like others. We just say be reasonable. In the face of possible climate apocalypse, how many more scientific facts are needed before we start to do enough?
Least of all, do not join the religions "out populate the others" wars to be the dominating moral force. It is such hell in Japan to give a child the care just 1 child needs that most of the women have said "No." Japan has less than half the births that it needs to maintain balance.
Instead of tossing more babies at the problem, let's fix the problems & slow down giving McD & BK more customers & very low paid workers.
22
This column is so intellectually flimsy I'm frankly surprised it got published in this newspaper.
"Children who are raised to love the world around them, to use their talents and imaginations for its good, could be an essential part of that work."
Yeah, most of us were raised to love the world around us and use our talent and imaginations for good, and clearly the problem is only getting worse.
Honestly this seems like something I'd read in a Christian college newspaper, not the New York Times.
60
The current hysteria over man-made climate change and using it to argue for not bringing children into the world is reminiscent of the same hysteria that has occurred for many years. Put the name Paul Ehrlich in your browser and you will see very similar apocalyptic predictions and arguments for not having children he was making in the 1970s (though they were worried about the coming global winter back then). Fortunately, our parents didn’t listen and so we are here to once again hear the rants of so many chicken littles. Do your homework and you will conclude that there is no reason not to bring children into this wonderful, if always challenged, world.
3
What a surprise, pandering to the selfish instinct to procreate gets a column, while celebrating the beautiful and moral choice not to add to our overpopulated small and fragile world gets no column, ever. I celebrate the life choice of every woman and man who decides not to have children. You are heroic.
50
A child – now with unbounded means – dear to me recently said, regarding their buying and spending:
“We take care that our consumption is purposeful”
Not aspirational – not boastful...
Not even gratifying...
Purposeful...
Not surprising – they take care that every aspect of their lives is purposeful...
And have been, since their inception...
PS
Do unto others’ children what you’d have them do unto yours...
None – not to worry...
Life and love can not only be celebrated – they can be selflessly shared...
2
Really Gracie.
t thought you were joking, just seeing the title of your opinion.
Please see the movie "First Reformed".
Beget a baby.!!
To be or not to be is what I have to decide.
1
Nothing new here. A generation and a half or so back, the burning question (sorry) was whether it was morally OK to have kids in the face of their possible death in a nuclear holocaust. Whatever, people did, and here we are. Precisely the same will happen here. Bringing any child into the world is to spit in the face of the gods. Dare them to do their worst. Beloved physician or mass murderer? You just never can know! So, now. Dare you not have the kid who might 'fix it' (whatever that means) - or have nothing more than another consumer? Unknowable. I suggest, have the kid. Either way, time will sort it out. You're off the hook. Promise.
4
Great, sacrifice your own children to the god of false hope. The selfishness of parents never ceases to amaze me.
31
"Yes, you should have children. And you should raise them to use their talents for the planet’s good."
You're kidding, right?
Why would I do that?
To my own kid, I mean?
Raise an American to be concerned about something other than money? Or power?
So, what, you want even more losers in this "USA! USA!" world?
More people who read "T" and slobber over handbags costing more than their monthly salary. More people who sit and dither about their late Uber instead of hopping in the ever-on-call mid-town limo?
Or is it that you don't see enough losers with grand ideas, maybe important ideas, for themselves, their families, their cities and their country, too poor, too exhausted, too desperate to actually make them happen?
Maybe you mean I should have such a woebegone little human and then move to Sweden or somewhere, a place life has half a chance to grow beyond endless struggle for whatever-you-need, a little respect, and government that dares to be honest and supportive.
Short of an earth-shaking alteration of social direction here in the money-is-everything-even-morality-and-Godliness capital of the planet, your headline is a cruel joke, a mean-spirited incitement, an invitation to a life even your own publication holds in obvious contempt.
I know you guys are a some questionable things...just plain mean was never one before now.
8
There are plenty of unwanted children in orphanages, and no one's DNA is special.
Adopt, don't Procreate!
28
Yes...Please let it stop you from procreating. this planet has WAY to many people in it already. There will be a "correction" sooner than later and it's going to be ugly...
22
There are many alternatives to laisses faire capitalism that would improve our planet's fate. THIS is the time to evaluate the economic model that we impose worldwide. It seems foolish to keep this system - and eliminate people - in order to protect the planet. Let's see how we, ourselves, can live more sustainably - and change a system that is antithetical to sustainability.
3
Sure, have one or two. More is just plain selfish. It doesn't matter how "enlightened" you raise your kids to be. They will live somewhere (that is use habitat that wild animals can't), eat, drive, fly, consume stuff (that is pollute). One in 10,000 might produce a child that will be good for the long-term health of the planet.
6
I read today that North America has lost 29% of its birds in the last half century. I'm glad I have no children and will not live even close to another 50 years. The feel-good pablum of this piece does little to offset the manifest truth that we are, collectively, too selfish, short-sighted and stupid a species to stop or do much at all to ameliorate all that almost certainly is going to happen. The American people have elected a President who passionately believes that rolling back environmental measures across the board is not only profitable for his donors but good politics with his know-nothing, resentful base. He's probably right on both scores. Case closed.
32
Poetic words. Poetic, unrealistic words. "You should raise them to use their talents for the planet's good." If people were ready to hear that advice, great. But I don't see people doing that. What I see among 99%+ of parents, despite their conscious awareness of climate change (!), is that they are raising their children to advance their (the children's) own economic interests. I don't see people setting out to raise radical children, children like Greta Thunberg. Have you met any parents seeking to raise that kind of radical child? Are any of your friends setting out to raise such radical children? No, right? So, well, telling people, as the title does, "Don't let climate change stop you from becoming a parent," will amount to, for most people, contributing to climate change. It's not complicated. Don't let poetic words blind you to what you can observe about the behavior of people around you. The vast majority of parents want their children to succeed within the existing economic and social paradigm, not shake things up!
18
I am 70 years old and have been a radical activist the entirety of my adult life. I have raised two wonderful daughters.
If I were of child raising age today I would seriously consider not bringing children into this world. It would not be a moral decision or mainly a political one.
I honestly think it would reflect a core belief that capitalism imperialism cannot be reformed. And that true bottom up Revolution to overthrow and replace it would be highly improbable.
Perhaps it reflects a profound demoralization about the entire
state of the world today that no rah, rah liberal philosopher can
properly address.
Why bring children into this rotten mess?
Mike
21
As many have pointed out here, there is no bigger carbon footprint you can have than having children. I hope you really become an activist for the future because there isn't time left for your children to grow up and do it. So many people are living in this bubble that the world is guaranteed a future and there won't be one unless people extremely change and fight for it. I wish you and your daughters the best, you sound like a person who will love them, this is such a hard time to have children in. And I seriously hope you are using cloth diapers for starters.
17
Amusing, to see people agonizing over having like two children and what it is doing to the planet. Meanwhile, Nigeria is like "hold my beer, imma have more people than China next century."
The funny thing about the future is that it belongs to those who obsess over it the least. Either you'll make the warm bodies or someone else will. Nor will regional differences in consumption matter, since people will just migrate and pick up the local first-world carbon footprint anyway.
The world is all one huge tragedy of the commons.
Eh. That sounds depressing, I guess, but it is what it is. It is only really brutally depressing if you think our engineering and technology can't keep pace with our terrible hunter-gatherer-brain human nature.
3
Gracy, how can we not love your optimism and sentiment. But sorry: Your thing about the next generation using their "talents" for the planet's good is a pipe dream; it won't happen.
The reason: For every caring difference-maker there are triple, quadruple, quintuple, sextuple as many lugnuts who couldn't care less about humankind's persistent destruction of the earth -- probably don't even realize that this is happening.
Alas, the vast majority of our species is stupid, naive, and ignorant.
Not a good recipe for the earth's survival, or theirs.
8
I'll take a couple of dogs or cats over a couple of children all day, every day
24
Climate change isn't just the 10th of it.
4
Some crimes are committed by parents in favor of their children. For example, the parents who go to great lengths to get their children into the best colleges. Some are even sent to jail for this.
In fact if you have children, you are giving hostages to the system that is killing the planet. Fewer people will do the right thing when it means living humbly if they have children.
5
The procreation of a human being is a beautiful and sacred event. Yet there is no doubt that there are far too many people on this earth today. The population explosion caught us by surprise, and now we are realizing how foolish it was to procreate without any concern for how detrimental it would be to the earth.
Those who procreate children without constraint to spread their "precious" DNA are extremely greedy and immoral. With the earth being smothered by human protoplasm to the obvious detriment of the many other animal species on this earth, the only moral position on this subject is to limit one's procreation to one child and certainly no more than two.
I am an optimist who believes that humanity may someday evolve to a higher moral plane than it currently occupies. But there is little doubt such a transformation will take time. In the meantime, humans should do what they can to reverse human population growth. Those who abandon having children, despite their natural desire to have them, are truly heroes and the most moral of human beings. They are sacrificing individual desires for the good of the planet.
The author of this oped is mistaken to encourage people to continue to procreate. Her views are self-centered, myopic, and extremely shortsighted.
16
Don’t Let Climate Change Stop You From Becoming a Parent
I'd think twice on this one if I were you. Maybe even three times.
If you start them off with a 10 million dollar trust fund, I might consider that a bit of a hedge. But less than 10, I don't think they really want to be here.
Good luck.
8
Think of all the children born in the Baby Boom era. This generation were supposed to be the shining hope that would save the planet and all that. And??? Did we do that? No. All generations think their kids will be the Messiah, and naw, it doesn't make any difference. No one will save us, and bringing more kids into the over-population we are suffering from now is folly.
15
This opinion piece is devoid of science, logic, and reason. Look at any study on the human carbon footprint: by many orders of magnitude, the best thing an individual can do for the planet and climate change is not have kids. Even if one does all the “green” things such as recycle, public transportation, limit flights, all of those things combined don’t come close to the carbon-saving act of not breeding.
For example, car-free living saves 2.4 CO2 equivalent tons per annum, according to Environmental Research Letters. Having one less child saves a whopping 58.6 CO2 equivalent tons per annum, year after year. And the extra child will be around for triple, maybe quadruple, the life of the car. The carbon-saving results from less children simply destroy anything else one claims to do in service of the planet and biodiversity. And yet it’s the one critical thing this author (i) failed to do and (ii) argues against in this piece — without any scientific or rational basis.
12
Oh please. This is a stunningly naive article - and the wishful thinking of the entitled who don't want to give up anything. In fact, the entitled are precisely the population who shouldn't give birth to more little consumers.
14
The WWII and Baby Boomer generations brought children into the world despite the terrifying prospect of nuclear war annihilation. We don't need 10 children to run a farm anymore but we do need a future.
6
My children have declared they will not have children. They are lower middle class right now and cannot afford to have a child, much less raise one. Healthcare costs are an obscenity. Housing is becoming unaffordable for anyone not making over 100K a year. Forget education. Public education is being deliberately destroyed by rich white people who don't want their kids in schools with black or brown kids, and by religionists who want to force their religion on everyone else. Forget childcare (both parents must now work to barely afford substandard housing and food), because childcare is obscenely expensive too. Well, everything is and it is getting worse. So, you may tell people to have kids all you like. Until we can afford to raise the next generation and the society in which they must live is no longer run by vampires with zero morality or ethics, you words will fall on deaf ears, as they should.
10
It is not the carbon footprint of your children that you should be worried about, it is about your own carbon footprint..I am sorry, I see human babies as the most helpless creature that in it's lifetime will eat thousands of chickens, hundreds of cows, decimate acres and acres of forest...etc..There really are a LOT of children in the world, 100 million according to reports, that need families, that need to be adopted..I say, if you must have a child, alleviate some of the impact on the earth you are having by adopting a child.Have a child, adopt a child.. Sort of the opposite of china's one child per family years..
11
Each baby born will contribute an average of 62 tons of carbon annually to the atmosphere.
9
Malthus was right. Just because we like babies doesn't make him wrong. The worst thing you can do for the planet is have kids, hands down. It is selfish and irresponsible to breed without thought for the future.
17
No, and it is more than a little naïve to write such pieces and incessantly promote Greta who is apparently used by the green warriors.
This is and will remain an adult's world, for whatever those adults are good for.
The idea that somehow we as adults do not care for our own children and that we need them to teach us, or the authors as this one to patronize us on climate, is beneath commenting
2
Imagine every woman in Earth stopped having kids for good, like in that movie "Children of Men". Now imagine you were born in the final year before human conception ceased. Imagine you made it to the age of 70 in that world due to your resourcefulness, good luck, and perhaps some skill with a gun. Now imagine you fracture your hip.
1
We've proved that we don't deserve to be here.
9
Or perhaps the author could ADOPT. Of course, that would mean her truly genetics would not be passed along, but still...
11
Have'm; don't have'm. Mother Nature can be a mean mother, she don't care.
3
"Too many children" is too many, by definition, no?
4
Adopt. For all the lip service people pay to adoption I’ve yet to see a fertile couple actually do it. Stop fooling yourself that you possess some valuable genes the human race needs.
11
Ms. Olmstead is a conservative, religion-promoting republican millennial who seems to have some nostalgia for an imagined America circa 1958.
It is unsurprising she's pushing her generation to procreate.
14
Please let us not encourage the triggered and misguided Millennials to have children and give us more triggered and misguided children
7
Do any of you remember Idiocracy? The movie is silly but kind of plausible. We need smart people to have kids too! As far as the planet's good, people who are environmentally responsible need to raise kids that will also be responsible to offset all the irresponsible people who are breeding.
3
Not standing up to their chins in ocean water! If we don’t do something by 1987, we’re finished!
I don't think you need to go into all this hippy-dippy stuff about the "wholeness of the universe" or whatever to justify having kids. Human life is it's own reward.
Nope, your kid will be a net harm to the environment.
No amount of mental gymnastics will change this fact.
If you have a kid admit it's because you wanted one, which is fine. But don't be disingenuous and pretend that having said kid will be good for the environment - to do so is evidence of your flailing attempt to pass off a white lie as truth so as to assuage your guilt.
13
I'm sorry, but there is not a single human on this dying Earth who is not at some level helping to finish it off, no matter how earnestly we might strive to help. We're a disturbance species and always have been, and thus are constitutionally incapable of being any other way. We dig, we cut, we scrape, we collect, and oh do we burn. When our numbers were few, we had certain beneficial effects on the biosphere, such as the use of fire to add heterogeneity to the landscape. But our numbers are now so grotesquely inflated that nearly every precious corner of the globe has been defiled to some extent.
Your children, Ms. Olmstead, if they survive to adulthood, will likely encounter a world aflame. They will witness a collapse of the incredibly complex systems that support life, which in turn will lead to mass migrations, famine, and war beyond anything we can imagine. But worse than that, I think, will be life that is not worth living, because most of our animal cousins and the great flora of the world, the very sources of wonder and joy, will be gone. Our absolute only hope to mitigate this horrific outcome is to dramatically reduce the number of children born.
15
If you are having doubts about having a child because of environmental concerns, but want to have a family - please adopt. You can have all the joys of being a parent with none of the guilt of having brought another person into the world. Your justifications for doing otherwise are suspect until you explain what it is about adoption that made it an unacceptable solution for you.
9
I decided 53 years ago to never have my own child.
I married a widow and partly raised her child.
Now 32 years later I love that child and her family far more than my estranged brothers.
Sometimes genes should not pass on.
No regrets here.
12
There is a fallacy in the author's use of Wendell Berry to analogize between the world and the human body: the number of parts of the human body is limited. The world may indeed become healthy when all humans "are joined harmoniously to the whole," but even if we can achieve such harmony that doesn't justify increasing the population of the world indefinitely.
I don't have children, though I had wanted them; it was not in the cards, and I'm now in my sixties. But the climate change situation has helped me to reconcile with my sense of loss. Our entire system of economic growth anticipates that we will be using more and more stuff as time goes on. While limited local resources might weigh in favor of limiting population in poorer countries, the global impact of consumption in wealthy countries, where our per capita resource footprints are so much bigger, favors limiting population here too.
I certainly hope that not everyone decides to abstain from having children. But for young people who may already feel ambivalent about becoming parents, or who might otherwise need to resort to expensive (and not necessarily successful) medical interventions, the climate emergency may help them feel that their own childlessness is a contribution to a harmonious whole.
4
The Chinese once had the right idea -- limit the number of children to one per couple.Yes, it was harsh and brutal, but it was effective while it lasted. If the rest of the world had followed China's lead and we all stuck with it, we wouldn't be facing inevitable catastrophe
15
Oh dear lord. People aren't actually not having kids for the planet, that's just their excuse for not wanting to bother with children. And that's fine, but the excuse-making is annoying. If you want to not have kids because you just don't want them, just say that. If more liberals in Seattle had had kids (keeping in mind that 70% of children follow their parent's political leanings according to Pew Research), the recent carbon tax initiative in Washington might have passed, but conservatives had more kids many years ago and the tax was voted down.
3
@Diana--Well, speak for yourself. When I was in my 30sI had a very strong wish to have a baby; classic "baby-hunger." But I took the well-being of the planet into account (we knew about environmental degradation caused by over-population even 30 years ago) and the likelihood of terrible suffering in that theoretical child's life, and decided that on both counts I had no moral right to reproduce. Don't assume that no-one thinks in those terms just because you can't imagine making profound decisions based on environmental issues yourself.
17
It is simple.
Everyone who wants children and can afford them, should be encouraged to have not more than two.
The earth can afford a resulting global human population at somewhat below current levels, provided we move decisively now to decarbonize the economy and reduce global inequality.
None of that is likely to happen, however without considerable overhaul of broken political systems in countries such as America.
4
Humans like to think in all or nothing terms, but amounts matter. The replacement level fertility rate is 2.1 children; having one or two children will gradually reduce our population without telling a generation that it's morally wrong to reproduce at all. I'm a millennial woman who one day wants a family, but I plan to only have 1-2 kids because I don't want to contribute to population growth.
The same absolutist language is sometimes used in discussions on how to reduce our global meat consumption. Humanity won't give up eating meat entirely for many reasons (cultural, health, livelihood, enjoyment, etc). However, everyone doesn't need to switch to veganism to reduce how much meat we eat. Focus on practical ways to drive overall reduction - less taxes subsidizing livestock, health benefits of reducing red meat intake, bans on meat imports from countries clearing more land for livestock, additional market incentives to provide more affordable vegetarian and vegan food options, education about livestock land use and relationship to environment, etc.
8+ billion people will simply not be able to reproduce and consume in the ways we've grown accustomed to if we want to mitigate the worst of global warming. That said, we need solutions that are both realistic and scientific for humanity to engage with this problem and come together to fix it.
10
"When we are creators and stewards, we become aware of the infinite series of threads connecting us to the world around us."
This is a spurious argument. As a biologist and childless woman, I find it ridiculous to think that the only way we can see the 'threads connecting us to the world around us' can only be realized through having children. In fact, it's because of my awareness of these threads that I have chosen not have children.
24
@Amy Blair--Hear, hear!!
3
This is a good article because it is exactly those potential parents who might not have children on account of the environment who really SHOULD have children.
2
I tried to stop sending this one after thinking, 'but who am I to say', but somehow managed to send it TWICE .
This is a good article because it is exactly those potential parents who might not have children on account of the environment who really SHOULD have children.
2
Although it makes me sad that I will likely never get to be a grandparent, I completely understand and support my nearly-grown children not wanting to have any. Well, wanting to, but not having any, because who would do that to a child? It is perhaps the worst thing of the many bad things that our generation and the several before it has done: deprive our children of the joy of having families.
10
My husband and I made a choice to have only one child 36 years ago. To think my child might grow up to care more about the environment than someone else might hold up water for some, but children don't always follow in their parents footsteps....
6
"We" have been terrible stewards of the planet, but we have excelled at finding ways to prevent nature from healing the damege we've done. Perpetuating more of us, our damage, and our selfish destruction will only accelerate our planet's demise. If we were good stewards, we would have been responsible about population growth, and care of those within the population before adding to our numbers. Now, it's even too late for ZPG to provide relief.
10
The mistake this article seems to be making is thinking that the decline in childbirth has something to do with lifestyle decisions, when it has at least as much to do with a recognition that many those of childbearing age can barely afford to keep themselves alive, much less feed and clothe and house and care for a child. Not having a kid you can't afford is exemplifying another virtuous idea, that of "responsibility".
Capitalism has effectively been eating the seed corn for over 20 years, and now they're wondering why the next crop isn't as large.
20
People better start having more children if they want those ponzi schemes called Social Security and Medicare to continue.
Census projections for percentage of US population age 65 and over:
2020: 17
2030: 21
2040: 22
2050: 22
2060: 23
@Dan M If we all suffer because growth stops, this is a Ponzi scheme. The entire economy is a ponzi scheme. Luckily, there are other ways (taxation, cooperatives) to provide for healthcare and old age, we just have to restructure society.
11
No they can't. No they won't. Not while this country has money for bombs and not any to build a simple rail tunnel for commuters. Now the birds are dying. The end is approaching. It's all done with. Feeling sorry for my three grandsons who are all under age 4.
5
At the top of the selfish list is having children and expecting them to clean up our collective mess.
What we adults need to be doing is stop adding to the earth’s demise and start apologizing to the next generation.
Oh, and stop having more than one child ( if any).
17
My apologies to the writer for the unkind comments being posted. It is a complex issue. In truth, if those worried about the survival of the planet all had no children specifically to reduce their carbon footprint...we would be left with only those who care nothing about the environment (or those who are completely uninformed) as the sole procreators for our species.
I see the best hope to save the planet in the actions of today's informed youth. Raising children with a keen understanding of the need to address global warming might just have a positive net effect.
37
@Truthtalk Today's informed youth may be the best hope, as you suggest, but that's a thin thread to rely on at this stage of our depredation of this infinitesimal globe we have known as our birthplace.
14
@Truthtalk This notion of "saving the planet" is some nonsense phrase that we have created to fit into the utterly solipsistic view of ourselves as a species. The planet does NOT need saving. Sure, is there a massive extinction event happening that is caused by human factors? Yes. If things continue unchanged will it get worse? Almost certainly. But the issue is how bad it will be for us, humans, how bad for our societies, our economies, our politics, etc. The planet has no stake in any creature's survival. Whatever happens, some sort of life of one form or another will emerge to live in the insanely altered ecosystems that humans leave behind in their wake. We will also to change and adapt. Admittedly, things might be bad. So bad that it might as well be apocalyptic for the human species. But you know what, the planet will go on, as it as for the 3 billion years in which it has hosted life cataclysm after cataclysm. There is nothing special about humans. With or without us, the planet AND life will go on. So my rant ultimately boils down to this: argue about saving human lives, human lifestyles, human culture but do not conflate those things with the planet. We are not the planet. Our narcissism might have an outsize destructive effect, but it is still just that: narcissism.
19
@Truthtalk Don't apologize for me - I don't see how making MORE humans is a solution for the devastation humans are wreaking on the planet now. Maybe that fact doesn't suit your selfish feelings but it is true - since humans NOW are not acting and the signs are all plain..
15
Some of the carbon footprint problem can be pinned to the throwaway consumer culture and the gospel of planned obsolescence. How many smartphones have to be manufactured to provide a parent's only child with smartphone use between the ages of 13 and 21 when the phones are pre-programmed to expire after two years of use? How much energy is expended in manufacturing flimsy "fast fashion" that will wear out too soon to be passed on to a younger sibling, cousin, or neighbor? And how much energy would we need to expend to recycle the materials in all the electronics that we run through because easily broken plastic was used for an interior, unseen part that, if made of steel, would have quadrupled the life of the item? It's one thing to replace appliances when the new ones on the market offer higher energy efficiency (such as a refrigerator) but the profiteers are having a field day with the entertainment and communications electronics.
6
@Barbara Pines
Well written and right on!
1
All the warm fuzziness in the world doesn't change the fact that the ecosystems of the world are collapsing. And the reasons for that boil down to one thing: too many people consuming too much. In the early 90s, I decided not to have children. Even 25 years ago I could see what was happening. Most people who have children will not live to see the world their grandchildren live in by their own middle age. I won't go so far as to say that having children is selfish and short-sighted, but I will say that having children doesn't help the ecosystems.
20
wonderful essay. nothing is more important than optimism!
1
I am 72, and decided 50 years ago not to give birth. In those days it was nuclear war, starvation (pre-Green Revolution) and depletion of resources.
There is always a good reason not to give birth when there are children already on this earth who need a loving home. Now we are over 7 billion humans, each one a burden on earth and its resources. How many of these 7 billion now need food, medicine, shelter, safety, love, education and hope for the future? Can we really in good conscience bring more babies into this world and leave the ones that are already here to suffer in destitution and misery? Is the earth already overpopulated with humans who encroach on other species' right to live? How many disposable diapers and plastic bags does one baby represent?
If you really want to fix problems, then adopt a child, contribute to international relief, plant trees, vote environment. Don't have a baby and think in another 20 years maybe your baby will be the one we've been waiting for to fix everything.
30
Drastically reducing childbirth in America is LITERALLY throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Our exceptionally rapacious model of capitalism is the bathwater that everyone is supposed to bathe in (but doesn't need to). And if we allow ourselves to further devalue human life (even for the sake of the planet) I fear for the planet... our fates are tied together now. There wouldn't be much left of it after the next world war.
2
She writes for Th American Conservative. But this seems to ignore Republicans or the Catholic Religion or the grow-or-die business mentality of American Capitalism.
But glad to see this topic back in discussion. Overpopulation greatly amplifies the problem of over consumption and conspicuous consumption that we have made the envy of the world.
13
No, you shouldn't have children. Especially plural. You should, maybe, possibly, have one child at most. And only than if you are fully prepared and equipped - financially, psychologically, and emotionally.
We're already entering an extinction level event so the odds are if you're bringing children into the world now you're simply dooming them to a dystopia. Point in fact we'll most likely see WWIII within the next 30 years, so no, there's no Santa Claus, Virginia, and the would will not be saved.
20
If it takes a billion new kids to change us from imposing our economic model on the world the planet will do a triple sow cow (Salchow). Any system based on perpetual growth and resource exploitation has to be viewed critically these days.
6
There is nothing for Western super consumers to "accomplish." The only thing that will help this planet is if we all just stop. Stop driving, stop flying, stop dumping plastic into the ecosystem, stop wasting water, stop polluting in myriad ways, stop eating meat, and so on. Not having children is the most effective way to lessen the burden western humans have on the planet's finite capacities.
If we lived in a different era and the fate of the planet's living beings were not grievously compromised, having a family would be what I wanted, and what I would spend my life cultivating. But we simply do not have that luxury. I think if you raise your children well, they will reach this same selfless conclusion.
15
@Liz
Our family farm sequesters carbon on behalf (so to speak) of many of the anti-childbirth folks in this forum. Hopefully our kids will continue this in different ways when when we are six feet under and releasing carbon. I hope too that they share and spread habits that are environmentally-constructive, not destructive. Human cultural evolution does not have to be at the expense of nature.
1
You are overlooking the fact that there are already plenty of children in the world today. Some of them could perhaps have provided solutions to our present predicament but instead are cowering in warzones or walking miles to get water for their families or growing up in orphanages.
The world does need children - the ones we already have. If you really did have an altruistic motive in raising kids, as a citizen of the 'advanced' world, you would simply have adopted.
17
There's an almost constant drumbeat lately, on the internet, that overpopulation is the real source of climate change, and that the latter will never be solved until the former is solved. That's a little like saying that overpopulation is the real source of drunk driving. Overpopulation is undoubtedly a serious problem that needs to be addressed. It just isn't the climate change problem, which is related to emissions. With sufficient deployment of carbon sequestration technology, for example, we could all go on merrily burning fossil fuel and and still keep the climate problem from worsening. I don't recommend we do this (i.e. we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels), but I mention it to show how weakly related the climate problem is to overpopulation. You can certainly reduce drunk driving incidents by reducing family size, but more immediate solutions beckon.
4
This is perhaps the most philosophically and scientifically superficial treatment of the dilemma that I have ever read. It exhausts me to think of the length of a proper rebuttal. Here’s one small bit: The OP claims having kids is a generous act. If she felt adoption was off the table, she should ask herself why. It might help to read up on the philosophical problem of “partiality”. Assuming your kids will fix the problems of a deeply, deeply unjust world—problems that their own existence initially perpetuates (my private school was $20k/y in the ‘90s, my Ivy League education way more, kids were dying for lack of basic resources the whole while)— is a form of moral procrastination and freeriding. It’s a morally risky act. I work on vaccines now but am unsure my research offsets the climate impact of the insane amount of flying I do.
Mostly, people want to have kids for social reasons, and they rationalize it. I wish they wouldn’t bother. Of course it’s best for the reproductive rate not to be zero, but it’s a constant tragedy to me that people don’t focus on alleviating the most suffering (e.g., by fostering and adopting, and not excessively investing in the kids they do have at the expense of those they don’t).
285
@Scientist
Scientist to Scientist: "This is perhaps the most philosophically and scientifically superficial treatment of the dilemma that I have ever read." Excellently put.
41
@Scientist
Thought you were on to something until I read
"Mostly, people want to have kids for social reasons, and they rationalize it. I wish they wouldn’t bother"
Huh?
5
I am sad that some people need to have children to ethically awake, and I'd remind you that carying for your own children is not truly carying for someone other than yourself, as in fact they possess half of your genetic self.
As a person without children, the association between a person's ahving children and the ethic of care, sounds crazy to me: and I additionally assert that children=consumption=environmental destruction. Each pregancy not averted results through our cultural consumption into the destruction of the very substrates we breath, eat and drink. So...you might be trying to make it acceptable to continue to have (a child or) more than one child -- but for our survival the only power each of us individuals has to effect structural change on this earth is TO NOT HAVE CHILDREN. This is the single most important thing anyone who cares about the earth can do. And the more children had the less care for the earth there can be.
12
I've read a lot of the comments.
My boys are at an age where they are beginning to think about kids or not.
I realized the other day that I grow silent on the topic when it shows up in one discussion or another, and I'm writing this to say to parents who understand the science:
It is incredibly difficult to watch complex life begin to shut down around us at a time when our own kids are just becoming. I believe everyone here has a right and a responsibility to cherish the earth, and work within this one life to heal and protect what we can of it. Celebrate and love one another, but also think carefully about the greater good as you think about family.
For my two sons:
My generation and the ones before screwed this place up, so that no matter what else you do, you will be dealing with that for the rest of your lives. I can hold in my head both the deep sorrow at having handed you something broken, something lesser, and also my pride in who you are, and my joy that you are here to see and to be in this imperfect world with me. I would not begin to tell you what to do as far as your right to decide about children. But my silence is a result of my love of this world, and my sorrow that we may be nearing the end of our time here. I am a vegetarian. I am someone who marches and advocates and prays for a sustainable planet. I am also a consumer--by some comments here, a cancer--- and deeply aware of how much we have squandered.
Yes, love is difficult, and also entirely essential.
8
I have two children myself (20 and 17) and understand exactly where the author is coming from. It just feels so wonderful to have children and I think of them as my best (and really only) creation. And if I raise my children the right way, maybe they can accomplish what previous generations, including ours, couldn't.
Maybe this has already been pointed out by others, but in my mind this extremely unfair to our children. We basically have to tell them, "Welcome to the world. It used to be a great place, but unfortunately your parents' and grand parents' generations screwed it up so badly that life on Earth will become extremely difficult for humans, just about when you reach adulthood. We hate to tell you this, but there is even a good chance that humanity as we know it right now might end altogether in your lifetime. But, hey, don't despair, we have good news: If you do everything just right - and you can get your peer group in the rest of the world, including China, Russia, India, and Africa - there is a small, but realistic chance that things may still work out for you. Well, at least sort of. Try to look at it as a fun challenge."
I wish I were kidding, but I am not.
84
@Robert
Wow. Print this and distribute it. I'm not kidding.
This is required reading.
5
@Robert Fun challenge - you are talking about not just your familly but every species on the planet, you are kidding yourself.
3
@Robert Spot on.
2
What would Darwin say? What does it mean for our frail world if thoughtful educated people - like the commenters here - do not have children yet the ignorant uneducated and the religious zealots continue to have five, ten or more kids apiece? In evolutionary terms, success is defined by reproduction. What does this say about the evolutionary value of education and altruism if the educated and altruistic will themselves into extinction for the good of the planet surrendering it to the uncaring and downright exploitive?
2
Man. I've been hearing that classist trope for decades. You're not a better parent or more virtuous human being because of your class background.
2
Perhaps our children can save the world, but if we, and they, leave it up to Trump and his obstructive, evil Republicans, there won’t be a world to save.
I fail to understand why the dystopian world of “Mad Max” is the goal of these ignorant criminals. Film makers seem to be more prescient than politicians, with the exception of Elizabeth Warren. Trump would have the rest of us living underground, breathing through respirators and eating Soilent Green - while he dines with his fellow despots on prime steaks, and expensive wines on fine china on a private island, protected by HIS army with OUR money.
THAT seems to be where we’re headed if we don’t do something definitive NOW!
9
This is an absurd opinion piece. Having kids hasn't helped motivate any generation of parents to start making the personal sacrifices that are needed to save the planet. Why would it suddenly start working that way now?
38
@Nancy
Exactly.
2
Thank you Mary Poppins, are you trying to convince the readers or yourself that even having just 2 children is somehow noble?
I don’t besmirch your ideals, but let’s face it, Donald Trump had 5 kids, do you really think any of those miscreants will do anything positive for this country never mind the world?
14
This is a strange piece. While the author understands the perils of overpopulation, she still suggests having more children. Beyond the problem of increasing the population, having more children now as she suggests does not save our warming planet. It takes too long (more than 30 years) until kids grow up, study, and do something good for the planet. The situation is more urgent than such a dream wish. We need drastic actions now!
16
The only way to live responsibly on the earth is to live in a shelter built with all natural materials, not drive a car, grow your own food and clothes the old-fashioned way (with no chemical fertilizers or amendments), and not use electricity. If you are going to have children and live any other way, then their presence on the earth will negatively affect the earth, not to speak of the lives of all those workers around the world who suffer unseen to produce the cheap stuff that Americans are addicted to (and the factory farm animals who suffer if your family eats animal products and doesn't produce them on a family farm humanely). I have two daughters and it would be so hard on them if we chose to live off the grid to protect the planet because they would have no peer group. We've tried living in an ecovillage, and there was so much arguing among the adults that it really made me worried for humanity. We now homeschool our girls to give them a vision for a different slower-paced world in which community, connection, singing, dancing, and natural farming are all valued. We also started homeschool nature groups in our community to get the children to appreciate and want to protect our environment, but it will never be enough in this age of mass consumerism.
4
When I was born there were just over three billion people on the planet. Today that number is just shy of eight, a 266% increase in 65 years. Ms. Olmstead can deploy all the sophistical arguments she wants to justify her decision to add to that tally, but the fact remains that adding to this deluge of humanity, virtually all of it coming in the underdeveloped, often resource poor, climate change endangered Southern Hemisphere, does nothing to improve the species chances of survival. Enjoy your children by all means, but don't try to pretend you are doing humanity a favor by procreating.
12
Climate change will be solved because we will all love each other? Is this a joke?
I am an ecologist, and none of this article is rooted in any kind of science or hard fact. What this writer is failing to see is that, the more humans we add to this planet, the fewer the resources available, and therefore the greater the competition for those limited resources. That doesn’t sound like peace and love to me. She also doesn’t mention anywhere in the article about the massive areas of land and rainforest being cleared to feed and house our population surplus. That’s not going to go away if we all start having kids and singing Kumbaya. She also neglects to mention the other environmental disasters brought on by overpopulation, like habitat destruction, groundwater overusage, and nitrification of the oceans, which happen regardless of how conscientious you may raise your kids to be.
19
@K I live in South America and rain forest is NOT being cleared to feed over population. It is cleared mostly by wealthy landowners who want to produce meat products for export. There are some small farmers involved but vast amounts of land are being burned to make the rich richer. Chico Mendes was not murdered by a poor farmer.
5
This essay is convoluted and confused. She says go ahead and have children because it makes you a better person. Never mind that the earth is groaning under the weight of 7+ billion people on our way to 10 billion. So have children for your own reasons, basically a selfish rationale. But it is those concerned and aware people who do not have children that are criticized by society as somehow abnormal and selfish. They are the ones who need defending from criticism, not the breeders.
15
Almost too personal to write, but when a dear cousin recently told me she was pregnant - with twins - my heart sank and it took a second before I can say all the appropriate things. Of course, people who have children indicate "hope". But for many of us, it is incredibly solemn moment to realize that young members of the family, some yet to be born, will experience a very different world to one that we have enjoyed - and through our selfish lifestyles - have, or are in the process of, destroying.
8
@pealass--I've had the same experience when relatives share news of their pregnancies. "Hope" is not a virtue when the evidence tells us, very clearly, that we are well past the point of no return. "Hope" is just another form of climate change denial now.
1
Noe Valley Haiku:
Fashion babies role,
blocking sidewalks as we stroll,
fashion babies rule.
I am disappointed to see this become an us vs. them discussion. I fully respect peoples decisions to have children or not. Everyone must do their part (and more) if WE as the human species on this planet are to survive.
30
@Some Dude Those of us who consciously refrained from having children, we’ve done our part. In point of fact, we’ve done orders of magnitude more than all the “green” things families do.
6
I love babies. They are adorable and full of promise. But now, when I see them I also feel a pang of sadness and worry. Because facts are facts.
The Earth is finite. It's resources are not endless. It's capacity to absorb our wastes is not endless.
Technological improvements and a period of favorable climatic conditions have allowed our species to grow exponentially.
But technological improvements aren't magic. They inevitably involve shifting of resources and waste products for greater convenience. Technological "improvements" have allowed us to gobble resources as fast as possible now, and to hide our ever mounting waste from view.
Our collective power to reshape the planet extends to altering the very climatic conditions that gave rise to our species' success. And with every day of inaction, we are diminishing the planet's capacity to support life.
We can pull back from the brink. But we will have to do a lot of things differently. Which might not be wholly unpleasant if we try to embrace changes. But, critically, everything must be on the table.
One of the things that will have to be different is our attitude toward sex-ed, birth control, and abortion. To be pro-life must henceforth mean pro-life-on-Earth.
It makes sense for many millennials to forego, or at least postpone children. And for those who really really want a child to nurture, adoption is a wonderful option.
6
It is deeply offensive to suggest that those of us who choose to remain childless are not "stewards" of the planet just as much (or more) than those who have children. If you had to become a parent to realize your obligations to the planet and the future, you must have been an extremely shallow person to begin with.
And although the author mentions the question of whether it is justifiable morally to create another human being when we know that their future will be terrible, he doesn't really discuss that. But that is a key question. Given what we know about how hideous the world will be within the lifetimes of children born now, what is the moral justification for inflicting that suffering on someone? Those of us with access to contraception can choose NOT to impose suffering on new people. We should make that choice.
9
@me--Oops,I misread the author's name as "Gary", not "Gracy", so I thought it was a "he."
I am 63 and childless. With each passing year I am more glad that I am not responsible for bringing into the world another human being who will not only consume and contribute to the degradation of the planet, but more importantly will live to see what is in store for humanity. As the environment deteriorates, an increasing number of people will become desperate. There will be wars, famine, and political instability on a scale we have never seen and can barely comprehend. I don't believe people will rise above their self-interest and emotions in time to tackle our real problems before we are all past a point of no return.
11
Well, children are also their own beings and have every right to reject whatever you "teach" them. So we cannot naively state they will follow the parental values and morals.
Beyond this though, I have strong conviction that the personalities, behaviors of the parents and the family lineage do get inherited by the genes. So there is something to be said for expecting decency, compassion, kindness, empathy if the parents/lineage is already expressing all this.
Nice piece, horrific headline. Our kids can't "save" us from a fate we've already committed them to-- apparently we can't even save ourselves! And for the love of all things holy, I'm tired of hearing strangers tell me I should have children as if not my choosing not to is a political stunt. I am happy for the author, but I personally could not live with the decision that she made.
5
Most experts agree that the number of people the planet can support with sustainable farming, minimal pollution, & use of all other resources is about 4 billion. We are now nearing 8 billion. We have turned to non-sustainable, destructive, unhealthy factory farming and that doesn't even feed the entire population. Famine and starvation are wide-spread. Every major problem the planet is facing, including the myriad contributors to climate instability and change are either a direct result of population growth or are exacerbated by it. Had we heeded the climate warnings in the 1970s, we would be in far better shape than we are today. 350 ppm of CO² in the upper atmosphere is considered the turning point. We are well over 400 ppm now. Continued change can't wait until another generation is born & grows up. The extra people will do more harm than potential new scientists are likely to counteract.
12
One has to ask why Ms. Olmstead felt it was necessary to justify a perfectly reasonable choice - to have children - with this strange, dishonest, and one-sided essay.
If you want to have children, feel free! There is no law against it, and almost everyone in the world finds children hopeful, positive, and delightful. But please, please, please - do NOT pretend that these children will not use resources. They will. In particular, they are extremely likely to use houses, electricity, and oil - the three industries that Ms. Olmstead blames for 70% of the carbon we produce as if they had nothing to do with us - as if they did not exist as industries precisely because we purchase what they supply.
The average American produces somewhere around 18 tons of carbon emissions annually. A sustainable amount would be around 3 tons. So, if you are an American, unless your child is prepared to use 1/6 of the various things that most Americans use, they will be contributing to the problem.
Families are beautiful - I don't blame anyone if they want to have one. But we will never get anywhere if we aren't honest about what our choices mean. More children, especially Western children, means more environmental degradation, not less. No amount of vague, poetic philosophizing of the kind that makes up this essay will change that.
22
@Wesley Clark, MD, MPH
"Feel free", the doctor allows us... but don't kid yourself that you aren't acting socially and environmentally irresponsible and, therefore, probably immorally. Not. Americans are SO consumptive that it doesn't take much to be a net gain if you and your offspring consume less than average and influence other Americans to follow suit. As Americans, we have great influence and great room for improvement. In fact, if our economic model continues to prevail unchanged the planet will be devastated - even if our population size remains the same or even decreases.
5
In addition to all the practical comments about why having more children is just not the answer: I know what it is like to be raised with the weight of heavy parental expectations. I swore I would never do that to a child of mine. Never. Now, to consciously bring a child into what is promised to be a very difficult world just so they can 'use their talents for the planet's good'? Think about the reportedly record levels of anxiety so many young people of Generation Z already feel. Now imagine telling the next generation who will very likely have it even worse that their life's purpose must be to work to save their entire species or the whole world will suffer greatly.
Unethical is right. If you want kids, better to help what children are already here through fostering, adoption or mentoring. Those kids are going to need all the support they can get.
16
Nonetheless, the fact remains that given consumer peer pressure is often more powerful than parental influence, your daughters will more likely end up as consumption units - and hence CO2 generators. We are already consuming the equivalent of 1.6 Earths in resources every year - not to mention the megatons of carbon added.
A key resource consumption marker is Earth Overshoot Day - the day on the calendar when humanity has used up the resources that it takes the planet the full year to regenerate. Just like the hands of the 'doomsday clock' approaching 'midnight' for nuclear cataclysm, Earth Overshoot Day has moved earlier and earlier each year.
The odds, therefore that anyone by procreating can make an significant difference to the problem of resource depletion (especially potable water) we face is wishful thinking - of the type Steven Pinker has circulated.
9
I understand all the comments raised here about overpopulation and consumption, but the people of the world are not going to stop having babies, that's just the reality. And most of those people are not concerned with overpopulation and consumption, even if they should be.
For some people, maybe having children is not the right path, but I have three beautiful daughters, ages 9, 5 and 3, they are my world and my reason for being. When I see them, I see such beauty which cannot even be described in words. I pray that I can make them beautiful human beings when they grow up, those who will make the world a better place. I hope all parents at least make this effort. That is really the only hope that this planet and the future generations in it have.
It is a heavy burden but I am also a man of faith, I will try my best to raise them right, but in the end God has a plan and I trust my kids and our future to Him.
1
@Abd Raheem
"I hope all parents at least make this effort. That is really the only hope that this planet and the future generations in it have."
vs
"in the end God has a plan and I trust my kids and our future to Him."
Which is it? Maybe too much to ask that men of faith use logic. Oh my.
6
I understand a mothers passion for raising a family and I have met wonderful women who are quite happy not wanting to raise a family, so I am thinking that it is not necessary for a woman to feel that she is not human if she forsakes having children.
Also consider that the CO2 emission in America per person is 30 tons per year and in Europe. So what will you tell your daughters when they wish to buy (like all their friends have)a car in the crucial period before Florida is about to be flooded.
6
I have worked in forestry since the early 1970's. Since I worked in fire management for many of those years, I have traveled around the west quite a bit. I have watched the deterioration of our forests, the enormous pressure to yield more and more wood, water, forage, etc. Add to it the 2 degree increase in temperature, you can see some forest types begin to unravel. There are simply too many people.
20
I do not believe that the people who are calling for Americans to have fewer children are truly motivated by concerns about either the environment or overpopulation.
Yes, Americans have an extraordinarily large carbon footprint. But the US fertility rate has been below replacement levels for over a decade. Immigration, not childbirth, is behind the US population growth. Immigration is not carbon neutral; most immigrants to the US are primarily from low carbon footprint countries, and most immigrants rapidly adopt a US lifestyle. And yet, no one suggests limiting immigration for environmental reasons. In fact, it's not uncommon for the "no more than two kids" crowd to propose immigration as the solution to the economic and social problems associated with an aging population.
What about world population growth? World population growth is driven by high fertility rates in low income countries, which, not coincidentally, have very low carbon footprints.
Concern for the environment is just a cover for people who are simply annoyed - annoyed at the nosy relative who keeps asking when they're going to have kids, at the coworker who has to leave early to take her child to the doctor, and at the parents who can't get their toddler to stop crying on an airplane.
6
I enjoyed your beautiful article. I believe the Creation Story is a description of our intended role as stewards of this amazing planet. When we work in harmony with nature, rather than force our will on it, our place in the world is sustainable. We just need to change our perspective.
@Robert Holt
Could you please ask God that she creates another Earth? Quickly - 7 days would be great!
4
I just finished reading almost all of the 299 comments about this article. I come away with a metaphor:
We are all on a big bus and we are discussing how to steer the bus safely away from danger, and all the while the bus has already plunged over a precipice and is heading toward an abrupt stop at the bottom. We could continue talking about how we can change our path. Better yet, we could turn to each other and console ourselves about our upcoming not-very-pretty extinction. As a matter of fact, our extinction will likely be a hellish, vicious and prolonged affair. Let us mourn.
19
@D MThank you DM. The truth shall set you free.
1
My son recently told me about an idea he had to use ocean water to make hydroelectric power while lowering sea levels through inland waterways, dams, and desalination plants. He is 9 years old.
4
Thank you Gracy Olmstead for a lovely piece of writing and set of points. I too became a better person because of my children, and the challenge of parenting.
The commenters are pretty critical, and I understand their frustration. I find your points well written and thought out, but the overall presentation leaves out that with 7.6 billion people on the planet and increasing rates of species extinction, so severe that the topic is now refered to as the Sixth Extinction, that you do not seem willing to admit that there needs to be severe limits to human procreation. Maternity is a wonderful event, but each woman should have the right to chose whether to or not to procreate, and to prevent unwanted births to make for a healthier family, community, and environment.
58
@David Lindsay Jr.
>>Maternity is a wonderful event, but each woman should have the right to chose whether to or not to procreate, and to prevent unwanted births to make for a healthier family, community, and environment.<<
Sadly, this is not the case in a large part of the world.
In some developed countries, which have no financial excuse, birth control is either not readily available or it's prohibitively expensive for many. Thus, many, many women cannot regulate their reproduction. In other countries, the same holds, but with the added misery of being coerced into multiple births due to male arrogance, religious atavism, or other kinds of shortsightedness and cruelty (i.e., when women risk their lives whenever they give birth). If we magically eliminated unplanned pregnancies globally, then the birth rate would plummet - and maybe fewer young people would despair to bring even one or two (planned) children into this messy world.
14
In the past, evolution allowed organisms to climate change over time by depending on molecular adaptations. This was adequate when change was slow since evolution is a slow process. The speed with which change is happening now will make molecular evolution irrelevant. The only evolution we can rely on now is discovery of new methods to slow change or adapt to it. This requires education, research and idea generation, all of which need to be accelerated. We have to depend on ideas rather than molecular evolution to address the rapid changes. Having children is a start but without education and investment in research, we would just be compounding the problem.
As we abandon the Paris Climate Accord, the nuclear development treaty with Iran and the short range nuclear arms treaty with Russia, as the human population whistles past 8 billion, it is hard to accept the premise presented here. In 1962 President Kennedy, in a speech focused on world peace in the new age of nuclear Armageddon said, "our most basic common link is we all inhabit this small planet." Nothing he said then is any less true today. The existential threat JFK focused on in 1962 was relatively small and manageable compared to the climate threat we face today. Given the incremental progress we made between 1962 and 2016 on nuclear proliferation and human population growth, to name just two, is it any wonder some millenials are skeptical that a new generation will inherit anything other than a brutal dystopia? Kennedy went on to say, "We all cherish our children's future." That phrase, as we have abandoned progress, foresight and wisdom and embrace fear and hate in the age of McConnell and Trump seems the least applicable today. I smile and feel hope, as any normal person does when I see a newborn. And I cringe, for my generation's failure to protect his or her future, for my failure to protect my adult daughter's future. A new generation will not save us, that is our work. Until there is real evidence we are doing that work my advice would be don't procreate.
101
@Kelly You'll be thrilled to know that since pulling out of the Obama Paris Deal...U.S. emissions have gone down and we're the only one's hitting our agreed to targets.
All without being in the Obama Accord.
Funny how that happens.
Now..ask me how China and India are doing with their commitment to the Obama Accord Climate Control Targets.
My kid is saving the world everyday, and is participating in the Global Climate Strike tomorrow, Friday September 20, 2019.
https://globalclimatestrike.net/
2
I have to respectfully disagree. The truth is simple: the world doesn't need the 7.5 billion people it already has. There is a maximum number of people the earth can support at our current technological prowess, and it turns out, that number is less than 7.5 billion. We each consume too much (some more than others). Maybe your daughters will be the ones who create the technology or discover the science that pushes us to a new frontier of knowledge enabling humanity to expand even further. But in all likelihood, they're not our saviors.
The truth is that most people shouldn't have multiple children. We'd have to rethink pension systems and the economy would have a different long-term outlook, but the alternative is grim. We have never accounted for the carbon footprints of increasing populations. In economics, we call those 'negative externalities'. The price of building a home doesn't include its massive carbon footprint. In fact, basically nothing we consume does. That includes having a child.
Having a kid increases your carbon footprint by more than any other decision you've ever made. But you aren't paying for the deleterious effects your decision has on the world. That's not to say all people shouldn't have children, but we should also not pretend like you took the 'stewardship' of the earth into consideration when choosing to birth them. You did it for yourself. You wanted kids. Society allows it. And you're not charged for their impact. Let's not pretend otherwise.
528
@Souvient I am fine with people having children, but lets stop subsidizing it with tax credits. Maybe I should get a bonus because I made the decision not to have children.
81
@Souvient Beyond the environmental impact, the reason we should not be encouraging folks to reproduce is that a lot of the folks who do are in no shape to do so from either a financial or intellectual standpoint.
21
@Souvient Excellent points made. It is obvious to me you have done your research and "get it". More people is a luxury this planet cannot afford. Two billion are projected to be added by 2050-60 and the sheer scale of that added humanity ought to make the Pollyanna procreators tremble. But likely won't, and they will still generate their consumption, CO2 producing units.
26
Wow - have kids so they can fix the mess we've made? That's asking a lot of those children, dontcha think?
It seems the author is pained by the thought that some people are so scared about climate change that they are choosing to not have children. Given the enormity of the challenge ahead of us, I think it's actually quite a reasonable - and responsible decision. Not only is it unfair to burden the next generation with solving climate change, we can't wait!
18
Consider the following model of the world:
A third of people are "climate deniers", and two thirds are "climate alarmists". The climate alarmists decide to have zero children, though of course nature being what it is they average one child each. The climate deniers average 3 children each.
In a generation, the parenting-age population will be smaller and contain a probably not far from half in each group. Within two generations the ratio may be reversed entirely. The result is a very narrow, and likely unrealistic, time period when the world or country would have to be decarbonized to the point it no longer matters if one is a denier or alarmist.
Since this strategy will not work, expect to be fighting the climate fight for the next several decades. This will require having a typical number of children raised with empathy, courage and an ability to reason scientifically to maintain political power.
It also means thuggish tactics and trickery are counter-productive because a short-lived victory is approximately worthless in a decades-long struggle, but the bad feelings they create can take many years to recover from.
Many of today's battles are more counter-insurgency than all-out battle, including those within our own country.
1
Frankly this sounds like a long apology to the world for having kids, as well as an emphatic justification for such. “Oh, I had kids, they’ll be the stewards, we all can relax, the kids will take care of it.”
And then you drape it in the mysticism of Christianity as further justification. I don’t know. As someone who doesn’t have kids and doesn’t want them, this article wobbles in my mind.
15
Even without global warming, we're hosed with current population, purely on species extinction.
We live in extraordinary times. The pace of our technological and cultural change is accelerating at a rate that we no-one imagined even half a century ago. If history is for any purpose, we need to hang around on this planet to see where this crazy story ends.
Governments can help get us towards sustainability, and it really depends on how much impact each individual has. It is way too complicated to just leave it to consumers to make consumer choices that are sustainable, it is just way too complicated. Most of the eco-products and recycling systems are based on fiction. Trying to be the most eco-consumer on the block is a joke.
Our fate is in the hands of the women of the most consuming countries like the US. If somehow they just created a culture that frowned on having more than one kid, and hang on while we suffer the consequences, we could make it.
But for some reason, the suggestion that we not procreate goes to the heart of our humanity, and generates all kinds of crazy reactions from people. I suspect we white monkeys would never be able to handle that concept culturally, and that, well, we'll pretty much just consume until the planet can no longer sustain us.
10
Biologically procreating in the hope that one's offspring will undertake the hard work of trying to avoid environmental collapse and mass extinctions seems to me to be kicking the can down the road at best.
We who are already here, now, should get our heads out of the sand and resolve to do what we can. Reduce consumption and carbon footprint. Eat less or no meat. Recycle, support local farmers. Grow a garden without pesticides. Donate or volunteer to environmental charities. Keep informed, speak up and vote in every election.
10
I was ok until we got to the Christian part.
Our country’s leadership declares their Christianity yet allows the main leader, supports that leader, votes for that leader to go ahead and destroy our nature, our natural resources, our children’s relationship with resources. For money.
Ummmm......how’s that Christian?
9
Speaking as a parent who loves my (now young adult) child very dearly, I recognize that what this planet desperately needs to right itself is a significant reduction in the human population. The degree to which we are polluting, razing, mining, deforesting, and causing extinctions is directly tied to the increasing number of people we have to support. 8 billion people is simply too many, and there's no getting around the fact that each (wonderful, precious) child brought into the world adds to that insupportable number. Of course population reduction must be achieved humanely and voluntarily, and so encouraging people to have fewer children is one of the most important things we can do right now.
I see articles worrying about population decline in Japan or Europe or the United States, and I quietly think: "Good." Changes in immigration policy might help solve the short-term problems, and a reorganization of society and the economy might help solve the long-term ones. But the hard and simple fact is that we NEED to start reducing our numbers (again, humanely) if we're going to have any kind of future.
And if we can't achieve that: well, we've had a good run. Maybe it's best to get off the stage and give the Earth another shot at experiments in evolution, and see what it comes up with in the next ten million years.
9
"The act of [pro]creation is opposed to the act of consumption: The latter suggests that everything exists to serve our needs and appetites, but the other reminds us of the value and goodness inherent in things themselves, and how creation encourages stewardship and responsibility."
Ms. Olmstead is fooling herself if she thinks bearing children of her body wasn't about serving her needs and appetites. Over 3.5 billion years of evolution have shaped her emotions and instincts, to ensure she leaves copies of her genes behind when she dies. By having two offspring, each a one-half copy of her, she's successfully reproduced herself. IOW, she's won another round in the game of natural selection. Good for her, but does she really think what the whole world needs is more copies of her? While biological motherhood may have encouraged her stewardship and responsibility in some fashion, does she imagine a descendant of hers somehow contributing enough to balance the resources she, and her entire line unto the nth generation, will consume?
No: just as I can scarcely claim my own choice not to have children was unselfish (I frankly never wanted to be bothered), neither can Ms. Olmstead elide her fundamentally selfish motives for having hers. If she were genuinely selfless, she'd have instead adopted two orphaned or abandoned children unrelated to her, with the value and goodness inherent in them, and enjoyed all the personal benefit of raising them to be equally selfless adults.
14
On Saturdays, Americans have an opportunity to reduce global warming by not driving to the Mall, Walmart, Costco or what have you. Instead we flood our streets with massive, heavy, gas-guzzling SUVs to shop for more stuff that creates more trash for future generations to deal with. I see no indication that society gives a damn about saving their kids from misery.
14
The birth rate, throughout the world, has seriously declined, according to 2018 stats. 13 per 1000, in China and 11.5 per 1000, in the U.S., for China the lowest since 1961. Here are the figures for other countries. We do not, and should not, have to increase births, but raise conscientiousness, making sure to improve education and teach these principles in school, and promote them among the general population. Millennials are stunning the world with their initiative and creative solutions, as are the even younger generations. Thank goodness for them! Also, it would help if we stop electing Republicans and Corporate Democrats, and stop electing right wing governments around the world. Every citizen will have to take some responsibility to ensure government by the people.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN
3
Based on unsubstantiated assumptions rather than logically verifiable premises, this reads as nonsense.
11
@Alice
Heh. I could learn something from you, Alice 8^).
In other words, you should be a parent to your kids.
You should put the phone and Instagram down, and be a parent, show them the world and show them to love what surrounds them.
You should take them to the woods and to nice rolling fields of grain, ripe for harvest, take them blue berry picking and snorkeling to see fishies in the streams and oceans.
Teach them to love their world. Then they too will work to protect what is there right now, and might not be when they grow.
It all starts by people putting their Instagram down, turning off their phones, and being a parent to their kids.
Otherwise do not be surprised they grow up as little monsters who could not care less about the world.
1
This plays as an argument that the author does not believe herself but only wishes it be true
9
The vast majority of kids on this planet were not planned.
The women became pregnant and/or didn't have an abortion due to local societal norms or lack of birth control.
Period.
The top posters here had the CHOICE to give birth or not.
Save your comments for all those moms and toddlers at the TX boarder desperate to get in. Give them the guilt trip you are pushing on families here who are fortunate enough to have made a decision to become a parent.
6
"Have children so you can punt dealing with climate change to them!" Wow.
16
Having one child is ok. Two is borderline irresponsible. More than two is practically a crime against humanity.
10
Climate change is not a threat. We will do just fine in a warmer climate.
The threat our civilization faces is demographic collapse. Birth rates are below replacement throughout the developed world, and are falling rapidly elsewhere.
It is important that educated people, who raise their children well, have large families.
This is crazy. If we have to wait for a baby born today, for example, to reach maturity and obtain the kind of education required to "save the world", the world that is there may not be salvageable. Furthermore, fewer people is a good thing, not a loss.
11
Having a child is not a positive experience for everyone, and many parents are not any more self aware.
This is the time in history that people have the choice n the US and some other countries to have children or not, to marry or not.
No longer are people under the vice grip of religious organizations, or their family when making these decisions unless they want to be.
Many women in the past while not abusive parents subjugated their lives to meet social norms, and were never very happy as parents, men also as fathers.
Now the younger generations have the choice to run their lives the way they want. Some may say it is fear of the future or lack of money but a good portion is taking the time to see what they really want out of life.
Everyone who has children for the right reasons thinks their children will do amazing things, but this has to be tempered with reality, good parents love their children whether they change the world or not. So best to just have a child that you feel you can put the proper resources behind, and try to recycle and teach your children to respect the world around them.
In other countries women/men still do not have this freedom, and often in these countries they are not huge users of a carbon footprint, but the earth will not sustain their large families, and it is not our responsibility to take them in.
The religions that spew out this forced continued procreation should be the ones to provide care & shelter.
2
The planet will survive. Most animal life will not.
6
Yes - but is it fair toward the children?
I am past childbearing age, so having children is no longer an option. I do have a child, now in their twenties, and I feel the need to apologize to them on a weekly basis for having brought them into a world that we all are still trashing. Really - are we waiting for our children to save the world? I suppose they are the ones who will have no choice. I don't see this as fair by any stretch.
At this time I am concerned that the planet will be a miserable mess before I am ready to depart. It seems utterly selfish (or perhaps just willfully ignorant) to bring children into this world so that then they can deal with what we've left them.
6
It IS morally wrong to have more than one child.
5
@Leonard
But is it morally correct to morally condemn others without considering whether your own viewpoint is mistaken? Consider this, if we continue on this path with zero (or even negative) population growth the planet is still toast. Only by changing our path do we have a chance - and we will probably need people to make this change.
1
Yes! It is our job as Homo sapiens, as the carnivorous animals we truly are, to produce children and to raise them to be productive citizens.
With this instinctual responsibility, we are no different than wolves, polar bears, cattle, chickens and magpies. We wish our species to survive.
It is not our job, however, or our children's jobs, to pollute, maim, molest, cut, hurt, poison, stain the earth beyond recognition, so that its air and water, soil and forests, flora and fauna bleed from the wounds we have cut into her skin. It is not our duty to use all earth's resources for our silly pleasures.
3
Dear author, by the time the new-born children develop their talents to fight climate change, there will be nothing left. I am a 46 year old woman and decided two decades ago not to have children to leave room for all other species to reproduce. Please, accept that the only way to save the planet is to lead humans to extinction. That will be the one and only generous gesture of people like you and me. Best regards from Mexico!
8
So more people on the earth has nothing to do with climate change? 1984, " war is peace" newthink is not what is needed in this juncture.
5
“Your Kids Could Save Our Warming World
Yes, you should have children ...” - from the headline
This would be more accurately stated as “Fewer kids could save our warming world”. Overpopulation has *caused* climate change in one way or another. And since my birth in the 1950s the world population has TRIPLED! Africa and Central/South America have birthdates 40% higher than the rest of the world.
If kids are going to save our planet it will be fewer kids, not more.
9
Your child could also invent something people like to use that frivolously consumes fossil fuels to make a buck.
4
You bring Christianity into this essay. If Christian people actually cared about being "good" and taking care of the planet, then why are they more likely to vote for Trump than non-practicing Christians? He treats the planet like his personal garbage can. Somehow abortion is a bigger issue among Christians and Evangelists than the environment. It is baffling. Bringing kids into the world is all well and good, but I only have one and the amount of diapers I used definitely messed up my carbon footprint.
3
"The act of creation is opposed to the act of consumption: The latter suggests that everything exists to serve our needs and appetites, but the other reminds us of the value and goodness inherent in things themselves, and how creation encourages stewardship and responsibility."
A frothy emotional appeal for having more children is hardly an effective tact as a solution to climate change. All the science suggests the reverse. If one is truly concerned about climate change and wants to raise children to help solve it (really? ok, lets' just go with it), then one would adopt the lives already in need rather than create new ones. And I think you're the exception not the rule when it comes to parenting responsible kids.
So many parents are inherently selfish, wasteful adults. Between diapers, squeezey food dispensers, bottled water, giant SUVs, parents daily make decisions that increase their convenience and decrease the health of the planet. The most environmentally irresponsible people I know are all parents. Formerly thoughtful, intelligent, engaged adults who stopped doing anything for the environment that caused the slightest inconvenience because parenting. is. so. HARD. *sigh* And any request to increase their actions is met with a "Don't even start. You have no idea how much work I have to do."
The horse is out of the barn with climate change, it won't get better. Future children's lives will be a struggle due to the chaos of dwindling resources.
6
Just don't have more than two.
1
Is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans a problem or mot?
If it is the simplest solution is population reduction world wide. On the other hand if climate change is just a tool to help bring about wealth redistribution then population control doesn't matter.
1
Sure, everyone keep having more children. Because climate change is the only problem and it's easily solvable by someone that hasn't been born yet. All that habitat destruction, all that pollution, all that consumption...none of it matters. Humans are the only creatures with an actual right to live and global warming is the only problem we have. That's what the feckless breeder attitude tells me. Please stop it.
9
Friedrich Nietzsche’s characterization of Christianity certainly has withstood the test of time. How better to demonstrate an ethos of decadent nihilism than to encourage vast numbers of people to procreate, in the hopes that their children might solve the problems that mankind has left for them?
God’s ‘death’ has always been about anthropocentrism, and if the religious fanatics of the world would take their scripture a little less literally, then we’d likely live in a world which was far more suited to allow children not to be born into bondage.
2
What a simplistic regurgitation of the optimism fallacy! The world doesn't need stewardship. It needs protection - from US! There isn't a single problem that wouldn't be improved by a smaller human population. The least painful way to get there is to keep our legs crossed. If we can't manage that, the world will shake us off like a bad cold - and soon.
Wish my parents never met. Non-existence IS preferable to a warming planet filled with 8 billion talking apes.
Still, every animal has a right to reproduce - even humans. What you're doing isn't wrong, it's just mean and selfish. That's the way most animals behave. So go ahead, keep behaving like a mindless animal. Maybe in another hundred million years, earth will produce intelligent life.
4
Religions need more people, kids to prophesize their beliefs. That is why the catholic church makes birth control a sin. Sin, really.
Catholicism and all religions, have not made us better people.
3
I personally think that it's going to get so bad that Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest is definitely going to come into play so having kids really won't be a factor. Have you heard about the mosquito borne illness that is now killing people? My neighbor in Virginia died that way earlier this summer. When it's not cold enough to kill off the bugs, the disease, the fungus, guess what folks? Lot's of new diseases and bugs are out there that will get us. Just multiply that by a few thousand. The animals are going to get sick too- the pigs, the chickens, the cows, etc. It's going to get into our water. Stay tuned folks and get your heads out of the sand!!!!
2
Only human hubris would allow for the idea that humans could 'save' a giant rock floating in space.
2
"Sure, as Elizabeth Warren pointed out at the same town hall, “70 percent of the pollution, of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air, comes from three industries” — building and construction, electric power, and oil. Our consumption is just a small piece in a much larger puzzle."
And those three industries are unrelated to our consumption how?
I literally heard my contemporaries use exactly these same arguments to justify their decisions to have children thirty years ago. Once they had those children, however, they then used their existence to justify the purchase of giant houses, gas-guzzling mini-vans and SUVs, and flights around the globe for family vacations. The myth that people who choose environmental destruction by having children will somehow raise children who are sufficiently unlike themselves to be good environmental stewards is supremely unconvincing.
10
Let’s stop writing about the dreams of future outcomes and do something hold the adults accountable RIGHT NOW. We can’t rationalize or hope our way out of this, we have to act.
12
Too late! Children, particularly United States children, have huge Carbon footprints. And it is selfish, those having children right now are going to subject them to horrors beyond our current capacity to imagine. Probably.
Hard to imagine, but statistically, the probability. All these models of how fast climate weirding is unraveling the world, they do not know. It might hit an equilibrium somehow, more likely, a paradigm shift will occur, and it will be much faster.
However, how can one deny those hard wired, a child? Really tough.
4
"The act of creation is opposed to the act of consumption: The latter suggests that everything exists to serve our needs and appetites, but the other reminds us of the value and goodness inherent in things themselves, and how creation encourages stewardship and responsibility.
"As the writer Matthew Lee Anderson recently wrote, 'Parents have an unconditional responsibility to cherish their children — and while that does not generate a reason to procreate, it does mean that being human is interwoven with a sense of obligation to one another.'”
There is a world of difference between creating human life and consuming goods. This sentence conflates them, and should not.
Ideally, yes, parents cherish their children and raise them well. You don't have to look far to see how often that is not the case. Having children does not necessarily make one more aware of over-consumption, and it is not necessary to have children to act upon one's awareness of the impact of useless consumption on the world.
I have a feeling that Ms. Olmstead is a wonderful parent, but I cannot support her desire to encourage others to have more children, too.
7
What an absurd, irresponsible, and human-centric article dripping with entitlement. Every parent with whom I've had this conversation (I am childless by choice) hopes—and in some cases believes—that their child will be the Next Great Problem Solver. But odds are that their child won't; most children will be, by definition, average. The average child does not use her/his talents for the good of the planet. The average child in developed countries sucks up huge amounts of resources (food, water, dirty energy, habitat) and spews out CO2, plastic, and poop. The average child in developing countries leads parents to eschew ecological concern in favor of survival. If we were an exceptional species in a positive sense–recognizing the negative impact of our presence on the planet and adjusting accordingly–you might have an argument, but we demonstrate repeatedly that we are selfish, arrogant, and obtuse. Please, spare us your child.
8
But why aren’t we, we are the adults. I am willing to sacrifice.
3
I'm happy the author's parenthood inspired her to reconsider her relationship to the environment. However, that's not the only or even most preferable path to enlightenment. Many people acheive environmental awareness through school, community, science, hiking, art, literature, etc. I don't need a small version of myself to fear for future generations, just compassion and imagination.
15
You mention Christianity so I want to point out that from a christian perspective, you are not the creator, you are a pro creator or co creator and will never be more than that. Wendell Berry's vision of harmonious unity is reminiscent of the philosophy of traditional Chinese medicine which sees the body as a microcosm to natures macrocosm and the harmonious flow representing "radiant health". We are unfortunately dependent on industrial fixation of nitrogen and the damming of rivers to support the excess of population. Overpopulation was held in abeyance by the limitation that biological fixation of nitrogen put on agricultural productivity. There is no going back without a major culling of the human population. The future you describe is therefore technologically based and involves changes to human existence which are inconceivable to anyone living today. Therefore, since suffering is inherent to life and I can not predict whether my progeny will suffer more or less than I have, I choose consciously not to subject them to any suffering at all, since it is not their choice to be born.
2
The author states the fact that three industries create the vast majority of greenhouse gases as a reason to not be too concerned with individual environmental decisions. Is the author aware that these industries make products for consumers that were all once children?
It's not my place to tell people how many children to have. Really, it's none of my business. It's just disingenuous to call having children more environmentally virtuous than not having children.
10
I thought this article was going to suggest that we should make our kids engineers/scientists to solve the problems facing us, which I would agree with.
Not everyone can be an engineer or a scientist though.
And this article didn't once touch on that.
Sorry but this is terrible advice. Even the best stewards in the first world are still doing horrible damage to our planet.
11
Candidate Warren is being too simplistic in attributing carbon pollution to the sources of energy.
The real carbon consumers are her fans who insist on next day delivery of their Amazon Prime packages, drive SUV's that get low teen mpg, purchase "fresh produce" flown in from South America, and live in large houses with an A/C and four digits electrical bill.
An analogy: Drug Dealers are vile and inhumane, but they wouldn't survive without an active U S market demand.
3
This is so wrong. Population reduction is the most important and effective action to take not only for climate change, but for stopping the devastation of habitat for non-human species. When human numbers equal those of, say, wild rhinos, then it might be time to think about raising more children.
18
Indeed, your passion and thoughts are admirable.
I think, however, that your vision is not the norm.
Go anywhere and it’s obvious that parenting is a lost art.
Children are not protected from predators, drugs, homelessness and the myriad of other dangers that they face.
Now that we finally uncover the truth about climate change, it just may be too late to reign in parental apathy.
2
@-tkf Except the stats show the opposite, that we're the richest, safest, longest living, best educated ever before.
I do not have children of my own. I have been a part of my nieces’ and nephews’ lives since the moment they were born, and I can recognize that any one who has friends, families, neighbors, pets... can realize “a sense of obligation to one another” and “stewardship and responsibility”. These are expected and natural human traits, not magical gifts that only appear after you’ve had children. There are qualities that come only with being a parent, but being a good steward of the earth is not of them. Encouraging people to have more children to fight climate change is akin to encouraging people to eat mor fast food to lose weight—irresponsible and ineffective.
419
@Connie O HERE HERE! - Also childless by choice. David, 50 y,o.
8
Its great if parents raise their children to care for the environment, but at this point with 7.7 billion people on the plant, it is morally irresponsible to have too many children.
Habitat loss is a driving factor in the extinction of many species. The rampant development of our planet to provide housing for humans is a major problem. If population growth slowed, or reversed, we could share the land in a more equitable fashion.
Furthermore, the notion that hope only lies with the next generation is simply false. Can we not influence already existing humans to adopt a more environmentally friendly life?
275
@BrieS
Funny, back in the 1970s, I declared to my teen buddies that I wouldn't have kids because of the world's many problems. "Maybe your child will be the one to solve them," a girl suggested.
I decided not to take that gamble.
Hope is a beautiful and terrible thing.
21
@Lola
"Hope is a beautiful and terrible thing".
So true. Leads to action in some, complacency in others.
5
First off, the notion that the globe is warming abnormally is based on very shaky science. Don't believe me? Examine the actual data for yourself -- it will take you some time and you'll have to have a head for numbers and an understanding of how real science works, but you'll see if you take the time. Visit Berkeley Earth.com and check out how many temp stations there were over most of the earth back in 1880 when we supposedly had a good network of temp stations. Then check where they were located. Then look at the actual raw (unadjusted) data for temp stations.
Here's the short story -- I'm using Africa as an example but you could substitute S. America, Central America, Canada, most of Eastern Europe and Asia. In 1900 Africa had about 40 temp stations -- all on the coast. Now the number of stations has increased so that they have around 500 -- about 5% of our total in the contiguous US. Still mostly on the coast -- and for the most part they don't necessarily follow the same protocols for gathering the data.
So the global data set is based primarily on estimates and extrapolations that are then adjusted, for the most part up. So I'd cool my ardor for warming by acquainting myself with the facts.
@Ralphie So, Ralphie, the fact that the last five years were the warmest on record, and that glaciers are melting all over the world at an accelerating rate, and that at least 97% of scientists in climate research agree that the planet is warming because of human generated greenhouse gasses—all that is irrelevant? Why would anyone believe you in the face of all this evidence?
10
I have done research on climate change. The fact is there has been no scientific research study that has refuted the thousands of evidenced based studies confirming climate change and its disastrous effects.
7
@Zejee really. What research have you done? Are you talking about all the hurricanes and tornadoes that we have now that never happened before. What about wildfires? Exactly what disastrous effects are you referring to?
1
I appreciate the author's optimism. However, I believe that this piece ignores the inequality that exists between humans and how cherishing and providing the best for your own children can often come at the expense of others different than yourself. I have seen many white Americans of means justifying decisions that perpetuate inequality because it is what is "best" for their children. These parents purchase homes in white neighborhoods because that is where the "good" schools are and leave when they think that too many people who don't share their values (aka are different than them) move in. Massive resources are spent not just on food and clothes but on test prep, travel sports, and music lessons. Of course, you can choose to raise your children without making these decisions. However, will those children have the credentials to go to an elite university to become an important scientist who might slow the earth's rapid decline? It is possible they will not. As a white American of means myself, I have made the decision to stop hoarding resources for myself (and yes, this includes potential children), and make what I believe are more moral decisions and put my resources to better use elsewhere. This does not exclude the possibility of adopting children from the foster care system, but it does exclude birthing my own children.
13
In my experience, as a married 30 something with no children, and no intention to have them, this article's appearance in the NYT is a symbol of something larger I see taking place. What I experience more and more is hearing parents of children feel that they need to justify the fact that they have added to the earth's population. In light of our clearly destructive and parasitic relationship with our host environment, the idea that another human might be "part of the solution" is contrary to our entire track record as a species. The only ray of hope in our current predicament is the embracing of the fact that we are currently embodied in a species which has an inability to see our own shadow, our own dark side, and our microscopic time on the stage of the universe so far. Nature seems to be completely indifferent when it comes to returning to balance. Nature seems to be simply reacting accordigly to the "experiement of the human species." In our current state, how could one think that we would make it? If the mass violence in the US and our total inability make any change, on it's own, doen't give you the idea that we are hanging on by a thread...
I can, though, absolutely empathize with the writers mindset. I cannot imagine seeing our current situation as a species and having to justify creating another human who will now have to expereince it, let alone be asked to fix it!
7
Queer theorist Lee Edelman identifies what he calls “reproductive futurism” - a societally unquestioned investment in the future by way of heterosexual reproduction. Following Edelman, it would be worth asking what kinds of care, investment, and connectedness become legible when one does NOT have children; in fact, positioning oneself outside the norm of heterosexual reproduction may reveal forms of kinship and care that do not depend upon having children or indeed become possible if one does not have children. Other commenters have pointed to this possibility.
51
@Leila Braun And, the "childless" might have the money, time and resources to take the hard actions necessary to even slightly mitigate what our species is doing.
3
Congratulations for not having a baby. sincerely, the Earth.
8
Actually Christianity is the WORST doctrine when it comes to the environment. Vandal Scott Pruit wanted the bible on the crest of his department "b/c god gave us dominion over the planet." All magical thinking damages the environment.
At 50, I have no children, by choice, partly for the problem you write about. "And if my genes don't like it they can jump in the lake." - S. Pinker
7
I am homosexual. I have no instinct for procreation, though I have plenty of desire and capability to help raise children.
Let's eradicate the homophobia which permeates our cultures and dissuades so many from exploring all options.
I've long felt that homosexuals are like the control rods of the biological reactor. We are essential to a sustainable future.
4
No one has the right to tell anyone they should have children. It seems the author is making a specious attempt at justifying her choice to procreate.
8
@John Nino Zec I wouldn't assume the author wrote the headline and byline to this article, which is clearly a defense of having children, rather than an argument that everyone ought to have children.
I am 44 years old and have chosen not to have children. From a young age, I knew that I didn't want to be a mother, and I've considered myself lucky that my feelings have always been so clear. I had a difficult and sometimes violent childhood. I struggle with depression.
What troubles me about arguments to have children is that there is never any thought to the idea that perhaps bringing a sentient being into the universe without their consent has some amorality to it. Perhaps amorality is too strong of a word. I apologize, but I can't think of another right now. My point is that it is impossible to live without suffering. If we're lucky enough to make it to old age, we still have to see loved ones die and our own bodies decline before facing the inevitability of death.
I apologize for the sadness of my comment, but sometimes I wonder if anyone else can see what I do- that to be born is not necessarily some great gift. Perhaps your children will thrive and be happy, but perhaps not. I've known for a long time that I'd rather not take this chance with someone else's life.
17
@cf I suppose this is some comfort when we consider the deaths and extinctions of so many species as a result of human action. Perhaps those creatures are also better off having never been born, never suffering nature's cruelty.
But at the same time, I don't know, nature has nurtured so many magnificent and complex creatures, I think we should do what we can to stop our assault on them. Not adding more humans seems a step in the right direction.
1
Over the past 300 years of capitalism and colonialism, majorities of the Earth's population have seen the complex and living worlds they knew flattened & integrated into a barren global arena for consumption. Native Americans starved literally and emotionally as the bison disappeared and they were forced into the market to buy jerky and liquor.
Even as I was raised in a natural world that was relatively impoverished, I am not emotionally equipped to raise a child in a world where I cannot share most of the things I enjoyed about being alive, whether those are direct experiences like cross-country skiing SE Wisconsin, or catching pike in cold lakes, or they are imaginative experiences, like contemplating African megafauna, a reliable schedule of seasons and their attendant traditions, or the idea of the earth as a fertile & generous home.
Any child I have could not share those experiences. If they caught a glimpse of the old world, as we have, they will know what they were missing, and we could have a shared sense of loss. I am never, however, in the mood to explain to a child what an elephant was, and reiterate that it was killed by greed and folly, or try to articulate just how one cross-country skied, calling up memories but fighting back tears. I am not strong enough for a parenthood that is simply the continual articulation of loss.. It gives me added respect for all the peoples already suffered loss of their land and traditions by capitalist exploitation who endure.
8
Sorry,not sold. I lack the optimism.
9
"Many would-be parents in the millennial generation worry that bringing a child into this world might, in its effects, serve as a choice for more consumption, waste and damage to the planet."
Is this for real? We are not talking about a general movement by millenials, correct? Maybe just a fringe group on the side? (As are bound to exist in any collection.) The link is so inane, I can't believe the general populace thinks like this. But I can believe a handful of nuts would.
"If a member of the millennial generation asked me why I brought two more human beings into the world, "
My answer would be "I would bring more into the world if I could afford it. The status of the Earth does not play into the equation."
The mindless hysteria which is created around, well it seems any subject these days, gives rise to cultish behavior. And we pretend that this cultish behavior is mainstream, accepted thought, rather than an absurdity.
2
If you teach them never to eat any animal products then it might not be too bad. Otherwise, it is a disaster.
3
Watch "Idiocracy" - 2006 and make your own conclusions on how (in)decisions on having kids can affect our future.
6
@redpill Don't even. I can't stand these uninformed genetic arguments. Breeding/Eugenics is the lamest way to help humanity. The film implies if smart people don't have kids, the planet will be overrun by morons. The planet will be overrun by morons if we fail to resist mounting inequality and the erosion of democratic values and institutions, like good public education.
1
Why should Americans wait for their children to save the world from man-made "Warming", when other nations have already taken the baton and fighting hard to halt noxious climate changes? It is akin to holding government's corrupt officials responsible...but only after Trump's misrule is over? Are we trying to wash our dirty linens using future generation's dough? Besides educating our youth now, about saving 'mother Earth', we adults must take responsibility and act...to save ourselves from neglect and complacency. Simple!
6
I believe having kids causes people to convince themselves everything is going to be ok. It probably has to do with a survival mechanism from evolution, and our denial of death. Parents must put on rose colored glasses because it is too painful to think about the fact that their kids will suffer. This has likely been a major factor in us denying the obvious global disaster of extinction from climate change for so long and now sadly it is likely too late. And this author is still refusing to pull their head out of the sand?? Still?! I hate to break it to you, since the decision to have kids is irreversible, but the future does not look bright for them.
8
No, one ought not have children - any children. There are plenty that will - devote your time and energy to them.
3
First and foremost, humans (especially us Americans) are consumers. Wishing and hoping your kid will become a steward of the planet is no more justification for having children than thinking your child will be become President of the United States. Things happen and kids grow up sometimes outside of the mold you think you can set for them.
I applaud those that challenge people to justify why they have more have more than 2 children. No amount of mental gymnastics, economic theory, or religious texts can explain away the fact that its one more mouth to feed. You are no doing humanity a favor by having more children, it's because you WANT them.
11
Procreating is selfish if not mindless more accidental. The child has no choice in the matter of being thrust into a perilous world and universe that does not need it. Only its genes benefit by continuing evolution's game of random selection. It is safer to remain unborn.
7
Nope. The self serving and self satisfied tone of this article is striking. 1 American kid will use up huge resources and create huge carbon footprints compared to a number from Bangladesh. And it is the kids from Bangladesh who suffer from the Americans' profligacy. If you must, have one or two kids. But no one should think it improves human's interactions with the environment to have more than that.
11
Support for modern life consumes energy at rate of about 10 kilowatts per capita, in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
3
I don't plan on having children because I don't want them to endure the horrors of climate change as they develop and worsen.
It's the need to tell other people what to do that always gets me in these types of articles. You chose to have children. I would never think to tell you not to.
I truly wish people like Ms. Olmstead would just mind their own business. Is it an underlying guilt that makes them need to justify their decisions by constantly trying to force them upon others?
12
@Casey Long The only meaningful life such people can envision involves parenting their own biological kids. Without that identity they are lost. Everything else becomes secondary, even the fate of migrant children at the border, or children orphaned by war—to say nothing of the myriad species paying the price for insatiable human consumption.
2
A little self serving, isn't it. I am contributing to a problem but I have the best intentions so what I'm doing must be okay.
24
Grow an army, for the wealthy will need someone to throw to the wolves when the world finally comes after them.
5
The byline should be changed to "Yes, you should have children *if you want them*."
I say this as someone who waffled for years on whether I wanted one or not, and I have one who is my greatest joy in life and hope for the future. But not everyone wants kids!!
1
Very touchy-feely advice, but not much good for the world. And no one, anywhere, should have "too many" children. No passes for cultural reasons or touchy-feely.
7
Virtually to a person, the people that I know who have decided not to have children are incredible self-absorbed. I have yet to meet anyone who was dying for children but decided to abstain for environmental reasons. No, these are people who do not want pesky babies to interfere with their lifestyle, don't want to incur the expense and make sacrifices for the next generation. Environmentalism, or fear of the future, is just a convenient excuse.
1
@DRS Hi! I made that choice. Caused many tears when I was younger, but I am increasingly contented with it. I know I would be plagued with a far deeper guilt if I had them, and I already deal with enough. My husband and I have not ruled out adopting or fostering, though.
4
Perhaps you don't know many people without children. Many of us work/volunteer to educate other people's children, donate to charities that protect the environment, animals, human rights, etc., and pay taxes which we desperately hope will be used to help improve life for future generations of people, animals, and the planet as a whole.
No, we don't all hate pesky babies, we just don't feel the need to have them ourselves, even though our families, friends and society at large constantly tells us we should.
6
@DRS
No, it’s not ‘convenient.’
It’s a truth. In 1973 I made
the choice to have my tubes tied in fear of global catastrophe. As a former practicing Catholic, it was a particularly difficult decision to make.
“Sunshine go away today, I don’t feel much like dancing. He can’t even run his own life, I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine.”
1
I don't plan on having children because I don't want them to endure the horrors of climate change as they develop and worsen.
It's the need to tell other people what to do that always gets me in these types of articles. You chose to have children. I would never think to tell you not to.
I truly wish people like Ms. Olmstead would just mind their own business. Is it an underlying guilt that makes them need to justify their decisions by constantly trying to force them upon others?
4
My "perhaps it's for the best" was not a jab. I'm seeing more and more similar comments on this and other pages. I think that more and more of us have looked this thing square in the eye and realized that as humans, we just aren't up to it.
1
Our children may have to save the planet from human destruction, because our president certainly isn't going to. In fact, it might take a paradigm shift in human thought around the world to do it, which sounds far fetched but really isn't. In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a linguistic "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
This argument makes sense—but only if you literally ignore all of human history and contemporary science and politics.
6
Yikes! what a simplistic rationalization!
Your children are going to face horrors that we still cannot even imagine. We are in the beginning Sixth Extinction.
This article may do a good job making parents feel it was OK to have children but it offers only magical thinking.
Meanwhile the melting of Greenland has changed from "an ice cream cone" to a "popsicle" description. What that means is the disruption of our modern life is coming much faster than scientists currently predict.
So many people will point to this article and use it to justify having three kids. How irresponsible.
6
Where in this argument is there concern for the child born into this mess of a world? Condemning a new being to an existence burdened by the catastrophe that's already underway is selfish and the argument is justification for her own need.
5
Why would anyone need permission from a Gracy Olmstead to have children. Who is Gracy Olmstead and what right does she have to tell you how to raise them. Oh, shes a writer.
People have kept having children in far worse circumstances than we live with today. There has never been a guarantee in life and there never will.
1
"Your kids could save our warming world" . . .
OR . . . . they could suffer the impending famine, disease, social disorder, climate catastrophes, etc., etc. wrought by human abuse of Mother Earth.
Tough, tough, choice.
I love my 3 grandchildren more than anything on earth and I don't speak of my dark fears for them to my daughter and her husband.
My son and his soon-to-be wife have chosen not to have children because they don't want to bring any children into this world, only for them to experience a whole new level of human suffering.
We better be teaching the little ones that are already here all about love, compassion and sharing. And survival skills. They're gonna need it.
4
Trade war, Cold war, Winter war...
We need to start a Green war with China. Whoever did the most to save the environment get to reign supreme.
1
The author has a fantasy vision of how things might work out according to her perspective. Having already had children she strives to make the best of a bad situation. Not going to tell your kid that I made a mistake in bringing you into the world - "If I need then what I know now!"
She writes, "but the other reminds us of the value and goodness inherent in things themselves, and how creation encourages stewardship and responsibility."
If all of this were true and not fanciful fiction, how come such poor stewardship of the planet currently? The nebulous "creation encourages stewardship" is the unseen hand of the market?
She never mention anti-natalism which argues it is immoral to bring a child into the world altogether.
Even if there were no global warming, the gratuitous suffering children have to face is reason enough not to subject them to birth, unless a sadist.
4
This is an entirely unconvincing argument. It boils down to "have kids so that you learn to be less selfish". But that's a really selfish way to learn that lesson. And the headline is dead wrong. Only those alive right now can save the world. By the time any babies born today are 10, it will be too late.
7
I would not encourage anyone to have kids until the climate change situation has been addressed successfully. The bleak and terrifying future they face is real. I wish I understood this before I had children. I now worry for their futures and feel guilty for being so naive and ignorant about the topic. Millions have died and millions more are dying already because of climate change with no end in sight.
4
What you're recommending, it seems, is not to have Capitalist children.
2
Maybe you can make an argument for brining one privileged daughter into this world but how do you justify two when your kids will consume and pollute as US citizens more than any other children on the planet, regardless of what good values you want to impart to them? The sober truth is that overpopulation is the driving factor in climate change and you have put your interests over the interests of the human family.
The chances of limiting catastrophic climate change diminish with each day that we fail to take dramatic action. Your children's future will likely be bleak. You obviously think that is an unlikely scenario. Good luck with that.
3
Why is it to be left to OUR CHILDREN TO SAVE THE PLANET? That's ridiculous. So we get a free ride and continue to destroy our world wantonly and knowingly, deliberately, but we will teach our next generation to be geniuses and they will come up with a "cure" for the disease of destruction and death we the current generation have created. Oh great, just great.
3
"Children are a clear statement of hope" so it buying a lottery ticket.
2
If you do decide to have children, teach them to use their minds and hands to be as self sufficient as possible.
1
Unfortunately, Gracy Olmstead supports the modern American fraud of 'conservatism'.
While 'conservatives' occasionally have ideas worthy of consideration and debate, their modern American political track record is one of environmental destruction on multiple levels.
Firstly, their antediluvian 'be fruitful and multiply' religious instincts are an environmental catastrophe, especially as they fertilize abstinence 'birth control' philosophy not just here, but also export religious denial of contraception to Africa and other impoverished, overpopulated regions.
If you don't think 7.7 billion humans on the planet is a serious problem aided and abetted by institutional religious ignorance, then you're not thinking very clearly.
Secondly, the 'conservative' political elevation of serial manmade global warming denialists, in conjunction with their Gas Oil Pollution public policy, makes conservatism a literal enemy of the planet...an enemy of biblical 'stewardship' of the Earth and its fragile ecosystems.
Thirdly, conservatism's general embrace of unregulated vulture capitalism and greed directly contributes to America's excessive consumption behaviors and carbon footprint.
Put all these things together and the writer should reconsider her fake 'pro-life' sensibilities and consider the reality that her chosen political affiliation is actively helping to abort many of the planet's species.
If you want be a steward of the earth, stop supporting a party that's hurting the Earth.
34
The easiest and most impactful climate change action any human can do is to stop having babies and start taking care of the ones the world already has.
2
This reeks of the classic Republican solution to climate change.
"Just wait for someone to innovate us out of it!"
Yes, let's just make more baby lottery tickets to solve climate change while accelerating each time. Great idea.
4
This is all very kumbaya of the author--and naive.
We've got too many people on the planet now for it to support, and people should absolutely not be adding more if they could possibly avoid it.
Really feel that "drive" to procreate? Go through the motions of doing it by having protected sex and then go out and adopt (as I and my spouse did). That way you're raising someone who is already here and probably providing them with advantages they wouldn't have otherwise had, though if you're a First World adopter you're probably adding to the overall consumption that person will engage in.
At least, though, you aren't adding an additional mouth to feed.
I find it hard to understand, in light of our present circumstances, why so many people feel the only option is to produce another entity that looks like them and has their genetic make-up. If you feel maternal/paternal/parental there are other options, and most of them involve being better stewards of the planet. Not to mention, if you adopt someone from abusive or impoverished circumstances, you're doing one of the ultimate mitzvahs/karma enhancers.
There are plenty of unwanted, exploited kids in the world. Let's try to make them whole first.
8
7.7 Billion people on this planet today and growing every day. It is wildly irresponsible to have more than 2 children. While the most responsible among us make the sacrifice to have no kids to counter those mothers that feel it so important to have little replica’s of themselves to feed thier narcissism and further destroy Mother Earth. It’s quite ironic actually. It’s called Zero Population. Look it up.
7
This has to be one of the weirdest opinion pieces I have ever read in the NYT. I understand that the Op/Ed Board is trying to have a wide range of opinions—but really? Ms. Olmsted did seems to uninformed about the multiple crises we are in the midst of. Mass extinction and the climate emergency are getting worse daily, with no signs of slowing down. We have known for 30, or 50, or 100 years (depending on how one frames it) that the combo of burning carbon, mass consumption, and an exponential increase in human population is a dangerous mix for all living things.
The delusion that well raised and informed children will solve this is laughable, when the author herself is uninformed. We do not have time to wait for the next generation to be better stewards. We need the last generation to be better stewards. (And don’t use Wendell Berry for this silly argument!)
10
While the article itself was thin on logic and persuasion, the comments were worth the price of admission themselves.
People who love themselves and their own “thoughtful” lives more than children are a genetic dead-end. They’ll literally leave no one to pass their cynical, shallow, and defeatist ideas to, and will likely die lonely, poor, and sooner than people with families.
Watching these people melt down over climate change is a sight to behold though. The Extinction Rebellion types are the most ridiculous. Are they ignorant of the fact that the climate isn’t static, and never has been? Do they not remember how dirty the air in L.A. used to be, or how polluted U.S. and English industrial centers once were?
These are silly people. They’re not fit to have children to begin with, so I suppose it’s fitting that they’re opting out.
They can criticize those of us with families and futures and hope and happiness all they want. The fact is that we’ll be here when they exit, and yes - we’ll probably be taking their
beloved fur babies to the shelter to be put down after they pass.
@Ben Does it comfort you to believe the childless are really so selfish? I decided to become a genetic dead-end partly so I could focus on research to help humanity, and also so I could help educate undergraduates, MDs, and PhDs on current problems. Rest assure you, I know far more about climate dynamics, pollution trends, human evolution, economics, extinctions, and development economics than the vast majority of people.
If you read these comments, you will find similar stories of people who chose not to have children as part of a larger effort to help humanity. Now who is being cynical and shallow?
4
@Ben "Melt down" - pun intended?
Arguably, the solution to the world's problem is to stop having children altogether and allow the human race to become extinct. A task mother nature has been trying to accomplish ever since she realized her mistake.
2
our consumption habits as Westerners (and increasingly anyone lower-middle class anywhere on Earth) are a poison so great that it far outweighs any good than any human can hope to do. you spin a lot of pretty nonsensebut you can't run from that fact. Our population needs to stabilize several billion below its current level, or it'll stabilize at zero.
2
And adoption? Why must all arguments come down to biological reproduction yes/no? There are thousands of children in this country who await good homes. They too could easily be tomorrow's best hope for a solution to any number of problems. I would urge anyone seeking to start or build a family to consider adoption.
3
@Liz Siler
Voice of reality here: kids up for adoption are kids who are going to be challenging to parent. Adoption is lovely, but ill-prepared or idealistic adoptive parents are bad for kids, because this adoptions fail and the kids suffer even more. Adoption has a good PR team, but having been a ground zero for adoptions, it is much tougher than people realize. If couples want to do the work to adopt from foster care, cool. But don't make adoption seem easy in any way. It is tough and requires serious preparation.
2
I could buy this argument when the world's overall population was perhaps 1 billion (around 1804), perhaps even 2 (1927), possibly 4 billion (1974) billion at most. The fact, however much we want do deny it, is that we're rapidly approaching 8 billion, with no constraints in sight. We have become little more than a cancer on the body of Earth. Like the disease in our bodies, we're growing uncontrollably and consuming more and more resources, leaving more and more toxic residues in the system behind us. Even our self-righteous attempts at recycling are breaking down due to inefficiency and the stubborn durability of the materials we've created.
Parenting is a choice of individuals. But with it they likely see only the "trees" they produce, oblivious to the fact that the overall "forest" being created all around them is choking off the planet. Mother Nature may correct the imbalance herself via the global warming we've introduced, or maybe another self-destructive massive war amongst our belligerent selves will reduce the population to a sustainable level. Either case we're leaving a heck of a mess for the future to deal with. Good luck, you're going to need it.
311
@Patrick, well stated.
7
@Patrick
I disagree. It's true from the planet's ecosystems viewpoint that less is better with regard to humans. But the QUALITATIVE differences among human societies are even more important than the numbers. European societies have existed more or less sustainably for thousands of years at relatively high population densities. Sure, American-style consumer societies at the population numbers you fear would be environmentally devastating. But this will only happen if we fail to see the MAIN reasons for our negative impact on the planet, which is our growth-based capitalist economic system that relies on resource exploitation and consumer excess (and leads to environmentally destructive social upheavals). I would blame this before blaming human beings.
4
@carl bumba
Our economic system with the attendant focus on "consume, consume, consume" may be the engine driving us to catastrophe at an accelerated pace, (especially as it is adopted as the ideal in developing nations), but changing the model to something else (even if feasibly done with respect to human rights and other considerations, i.e., avoiding totalitarian excesses for economic efficiencies that currently make up the Chinese economic and social situation, for example) doesn't seem likely in the offing anytime soon. Various systems have been tried to greater or lesser success. And there are many monied interests that want to maintain the status quo, or even roll us back to an even more naked corporate capitalist structure.
As good as such restructuring may possibly be, it still doesn't address the larger issue of a constantly expanding number of humans who are going to keep stressing the finite system more and more, until it breaks.
Ideally, what we need is for people to live on a macro global-aware level, when most people are in the micro level of their day-to-day existence or outright survival, depending on where they are. Appeals to xenophobic tribalism isn't helping either, but that's becoming the political reality in more places than not. And we want to bring even more people in to claim this inheritance? Right...
5
For those pondering the future, for themselves and any progeny, I wonder how (if) the news cycle factors into their decision-making.
Daily reports that consumption of fossil fuels will increase long into the future, such as:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/18/airbus-forecasts-48000-aircraft-to-be-in-operation-by-2038
“The number of commercial aircraft in operation will more than double in the next 20 years to 48,000 planes worldwide, Airbus has forecast.
The European aerospace company said that despite mounting concerns about the effects of aviation and the climate crisis, it believes air travel will continue to grow rapidly.”
As for me, the choice is an easy one - love your children enough to spare them the dystopian future.
Think we are not already in runaway climate disruption?
Consider watching this fact-laden presentation on how far off the cliff our biosphere has already fallen.
https://media.csuchico.edu/media/0_2ljujwjg
We are all going to need to be honest and open with each other, if only to ease the pain of our business-as-usual fueled collapse.
2
So, if we all just channel our inner feel-good vibes and unconditional parental love, the planet will magically create the space and resources necessary to feed, water, house, clothe, produce energy (the one that lights and heats your home and takes you places, not the New Age concept), plus, plus, plus (add here whatever material human need you want), for us all and our unlimited numbers of unborn children! I'm not even discussing other species. Awesome!
There is modeling that quantifies the severe reduction in human population that would lead to a sustainably viable ecosystem on this planet. Now we "just" have to get back to around 2-2.5 billion, preferably without killing each other or some horrific catastrophe.
213
No, not magically. I don’t think it’s foolish to believe that future generations will find ways to support 8 or 9 billion people on this planet without destroying it. It may very well take something not quite short of magic, but I’m hopeful. I think one way is to reimagine how we raise and educate our children - all of us, whether you’re a parent or not. There is so much untapped potential. The unique thing about kids, especially young kids, is that they’re not constrained by what we know now or think we do.
4
Sometimes when I am talking about climate change the person I am speaking with points to my toddler and says, "Don't worry, she'll solve it." There are few things that I find more maddening. By the time my daughter is twelve the condition of her future will be largely set; that future will have been decided by our action or inaction now. She will have even less agency to change our path than the children who are currently begging us to listen to them and to act now. It is not up to our children to save us. It is the responsibility as us as adults and as parents to save them.
9
While I appreciate the information the author is trying to convey (myriad points of view need to be heard), what really matters is our collective ability to get as many people educated about climate change (as well as energy use and plastic pollution) as possible, and for these people to take meaningful action, however small.
Our positive examples will influence new generations to be even more mindful of their actions, “snowballing” into a global climate-oriented society whose collective behaviors will reduce the fallout and perhaps even save the planet.
I’m in my 60s, and had a child who passed away 12 years ago at the age of 23. At this point in time, he would be raising children, most likely. Many Parents and Grandparents know the joy that children bring into ones lives. Having said that, I no longer see a pregnant woman, or those with young children in a positive light. I think of the heating planet, the lack of resources ( food and water) in the future, as well as the dire consequences of countries at war, and a multitude of natural disasters that are more potent and frequent than ever. And with a shrinking middle class...how are people even to survive well. It’s selfish to be happy to know, I won’t be around to see the worst of it, but I’d be sub human if I lacked the ability to care.
10
@Lori Feinman I had an gyn appointment a while back. I looked at all those pregnant women in the waiting room and felt nothing but sadness.
Having a child is not a selfish undertaking, it actually takes away our selfishness in no longer thinking just about ourselves having someone to love, protect and carry forth our values on their own terms, hopefully for more than themselves. It is nature's way of perpetuating every creature's legacy. But it is selfish when one wants to have more than another being to replace our presence given the state of the population and consumption of resources on this earth.
4
This entire article is analogous to the anti-abortion argument of, "what if you aborted the person who would cure cancer?"
Agriculture generated 24% of global greenhouse gases. And guess what--all people eat. Even the environmentally conscious ones.
The world is wildly overpopulated with humans. Human beings and our livestock now account for 97% of the global terrestrial vertebrate biomass. With ALL wild animals accounting for 3%. Sustainable? I think not.
There are already tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of climate refugees, and that number will continue to grow into perpetuity, along with the world's human population.
I'm sorry, but I can't buy this pie in the sky assessment of the state of the world, and hope for its future.
22
There is absolutely no reason to think that children born today or tomorrow or whenever will "save the world". As an anthropologist,who, among other things, has had a long interest in culture change .I can think of no point in history when a generation has saved a particular world. I am completely unconvinced that the current generation and the generation coming on line will indeed save the world. Climate change is not a matter of humans shifting gears, technologies, and behaviors. It is a highly complex set of processes which are not understood by any of the individuals running for president because it requires a great deal of effort to merely understand the phenomenon. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future – whether there is anyone to notice or not. We should be working on ways to cope with it as best we can. Just who is doing that? Not very many, and one who should be dedicated to the task has just licked the boots of the "climate change denier" president rather than defend those who are trying to understand just what is happening and, perhaps, what might be done to mitigate it.
10
The more that logical, reasonable, and empathetic people procreate, the greater the chances that said offspring might exhibit the above-mentioned qualities, thus hopefully engendering more smart and caring approaches to humankind’s continuing and minimally-comfortable survival. That’s it. Vote!
And as for the rock and its ecosystem we surf through space on, in, and as a part of...should we continue to befoul it, well, it’ll be here long after we finally expire or evolve some new mutation able to withstand the apocalyptic conditions we brought about.
1
Historical narcissism is displayed when you believe your own era is the most dangerous in history. Knowing nothing else, almost every other era in history would have seemed much closer to the end of the world: the violence rate was far higher, your children would likely die before they reached five, life-threatening poverty was the norm. And there were plenty of environmental catastrophes that today we think didn't even happen: humans killing off the mammoths, for instance, and the desertification of the Sahara.
Societies and cultures evolve just like species do. By choosing to not have children you are leaving the world to people who don't care about the environment.
1
@A.
Children do not always follow in their parents footsteps.
Children born of selfish parents may also turn out to care for the planet.
Changing conditions on the planet might also force people to procreate less.
There is a global need to adjust thinking to the point of having two or less children.
In the past, large families were necessary for the survival of the family. With infant mortality being greater than 20% for the first five years, you needed more children. This was complicated by the fact (still done in much of this world) that a bride leaves her family and becomes part of the groom’s family. That means if you want your children to take care of you in your old age, you needed to have at least two boys due to things like war or disease later in childhood. That works out to about five children for each man. (Side note: women died too often in childbirth and the men remarried. Women remarrying after their husband died was less common and divorce was not usually an option. Check out “Marriage: a History”.)
This changed with the agricultural revolution in the 1700s and the advance of medicine. With more food and less sickness, more children survived and the population began its exponential growth. This growth started in England, Belgium, and the Netherlands with the adoption of scientific crop rotation and enclosure.
(Final note: it is much less likely for a different species to replace us if we die off, so we can’t leave the planet to the custodianship of another species, sorry cats/dogs. Too much of the easily available concentrated sources of energy and metal have been already used up. The same holds true after an apocalypse, for the survivors.)
2
The title should be "Your kids could save THEIR warming world". At least that's what I felt my parents told themselves as many troubling environmental problems came to the forefront during the mid 90s, while I was starting high school. Now that climate change findings have become more robust and accepted by society at large, it is clear that this will come to pass: my parents will likely die before climate change becomes catastrophic, leaving my generation to solve these problems.
Now I ask myself, what has changed between that generation and this? Have our habits and worldviews diverged substantially from those of our parents such that we are not also telling our children, "save your warming world (and good luck!)". Are we still not an economy that relies on the consumption of goods and energy intensive services? Is the new Ford F150 heavier and as wasteful as the Oldsmobile of my youth? Do today's babies use fewer disposable diapers and single use wet wipes?
I think those are the real questions millenial parents ask themselves. The answers are tied to the larger questions that we as a society need to ask ourselves.
1
As a liberal Catholic millennial I can appreciate this view point. I have personally made the decision not to have children, but do not advocate that choice for everyone. It is the fact of the matter we need offspring to sustain our species. However, I believe the real focus should be placed on responsible reproduction. Your choice to have two children is very different from the Dugger's 19.
10
That the need to defend having children even has to be argued demonstrates how unbalanced the mainstream press has become on the issue of climate change. No concept is too narrow and extreme to be presented for supposedly serious discussion in reference to it. Of course people should have kids if they so choose; that is not even open for debate in broader society. The press needs to open the echo chamber up from the fanatics obsessed with the changing climate and go talk to some regular people. They will tell you how crazy this reason for not having children is.
6
@David Godinez
People are nagged, shamed, called 'selfish', 'ungodly' and so on if they admit they don't want to have children. This needs to stop. No one is doing the world a service by procreating.
1
I find it patently offensive for anyone to implore Millennials to procreate and attempt to justify it by suggesting hope and creation are viable strategies for anything on the magnitude of climate change. Years of exploitation of natural resources and the sanctification of capitalist greed have bequeathed a planet that will be wholly inhospitable to future generations and a culture and an economy in which the prospect of raising children will be financially unfeasible for most.
17
The world is not overpopulated as a whole but certain regions are. North America, for instance, is not overpopulated as a whole but certain areas may be. I doubt someone living in Montana feels like their region is overpopulated compared to someone in New York.
North America, Europe and parts of East Asia have below replacement birth rates so after several generations we will see populations in these places decline (unless it is offset by net immigration). Here in Canada 2/3 of annual population growth is driven by immigration - not natural increase. I wonder if those advocating we have "too many people" would be willing to take a hard-line stance on immigration (and yes, I recognize that immigration does not change global population but it does affect local over/under-population).
A few more/few less women of reproductive age having one fewer or one more kid isn't going to tip the balance.
1
This seems like splitting hairs over semantics; of course the US is not overpopulated, per se, as long as we want to maintain that discussion in isolation from the real world and the complex systems interacting within.
To have a more meaningful and productive dialogue, we must integrate energy / resource use. Once the point of peak oil production passes, it will become abundantly pretty clear we have a civilization far too complex to be sustainable. Does that include too many people? Absolutely, since right now many of us (in the US particularly) are running around with at minimum a couple dozen "energy servants" working for us 24/7/365.
2
How can you call for more children -- or any children -- who are necessarily going to create carbon footprints and warm our blessed planet?
We in the US all need to adopt Bernie's solution for the poor countries: abortion. Abortion not only as a right, but as a duty to the Earth.
10
@Ulysses
Free, easily accessible, safe birth control is far better than abortion, although it has to continue to be a women's choice. The US should adopt this policy here and spread it everywhere we trade or give foreign aid to. Family planning along with the education and empowering of women (and by necessity the elimination of patriarchal societies and religion in general) are all that's going to save us. There is no technological solution that can fix our environmental woes that doesn't also include lowering our numbers, hopefully humanly before it's too late.
8
First, I applaud you for raising your two girls to be responsible stewards of the natural world. But while there may be good personal reasons for having a child, environmental policy is not one of them.
First, any child born in 2019 won’t have much of a voice — and more importantly a vote — until 2037. It’s not clear that the earth can wait that long.
And second, while you may be raising your two daughters to think about the consequences of consumerism and one’s environmental footprint, there are plenty of evangelical young people who have been raised to believe they have a divine right to subdue the earth to their desires, regardless of the consequences. And many of them are having a ‘quiverfull’ of children. Sheer demographics argues against encouraging them further.
17
Set aside concerns about sustainability. Instead consider whether it is morally defensible to birth a child without their consent. A child who will endure suffering, illness, death, and the loss of everyone and everything they cherish. If you seriously considered all the suffering your child could endure, would you have risked having them? Was it for them or for you? Non-existence does no harm.
11
@Keith Or you could consider whether it is morally defensible to do no harm. Or, rather, what kind of harm are we causing, when we purport to do no harm?
@Keith are you saying you wish YOU had never been born? Frank Capra made a pretty good movie addressing this point in 1947, and it's on TV every single year.
Undoubtedly “children are a clear statement of hope" but as Stormin' Norman once opined, "It is not good to have hope as a strategy."
15
The only thing good about this article is that it’s presence in the NYT suggests that population control and breeding are entering the mainstream debate surrounding climate change. Human population control could not be more fundamental to this issue and is rarely addressed. Regardless of how conscientiously one raises a child there is no way to avoid that offspring from consuming resources and producing waste – especially in the industrialized world. One response is to utilize the same Promethean fire that has allowed us to become the most destructive apex predator in earth’s history. Contrary to the rest of life on earth, we can make a contentious choice about procreating. At the very least people need to consider having only one child, but at this stage of the game, it is those who choose NOT to have children that are doing the most to benefit humanity overall. And let’s not obfuscate that fact that it is humanity we are trying to save here. If we stay the course we will undoubtedly succeed in taking down a multitude of species with us, but ultimately the earth will recover when we are gone or laid low. I’ll end on a very cynical and only slightly hyperbolic note: Humanity today is the earth’s cancer and every child born is both a metastasis and a future soldier in the water wars. It’s time humans find other means of fulfillment and purpose than reproducing.
44
@Rye Rye
You're right. The most amazing thing about this article is that it appeared at all. Population is the third rail of liberal politics. It's refreshing and hopeful that anything on this subject appeared in these pages at all. Dare we hope that the effects of our liberal immigration laws and numbers and their effects on the environment be honestly addressed at some point?
2
@Al Population is the third rail of politics, full stop. Denying women reproductive rights is definitely a conservative strategy, as in keep 'em barefoot and pregnant. Tying it to immigration is a bit of a red herring.
One of John Maynard Keynes' greatest achievments was shining a light on the 'Paradox of Thrift': when an action that is useful for individuals or small groups (such as saving money) can be counterproductive when embraced by society as a whole (industries are starved into ruin by thrifty customers).
Enter the 'Paradox of Fecundity': when a modest number of families have children there are benefits to that family and immediate society ... when three-plus billion families have children the outcome is the cannibalization of the world's resource base and degradation of our life support system.
This is an observable fact, evidenced by the publication of this article if by nothing else.
What Gracy Olmstead doesn't understand is the product of all industry is entropy, not goods and services. Keynes didn't really understand this, either. To Keynes and other economists, human industrial labor was productive: more humans = more goods and services, hence the endless call from economists for more people. Entropy is cumulative: every action humans take is entropic, including symbolic gestures we consider to be 'environmental stewardship'. More humans = more entropy.
There are no adjustments that can be made to 'modify' industrialization to make it 'work better'. Entropy is a physical law like gravity. We can either shrink industry before entropy destroys us ... or we can fool ourselves with symbolic gestures and watch entropy destroy us.
Not much of a choice but there it is.
14
@steve from virginia Thank you for your "Paradox of Fedundity" - that's a good one! But it's also true, I think, that the problem of overpopulation doesn't necessarily suggest that it's wrong for any particular individual to have children. I think the issue of overpopulation is ideally addressed at the international level, and without moral judgment of parents, no matter how many children they have.
3
When Wendall Berry wrote the body and the earth the world population was roughly 4.2 billion people. We are now at 7.7 billion people. In population ecology class you learn that all species that grow in population to the extent that they exceed available resources to sustain them will crash. In our case we are doing this knowingly and no amount of naive wishful thinking will stop it.
17
Sounds like the author is trying to justify a choice that is in essence bad for the planet with a bunch of fancy rhetoric. Just because you teach your daughters about consumption doesn’t guarantee they will fulfill your wishes when they become their own persons. Real hard choices have to be made and sacrifices too if we are going to salvage the climate (if that is even still possible).
26
Wow! The author's logic ranks right up there with "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". Justifying a purely selfish choice to procreate simply because "our little Jane or Johnny is so special and will probably invent X to save humanity" is the ultimate in magical thinking. Our planet would be an awesome place if it had an order of magnitude fewer humans. Not only would it be environmentally sustainable, but Earth's 800 million inhabitants could also enjoy a very high median standard of living. Had we started down the path of population control immediately after WWII, it would have been a small sacrifice for average parents to limit themselves to no more than one child per couple. Instead, the hands-off approach we followed has been an ecological and genetic disaster and will likely lead to a mass extinction of so-called homo sapiens.
48
When I was born in 1952, the world population was approx. 2.6 billion. Today it is approx. 7.5 billion. That statistic always stuns me. If a woman decides to have a child, that is her prerogative.
But please don’t wait for your children to save the planet. Every adult should be doing that today, through thoughtful consumption and political action.
I may have misunderstood the author’s point about “Our consumption is just a small piece in a much larger puzzle,” but the three great polluters she mentioned - building & construction, electric power & oil - are all the result of our “consumption” - where we live, work & shop, what we eat, how we travel, how we heat, cool & light our spaces, etc.
My view is that mankind must get serious about world population control and sustainable consumption today. While “cherishing our children” is, of course, essential, it’s not sufficient to protect their futures or the planet’s.
23
It's sad for me to think how many fewer children have been brought into the world because of college loan debt.
2
Ms. Olmstead, you brought more children into the world, ok. Good luck. Children have been birthed into all precarious time periods in history. Some have survived to tell the tale. The quote from Matthew Lee Anderson,: “Parents have an unconditional responsibility to cherish their children..”. But if those children were unwanted because the parents had no access to sexual education, contraception or abortion, you have no buy-in from them. You then go on to quote Elizabeth Bruenig: “Children are a clear statement of hope...”. No they are not. They are a clear statement that someone wanted sex. Their actions after the child is finally birthed into this world may or may not “demand that we claim accountability for the future.” Some people want children. And some people thankfully will carry out that act - that unasked for addition to the planet- with the sincerest responsibility. But even with sincere effort, the environmental degradation and crisis we are facing, not to mention the grinding crush of our current style of winner-takes-all capitalism, makes most thinking millennials question the cruelty of making babies.
11
For those who just need to procreate and before they craft elaborate self serving rationalizations for doing so. Perhaps they can consider that 1 is fine but 2 are more than enough. To make this world better will require serious changes - smaller families are just one of them.
11
Actually, no, we really need to argue for fewer children or better yet none. Population growth world-wide has not started to reverse. The population is still growing by about 100 million a year so we haven't begun to come to grips with the full extent of our overpopulation problem.
23
You don't have to appeal to any sort of apocalypse to make an argument against having children.
For me, I simply look at the economy and overall quality of life and what someone will have to do in order to maintain a comfortable and happy existence as well as the chances that I might pass on some nasty genetics.
After examining the issue I believe that it is likely that any child that I have will have a very hard time being successful and likely regret being born in the first place.
9
To even suggest that most new mothers will be good stewards of the environment and raise their children to be climate fighters while over 90% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and consuming factory farmed meat, bioengineered crops, using countless single use plastics, filling landfills with diapers, driving cars, flying in planes and using electricity generated from coal plants. It is wholly irresponsible and fantastical. In a abstract way it is adorable that you think humans are so high-minded, but please don’t push your selfish choice of creating mini you’s on the rest of us while our planet is melting, wildlife going extinct, and our water, ground and air is being irrevocably polluted.
36
Here a suggestion for those who want to have children but feel bad for the environment: turn off your air conditioners. Keep them off. Get rid of them (in some environmentally friendly manner).
6
The Earth has finite land and finite resources. How many humans can this planet sustain? One could reasonably argue that our arrogant species has already far exceeded the appropriate carrying capacity of our ecological niche—as evidenced not only by how our activity is fueling climate change but also by how we are driving other species to extinction at alarming rates. Willful ignorance of the damaging consequences of overpopulation is a mindset we can ill afford. Sometimes, the best investment in the future is the one you consciously choose to avoid.
11
No matter how you couch it - it’s mathematics and physics.
Population growth consumes resources - land, energy, food etc. And increases in standards of living, despite gains in efficiency, makes the problem worse.
There are only two solutions. An eventual Malthusian collapse. Or massive technological innovations that make land, clean energy, food etc. limitless and free. The latter will require policy changes, a rejiggering of systems, and sacrifices that I don’t see voters or politicians willing to make.
Sure, bring another kid into this world. And I hope and pray that that child is a kind, wise and good steward. But the odds are against him or her. And realize that they and their kids will be facing the consequences of our foolishness.
21
I agree that how we raise the next generation can have a lasting and positive impact on all the things we would like to see improved, especially regarding consumption and the impact on the environment.
However, America is not family friendly. I am a new mom and I'm drowning. My fellow parents are drowning. Money is beyond tight, stress is high, the isolation is crushing. How do you supposed we raise the next compassionate, mindful, well-adjusted citizens under these conditions?
11
@Elise B
Exactly.
If I subscribed to conspiracy theories, I'd say business WANTS US to be so exhausted that we focus only on survival (buying loads of stuff to improve our kids' chances of a good education, buying convenience foods instead of cooking from scratch, etc.) AT THE EXPENSE of being good local and global citizens.
Being careful, frugal, and green all take time and mental bandwidth. I see how some people with almost no responsibilities behave toward their communities, let alone distant ones - much, much less the wildlife anywhere - so how little will a harried parent of 2 + kids with a full-time jobs and a long commute care about planting milkweed for endangered butterflies or using glass jars instead of plastic take-out containers?
3
Elise my advice is to convince your friends and family to not have kids and be part of the solution.
3
@Elise B What was your plan? What did you think was going to happen? It makes sense to work for better social services policies, sure, but you got pregnant in the US in 2018 or so; you knew the actual context into which you transforming your life, no?
2
There are many left-leaning uninformed Americans who simplistically equate each new childbirth with a fixed, unit loss for the planet; so that anyone having more than one child is irresponsible, environmentally or socially. They are concerned about population growth, yet haven't the foggiest idea about population dynamics. For a growing population, their primary concern should not be with birth rates, but with GENERATION TIMES. Parents' ages at childbirth is a FAR more significant factor determining population size over time than offspring number.
What is important for "the planet" is not a hostile, 'net minus' view of each new human. Most environmental damage is associated with human societal conflict and disruptions, like war or slash and burn agriculture. Respect and love for humanity is in fact the planet's best hope. Reducing humanism in our society will not likely lead to LESS materialism and consumption, social characteristics that are far more determinative of environmental degradation than is population size.
We have five kids and live on a small, working farm and have a smaller carbon footprint than most sub/urban couples who complain about too many people. Our sustainable agriculture practices will hopefully help protect the future of these couples and their children, should this happen.
7
@carl bumba
Kudos for the sustainable agriculture and less consumerism. The Missouri Ozarks have good and fertile land. I am curious how much land you and your family occupy. That too is a resource in limited supply.
Also, while the rate of population growth does depend on generational spacing, the number of offspring definitely matters. (In fact, for women, the two factors are highly correlated since it's pretty hard for a woman to have five kids if she has her first child in her late thirties.) But, most importantly, if you are considering a short time horizon rather than a long one, number, not spacing, matters. How many people exist on the face of the planet in 20 years will depend on how many kids were born in that time. Period.
1
@Katherine
Thank you. Good land it is, but fertile it is not. The glaciated areas north of the Missouri River (not the Ozarks) have fertility; we have rocks. We have about 7 acres (from 120 homesteaded acres that our family needed to sell off over the years). Only half is pasture. If it weren't for using spent brewer's grain (a waste product) and trading some for round bales we could not support our dairy cows, foster beef calves and meat sheep that we consume and market. Our kids run from 6 to 20 yrs. We did start late (which helps also for homeschooling). I'm 55; my wife is 52. Population biologists know that generation time IS key with exponential growth (even over periods as short as 20 years). The fossil fuel consumed and carbon released by a single Starbucks customer in the drive-thru getting a latte probably exceeds that of our entire family over a couple days.
I know some young women who have expressed interest in having a child-free life. There are many factors at play but simply stated people do not have a 40 hour work week anymore -- it is more likely to be a 50 hour week minimum, including night and weekend hours, meaning that there is not much time left over for anything else. Add a child to the mix and time for anything else (cooking, cleaning, paying bills, etc.) becomes non-existent. Children in the future will be for the wealthy only.
8
@Kristine. Very sad. For most of us, having children and living the joy and challenges of raising them is why we get up in the morning and go to work. Most Americans, with cable television, 55 inch tv screens to watch it on, smart phones and houses larger than needed, can pretty easily support a child or two, even if they have to sacrifice some material stuff.
1
It was clear, based on information we had back in the sixties, that the world cannot handle the population it carries, especially if we all have the same material desires that most of us have. It was an easy decision then. It should be easier now. And the idea that YOUR child is going to save the world is such a worn cliche that it's pretty crazy to cite it in this day and age. Cut the planet some slack.
35
@nb,
those fears from the 60s and 70s did not pan out. what did was the pillaging of the earth by big ag, big oil, big egos, so on.
1
We need to reverse population growth. We also need to design an economy that works when it is not expanding, but that still has capacity to deal with a long-term gray wave, because as long as a population is shrinking, it will have a surplus of seniors.
Add in a high-quality but low footprint lifestyle, get people to buy into it, and we might be able to mitigate the holocene extinction. Otherwise we could easily end up among the extinct species.
8
What a strange interpretation of millennial views on procreation.
First things first. Population growth is a myth. We have a crisis of distribution, not population. However, the problem is not going away as population grows. It gets worse. Climate change will make it much worse. If one of our global food baskets experiences environmental collapse, millions are going to die. There is absolutely nothing you can do to save them.
Second, discussions about consumerism and immorality all stem from a place of parental anxiety. We're talking about that feeling of powerlessness and guilt only parents can feel. Don't you want your child to live a better life than your own? Millennials are the first generation since WWII that have actually experienced the opposite. There's a pervading sense of pessimism and caution inherent to anyone who felt the Great Recession in their youth.
You bring climate change into the mix? We have less than 20 years to dramatically alter course or human life is at risk of extinction. A child born today would barely be out of high school by the time we pass the point of no return. It's not on them to fix the future. It's on us. However, millennials are consistently frustrated in their attempts to change the present for the future.
That will give the prospective parent pause. Earlier generations resist doing anything about climate change. I therefore need to delay the gratification of parenthood until we get the world in order. I'm not happy about it either.
14
Olmstead says it herself: she had kids to give *herself* hope. To improve *her* world. How nice.
But her kids didn't ask to be born, and for all her good efforts, the rest of the world might just burn away the planet her daughters are now stuck on for the rest of their lives. I hope they're happy they served as somebody's beacon of hope when that time comes.
And this article gives 0 concrete examples of exactly how she's raising children in a way that isn't exacerbating consumption. Diapers? The wrappings on lunch foods? Driving around to ten million after-school activities? The fact that when you're tired as a parent the last thing you'll want to do is hang clothes to dry or keep the heat/ac off for as long as possible or skip a trip to save the fuel? Over population isn't a joke. The problem with consumption is, at the end of the day, about the enormous number of us who are consuming.
There isn't enough for everybody.
35
@Claire Understand your sentiment, but people have been saying for millennia that there isn't enough for everybody. One has to wonder where such pessimism comes from, as all of history has shown that man has the capacity to overcome their challenges.
1
@Dr B
>>man has the capacity to overcome their challenges.<<
That, in a nutshell, is the problem. We manage to transcend many environmental challenges, but at the expense of that environment and many others not so nearby.
7
Oh wait, there's a fire! Let's put it out with gasoline!
I've only met a handful of people in my life that I thought, "Hey, that person should have more children." Raising children uses up vast amounts of resources--single use plastics, disposable diapers, fabric waste, water, oil, food, etc. We have so many abandoned children in the world. Let's not make more until we can take care of the ones we already have.
42
Having or not having children is NOT going to be a dominant factor in saving Earth. It is ongoing choice each person, each company, each multinational corporation, each nation makes that impacts climate, climate justice, and climate's future.
Some future child might or might not be part of a future solution to our human-made destruction, if such solutions are even feasible. Who are we to think we're so smart as to have figured out how to manipulate a vast history of biological, reproductive evolution -- as well as Earth's complex unfolding? We don't need one more divisive issue.
Gen X, please. We aren’t having kids because one in five of us live in abject poverty, many of us live at home or with multiple people, we live with incredible financial debt, working precarious jobs that don’t provide benefits and on a doomed planet. Having children would not only be selfish, but also financial suicide. The economic punishment bestowed upon women would be enough to doom a child to downward mobility, and their children as well. The only millennials I know who have children are religious, like this author. I hope your god provides comfort to you and your children while the rest of us live lives of suffering and cruelty.
32
@Margaret Sadovsky Sorry you feel this way, but are you living in Atlanta or Africa? As nicely described by NYT editorialist Nicholas Kristof, 2018 was the best year in human history (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/sunday/2018-progress-poverty-health.html). Rates of poverty, disease and war are the lowest they've ever been in the world, while the degree of freedom and civil rights continues to expand amongst those who have heretofore been taken advantage of. We have far to go to make life wonderful for all, but never have so many lived so well.
2
@Dr B My zipcode has higher rates of HIV infection and maternal mortality than most sub Saharan African countries. Georgia ranks number 10 for domestic violence resulting in death. 25% of children in the state are regularly food insecure. Georgia ranks third in number of uninsured people. Misssissippi (yes, Mississippi) beats us in available daycare and childcare for working moms. Georgia ranks constantly in the top five for: deaths from preventable diseases, sexually transmitted infections, mosquitos, deaths of despair among others. Atlanta also ranks NUMBER ONE in income inequality, meaning that if you are born poor here you'll die poor here, and probably poorer than when you were born.
So I don't know, you tell me. Do I live in Atlanta or Africa?
3
Somehow, we have not instilled a sense of mortal urgency in our leaders. Money, privilege, favors...these are all immediate, and take much more preference than what might (and it's so convenient to think, might not) happen to their children and grandchildren. They really don't want to look at this too hard, because somewhere, deep down, they know that if they do, they will have to act, and that would inconvenience them. So, human life has a very tenuous outlook. Perhaps that's for the best.
4
@otto: I think our process vets out any potential leaders who act on their moral impulses. Until we sever the power that our industrial leaders have over our political leaders, the things that need to happen won't get done.
I don't know how Obama got through the vetting process intact, but he was effectively slowed down when he gained power, and Trump is rolling back everything he did.
4
@otto
Why is it that we always hear "perhaps it is best if humans die out" from progressives, the ones who supposedly care the most about humans?
@A.progressives also learn to manage conflicting thoughts because that's how life works . Simplex logic solves few problems.
No, having children at a time when we understand how serious the human impact on the planet has become it is counterproductive to add more bodies. Educating the people who already walk the earth is the key. Every policy decision made by every government needs to consider the environmental impact of those decisions and whether or not they offer a sustainable outcome.
9
We're already beginning to see mass migration due to climate change, driven by enormous climate-driven human suffering (scarcity, conflict, natural disasters). Even if we take the most aggressive actions on climate tomorrow, these conditions will probably orphan many living, breathing children. Raising children is a good way to pass values onto the next generation, but I'm personally not planning to create any of my own. Other children will need me (and other young Americans) more.
12
More than 7 billion people exist on this planet. Do we really need more? Even if the children we raise are environmentally friendly, this planet is too crowded and struggling to sustain us. We're over-fishing, over-farming, over-grazing, over-mining, over-logging/burning. What happens when we can no longer supply enough food? The decision not to have children is not based on their potential consumption. It's based on that fact that we don't want to give them a future where Florida gets swallowed by the ocean. We don't want to give them a future where climate change turns them into refugees. We don't want to watch our children starve.
20
I can't even. This opinion piece is precisely that: an opinion, and one based on incorrect information, EXTREMELY "solipstistic" (to use the author's word) beliefs, and a complete lack of reality.
I, too, have two daughters. I chose to have them not in the hope that they would save the world, though I certainly raise them with the expectation that they should not harm it and try to make it a better place; but astoundingly, because it's a selfish human drive to feel the need to create offspring. I wanted a family, like many/most people do. I thought it would make me happy throughout the rest of my life (it does), and hopefully, if I treat my kids well, they will help me out when I'm old.
What I would suggest to the author is to stop kidding yourself that having kids isn't selfish. Of course it is. You can try your best to raise your kids to stop climate change single-handedly, but I guarantee that won't work. What WILL work is being honest with ourselves about what will slow climate change: better education (for all) that promotes collaboration, creative thinking, and innovation in the natural sciences (liberal arts, here's to you); policies that help women--who are half the population--get back to work sooner after giving birth so they can contribute to the greater good instead of just one mouth; and, obviously, reducing our use of things that we KNOW contribute to carbon formation in our atmosphere (eating farmed red meat, using plastics, frequent air and car travel).
27
I am a mom and my children changed my world view, but I don’t think it is a good idea to prescribe world population cures from a mommy bubble. I would guess that Bernie Sanders’ remark was based upon his knowledge of the history of population growth trends, which has mostly not been one long slow ascent but a rather level graph with one giant spike after the industrial revolution. That one spike accounts for much of the concern we experience today.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t a critical issue. It is. It also may mean that, just from a numbers perspective, the question about 0, 1 or 2 probably isn’t that critical. Population Connection has been around since the 1960’s, when growth science started sounding alarm. Their basis is not population control but rather about empowering people, especially women and girls, to make their own decisions.
They would say that if someone is worried about bringing a child into a world that she fears for, it is her right not to. If a mother wants to limit the number of children she gives birth at one or two, it is her right to do so. I’m not going to raise the more inflammatory issues that follow, ones that might pressure a woman to have more children than she chooses. But it is known that when women are educated about their own bodies and the world they live in, and especially if that affords them means to care for themselves, they typically have fewer children.
9
I'm in my 60s, and I plan to do as much as possible to save our warming world so don't rules us olders out. I care very much plus I plan to live another 30 years, maybe in Texas, and I'm not happy about the Summer heat. I build wind and solar for a living, have a Leeds certified home, waste little and compost, sustainable home and yard, and plant trees and vegetation. My only sin is a gas burning car, but it has high mileage and plan my trips.
When I retire, if ever, my time will go to mentoring kids.
6
Let's not delude ourselves. Planet Earth doesn't have the resources to sustain the number of humans living on the planet presently - at least not the way we live now, using the resources we currently use. It's not just fossil fuels...it's all the different elements found in the things we use to maintain daily life in its current version.
Either we continue to decrease our population and learn to balance local with global and change the way and what we consume, or the planet will, like every scourge wrought upon her in the past, find a way to rid herself of yet another pestilence.
8
The author has more faith than I do that greenhouse gas accumulation has not already reached levels where human misery and the beginning of human extinction may begin even before the end of this century. If I were a young person today, I would not have children, not because I do not love children, but because I do. I would have to see credible evidence that greenhouse gas, on a world-wide basis, both can and will be reversed, before I could in conscience participate in future parenting.
14
Not an impressive intellect. More an attempt to justify than much else. It is clear that yes we must be stewards and this now requires united, smart, strong and coordinated strategies to many related issues. But it is also crystal clear that 10 billion human beings increase the problems more than 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5.
We are not in danger of everyone suddenly not having any children. People don't need to be convinced to have sex. Straining credulity to justify having children is counter productive. When populations become unsupportable the foolishness of this reasoning will manifest in a lot of tragedy. But don't be mistaken in thinking we might not have reached a numerical population tipping point. Climate change will increase. That and our own direct impacts on eco systems (such as we are seeing in various fishing stocks and with bee population that pollinate our agricultural produce) will inherently make the status quo increasingly worse.
So seriously, think things through.
22
@rg I think you're confusing the issue of overpopulation in general, with one person's personal confession, with its complex mix of influences, biases, and justifications. Though childless myself, I'm glad that others are still having children. Listening to the considered thoughts of those with children is both an honor and a rare delight.
2
@rg
I think many people, yourself included, confuse having children with population growth. If a society maintains a birth date of 2.1 children per woman (21 children per 10 women), the population will remain stable and not grow. It doesn't matter if a particular person has 0, 1, 2, 3, 4+ kids as long as the societal average is 2.1 or less - which is the case in North America, Europe and East Asia (and close to that in many parts of Latin America).
2
Hundreds of thousands of talented, dedicated professionals committed to environmentalism around the world have been at work for decades and a lot has been accomplished. And millions, maybe billions of ordinary people have done their share as well. And yet here we are. I don’t know.
7
Spend some time in a country where hundreds of millions live in dire poverty. Not the tourist parts, the regular places. That is the future of this planet if we don't understand what we are doing to it by adding billions more people. These are countries who do not have Western levels of consumption, but look around at their environment and how they live. Take your daughters and let them have a good long look. It's their future.
22
@The Poet McTeagle Well said, McTeagle—and might I ask, can I have fifty pounds to mend the shed?
The great irony is procreating above replacement will likely lead to our own extinction (and certainly much of the world's flora and fauna).
I recommend reading The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs by Steve Bruscatte. He goes into great detail about the big five mass extinctions and about how despite most life on earth being obliterated by the most hostile of events, life found a way to continue.
Leave it to a book about dinosaurs to make me feel that, no matter how terrible humans are at being stewards to the earth, life will correct itself--without us.
11
Hmm, Ms. Olmstead recognizes that "building and construction, electric power, and oil" are the major sources of pollution, yet states that our consumption is just a small piece in a much larger puzzle."
Does she not recognize that our consumption incentives excessive building and construction, power generation, and fossil fuel extraction? Does she not recognize that our prioritization of more goods for cheaper prices incentivizes companies to continue market behaviors prioritizing growth and cost efficiency over environmental impact?
The premise of her argument, "You Kids Could Save Our Warming World," perfectly encapsulates the widespread societal failure to acknowledge that our own PERSONAL habits are the cause of the problem. We separate ourselves from the aggregated effect. Many of my fellow millennials bemoan climate change in one sentence, before biting into a hamburger, waxing poetic about all the traveling they've done and aspire to do, and commenting about when they'll be upgrading to the new iPhone.
We ALL have to walk the walk. Sure, our kids might be able to save our warming world. But they can only do so if we take steps to mitigate the harm we're causing now. We owe it to them to provide them the chance to do it; and we're egregiously failing to even do the bare minimum.
14
The UN, which has an excellent track record regarding population projections, predicts that the population will level off somewhere around 12 billion. The birth rate has already declined in most of the industrialized world - it's negative in several countries, including our own.
As people move out of extreme poverty, as infant mortality drops, and as women gain education, birth rates decline. What we need to be doing is preparing for a world population of around 12 billion people. What we need to be doing is addressing extreme poverty, infant mortality, and women's education. What we need to be doing is to make sure contraception is easily available and affordable. What we need to be doing is to move to greener energy sources, and be more responsible about our own consumption. Address the causes of the "overpopulation problem", and the "problem" will be solved - at about 12 billion human beings.
2
@Patricia
If you look at UN population projections, they usually have three scenarios. I can't recall if they are all considered equally likely or not but there is a low growth variant.
I wish they'd relax the entry rules for Yosemite National Park. I always miss the lottery for getting a campsite.
2
I hoped to read about how having kids could be potentially beneficial for our world today, but this article is a tad idealistic in assuming that having children that are environmentally conscious will definitely help our planet. As a millenial myself, I am especially concerned about the environment - but this does not negate the fact that I consume food, electricity and other resources, even as I type this response. While individual consumption is a small piece in the large puzzle of climate change, many pieces together create the large impact observed today. Evidently, every little counts as well, so why not add fewer pieces to the puzzle?
I do not disagree that having children has many benefits, but while it is tempting to hope that our children may change the world for the better, it is far-fetched to argue that simply having children is beneficial for our environment.
33
Look, it's not JUST "over-consumption" and "over-population" for us. Biggest reasons? We don't have the financial means to even entertain the possibility of having a child. I'm laden with student loans. I want to build my career and not be strapped down with child care and such.
And honestly, a lot of use just don't WANT kids no matter how you frame it. We value our alone time. If you want kids? Great! Have them! If you wish to remain childless? Also great! It doesn't need to be a debate every single time this comes up.
Let people decide what they want to do with their bodies.
17
"'70 percent of the pollution, of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air, comes from three industries' — building and construction, electric power, and oil. Our consumption is just a small piece in a much larger puzzle." First, that 70% figure is wrong--food production is responsible for 40%+. Second, it is we who are consuming the construction, power, and oil (whether directly or embedded in the products we buy). Our consumption is the whole puzzle.
19
Using the biblical to dust we shall return metaphor is just insulting. The children today are already doing more than any other generation in recent times to confront climate change and all things environmental. There is a massive Climate Change march tomorrow in NYC organized by our young people. The time is now, for the old and the new.
3
Part of the politics and sensitivities of addressing the population problem is the necessity of balancing related race and development issues. On the race issue side, countries with predominately white populations and white populations in multicultural countries formerly dominated by whites are are in decline in some places rapid decline. (See Russia in particular, Western Europe and North America) On the development side it is the poorer and less developed and poorer countries that are seeing rapid population growth. (Japan is no longer replacing its population while the Philippines in rapidly expanding its population.) Africa's population will soon overtake Asia's population at current rates.
So if you are going to effectively advocate family planning and population control you are essentially going to be targeting developing countries with non-white populations. A lot of people are very uncomfortable with that environmental imperative or not. This needs to be discussed.
7
We cannot change the population of the world overnight but we could change our environmental policies overnight. An end to children from the most thoughtful and compassionate people will give the world over to the children of those who are not. It is intransigent elected leadership, primarily in the U.S., that is keeping needed policy changes from happening. Only a spiritual/psychological revolution will bring about the mass realization that a healthy earth is indispensable for our existence. Then we can get to work.
3
“When all the parts of the body are working together, are under each other’s influence, we say that it is whole; it is healthy." Yes! This is the key.
The problem is not generational or even overpopulation, it is a function of a species that has dominated its environment by the dynamics of tension and expansion. It is the human psychological operating system that is faulty. Our genetic code instructs us to stay alive long enough to procreate and we do this by adapting to the environment, rationalizing long term consequences in favor of short term, self-centered survival modalities.
So what's the answer? Coherence. Human cooperation is the most powerful force on the planet, for better or for worse. I challenge all of you to imagine what would be possible if we as a species worked together because we actually have the capabilities and capacity to solve ALL of the world's problems starting today.
How to we get there? Not by betting on our kids. We find a way to think together as a whole thus restoring our collective power to act in harmony with ecological balance and human sustainability.
5
@Mike
Yes! Our collective power is the only way to, quite literally, save the world. The previous generation already bet on us, we cannot afford to bet the future on our own children.
1
If you feel that you must have children in order to feel complete as a human being, then please consider adoption of a child that already exists, instead of adding yet another. Mindful stewardship of creation is every bit as important and fulfilling as creation itself.
45
@Steve
Yes, I agee with this most appropriate response. Adopt an already existing child...and give that child everything you possibly can in every way, to enourage her/him to grow up to contribute meaningfully to the repair of the city, the state, the country, the world. the planet, humanity, decency and responsibility.
15
I think much depends on whether one has fully absorbed the fact that there will be less of everything: food, air, water, good weather, resources, cars, planes, travel, hotels, homes, and that there will be millions of displaced people roaming the earth in search of water and food. You know, many things once done cannot be undone even if we start to take action: once the ice is gone, it will be gone; once the Amazon (a word for "forests") is gone, it will be gone; once the ocean has warmed, it will be too warm for sea life. If there are fires, floods and storms all over the world to deal with, that's what it will be.
20
The smaller the US population, the smaller the economy. It is this economy that creates the excess wealth needed for research and other investments to reverse or manage climate change.
There may be places on the planet where having fewer or no children is the more environmentally-friendly choice. The USA in is not such a place.
1
What you propose, then, is constant unsustainable growth. What we need is a new type of economic model that can thrive as population deliberately declines. Anything based on constant growth is a Ponzi scheme that will destroy this planet.
28
@AES
The world is not a linear place, and deciding the best course of action today is not a commitment that the same choice is the best course of action for eternity.
For example, retiring nuclear plants that are still working and not in a flood zone is insane from an environmental perspective. This is not the same as suggesting we build new ones in the future.
In today's world, the answer on US population growth is clear. A few decades from now it may be different, though I doubt it.
This entire piece is based on the rather silly notion that the continuation of the human species is a good idea. Most people I know just have a ‘sense’ or ‘feeling’ this is true, which I assume stems from the same place that makes snakes and beetles think it’s important to make more snakes and beetles. This author is clearly basing it on one of the ‘have more kids’ desert book series classics of a few millennia ago.
Whatever the reason, I think a great first step for everyone on earth would be to ask, in the time after Fred Rogers and Nina Simone, why, outside of the pangs in our loins, the needling of our parents, and the ideas in our ancient fairytales, should we make any more people? Why shouldn’t we just leave earth to the zebras and the spiders, the trees and the rivers, the mountains and the sky? At this point, from a whole-planet perspective, how can we view ourselves as anything but the villains, and why are we rooting for the villains to endure?
69
I presume—and hope—that you’re not going to follow your argument to its obvious conclusion
Where are the facts?
Where is the data?
Come to my State where you have the largest family size in the Narion. Many in my State drive 7 passenger vehicles. Utah is the land where having more things is all about personal freedom. I am one of the few who does not have bedrooms in their basement. There is tremendous pressure here to have a large family. Sure, I would like to have grandchildren but clearly that creates the need for more stuff.
Control what you can control.
25
This article tries to clarify a decision-making process that is so central to human existence since the beginning of time, and by narrowing the focus on millennials seems sometimes eloquent. Would I forward it to my two millennial-age boys who may be facing this predicament? I’d like to; however, I see by reading other articles by Gracy Olmstead, that she has a political bent that is aimed at making Republicans acceptable to Progressives … or did I misunderstand? She is correct though in that the next election will probably be determined by sound-bite stances on abortion. What must be terrifyingly unsettling for young people is to be bombarded by the angry divisive arguments. I would caution that the only criminals to guard against are those against family planning.
17
Yes. Raising children that may be in a position to effect positive change in their world is a good thing.
The nihilist notion that having children is essentially a bad idea is wrong headed. It’s not just our numbers that matter. It’s who we are.
9
If you haven’t been able to effect any positive change, why put this responsibility on the next generation? And what makes you think that your children will do better than you? This is putting a lot of responsibility on the next generation. We don’t necessarily need to have our own children to have a sense of taking care of each other, of animals, of nature. Kinship should be extended way beyond the “biological” conception of family. (Cf. Donna Haraway who writes very convincingly about this).
2
The author does a good job at at least partially reconciling one of the apparent opposites one sees throughout our various sustainability challenges: consumption and creation. It's a particularly hard one, and I believe she means it. It's also a lot better than the usual Times' cavalierness on the population issue. It could be a model for other apparent dualities we're going to have to face (e.g. giving up parking spaces to facilitate biking, etc.). It is not perfect (not that we're in the perfect business). It can't be a token line. It's far from automatic. We won't all have Greta's. It has to be thought through, lived, reflected on, readjusted. The culture the kids grow up in won't make moderating consumption, fitting in, practicing certain religions, or even having this particular discussion easy. As most of us probably know, the line from what parents want and what they get doesn't always go smoothly. They grow up, may marry into families with more conventional outlooks, with uncertain outlooks on an issue like this. And it doesn't make the overpopulation issue go away. Still, a nice job. So much better than the token treatment on this topic I expected. And the excerpt from Berry about actual interconnections beyond surface separateness, both at the individual and "worldly" levels, was a bonus. We could use more of these thoughtful pieces on the apparently intractable issues of the day. P.S. If Warren wins, this will have to be one of those issues she comes along on.
1
And how do you propose to "regenerate and heal our planet?" You speak of hope and yet provide no reason for it. Perhaps you are one of those who believe that technology will somehow save us.
You seem to think that fossil fuels are needed only to produce energy when the truth is that almost everything that we think of as part of modernity requires an input that was derived from fossil fuels. Even if we were to switch to so called renewable energy to produce electricity, everything else we consume, from the food we eat to the clothes we wear, will deplete that finite supply of fossil fuels.
Children born today will definitely have to deal with the horrors of a changing climate in the face of depleted natural resources and the wars that will follow as the great powers fight over what is left. You may be filled with love and wonder at having children, but that is how you feel and not what they need. Unless you know otherwise or have some basis for your optimism, then you have really put your desire for connectedness over what is in the best interest of the children you have or might have; which is that they were never born.
But I suppose we cannot help ourselves which is why we are in the position we are in now. There is always a way to justify more for ourselves whilst insisting that others are responsible for the problem.
28
Those that bemoan the increasing world population and claim there is no end in sight don’t seem to follow the latest demographics. The world population growth has flattened and regionally it is decreasing. There will be a point in the near future when population will decrease. The only area driving population growth are in developing countries.
8
@Stefan wouldn't developing countries reflect the majority of countries?
8
It's decreasing in the regions that consume the most, but in many cases not decreasing fast enough to offset their outsize per capita carbon footprints. For example in 2014, the US CO2 was 16.5 metric tons per person. In India, it was 1.73 - so it takes 9.5 Indians to generate as much CO2 as a single American. Yet India's population is only 4 times that of the US. So in the short term (ie the next 12 years), one fewer American kid will have a vastly greater impact than one fewer Indian kid.
1
@Jesse
I recall reading somewhere that something like 10 countries will be responsible for some very high percentage (70+%) of population growth by 2100 (e.g. India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc.). In any case, I think the author of the article was directing her advice to those living in the West where millennials are weighing these choices - doesn't seem to be stopping people in other countries from procreating!
Life has never been "a thing" for the timid. Never means never, for the millions of years of human development. Regardless of current technologies, why should life on this good planet ever change to become easier? It will not, rather life becomes more complex, likely more difficult for most, which is natural.
This opinion merely suggests continuing the work, children and all, as it is the only way forward. Stopping the work assures failure, huh? Get back to work, don't forget to vote!
4
This is such an absurd opinion piece. The cause of climate change is human activity, and that activity is driven by the services that humans demand and require. Any honest climate researcher will tell you that reducing the human population (by decreasing birth rates, of course) would be the best way to mitigate (not reverse, we're past that point) the impact of climate change.
96
Good sentiments but this presents an essentially self-serving and false dichotomy. Earth's carrying capacity is about 10 billion humans, a number we'll reach when children born today reach their 30's at mid-century. Rather than hearing about how wonderful a child is (they are wonderful) I'd appreciate some deeper discussion about how we're going to feed the 2.5 billion additional people who will arrive here by mid-century. This isn't a rhetorical game we can play pitting baby lovers against environmentalists. We're facing hard numbers and this piece is just so much happy-talk.
63
@Denis The carrying capacity of the Earth depends on the standard of living one wants to accommodate. Ten billion is way beyond the capacity to sustain at a western standard of living.
5
Obviously our society requires children. It's strange to argue for not having children, as if the human race ought to die off within a generation. Even if some moral philosopher could prove that it's unethical to have children, there ought to be children anyway. Sometimes you must do the wrong thing, because there are reasons that transcend moral reasoning.
I'm childless myself, but would never argue that having children is immoral. Please, have children and bring them up well. Love them, don't spoil them, and teach them the virtues of a life committed to overcoming physical, psychological, and spiritual materialism.
8
@TMJ, You apparently miss the procreation issue completely. No one is or has suggested zero children for all people. But that absurd conclusion is where you take the discussion to. Seriously? No... Seriously?
Imagine The Earth is a single house. Imagine that a family of mice come there to survive a winter. And stay. And have cute children. Who soon have their own cute children. Imagine the inevitable; that the family's population grows to fill the house. But population growth doesn't stop. What next?
The simple point is that whether you like it or not there are limits. The universe may be immense to the point of feeling infinite but Earth is small and limited.
@rg Many of the comments suggest zero children for all people, and many more baldly state that it is immoral to have children. Have you not read the comments section?
Overpopulation is best addressed at the international level, or at least the national level as China has, however imperfectly. It is not best addressed by demonizing parents.
2
It not educated progressives or conservatives having too many children, it’s the welfare program rewarding & incentivizing it. People know exactly how to manipulate it. Couples don’t marry, live together, mother files separate, enters programs, and the father works a cash job not paying taxes or child support. This behavior has been designed as well as encouraged by the left. Until we can have a grownup conversation about welfare reform this will continue. I fully support a safety net & helping people in need, but increasing funding for continued bad behavior has to end.
3
If you do have that child, dress him or her in used clothing, buy used toys, used baby furniture and accessories, used strollers, etc. Go to garage sales or to Craigslist, where, with patience, you can find just about anything you need or want. Show him or her by the way you set your thermostat that you should feel hot in the summer and cold in the winter. (Better yet, use fans or bundle up.) Take him or her on the bus or the train to get places when you can. Get them outside to walk and play. Teach him or her that voting for candidates who support environmental stewardship is vital to their present and future.
13
@Citizen-of-the-Wold
my Swedish friends now teach toilet training a week after birth . the child learn defecation into the toilet and they use hardly any diapers, it’s not a joke this information should be shared
These are all healthy rationalizations for parents to sooth themselves with and, perhaps, Ms. Olmsted's daughters will become the Joan of Arcs of the environmental crusade. I hope so. This, unfortunately, does not change the fact that there are increasingly to many people for the habitat that is Earth to sustain and that the current GDP growth paradigm, dependent on population increase, employed by most national governments' economic policies, is inherently unsustainable in a finite system that the Earth is. We can not just keep growing and having more children and expect the Earth to continue sustaining us. That's all there is to it. The millennials are right.
43
@Gowan McAvity
Agreed. If you want to be a parent and teach your children good things, then start by adopting and solving two issues at once, rather than generate more carbon-producing and resource consuming creatures. These are the kind of hard choices we talk about as we contemplate climate change and the future.
18
@Gowan McAvity Yes! Check out "Limits to Growth, The 30-year Update" Earth's carrying capacity is about 10 billion according to UN reports. That takes us to mid-century when people born today will be in their reproductive years. We have to bend the population curve.
The chemicals in dust are different than the chemicals in a human. They are also different than the chemicals in the atmosphere. In fact, dust is an ambiguous and antiquated term in the context of modern science. It hales back to a pre-scientific largely hunter, gatherer level of existence. So, my suggestion is that you don't raise your daughters with this weak concept. Tell them the truth: they are a social mammal with a set of biological needs. Tell them to eat well, reproduce wisely, and make a culture that encourages those biologically sound and modern things.
2
@theonanda
Yes, let's abandon myth, poetry, fiction, and all cultural forms of our pre-scientific hunter gatherers and modern science who had foolish understandings of dust which is a very rigorous term they employed incorrectly because clearly the elements we are made of are not the same elements found in all forms of dust.
This simpleton wants to raise her daughters with such weak concepts and the "humanities", instead of reading them abstracts from current respected journals at bedtime and reminding them they are social mammals with biological needs only. She should remind them to eat well, reproduce wisely (less), and make a culture enriched by studies from Nature or Science, just biologically sound modern things.
3
Thanks for response. The other angle is deeper and more damaging. You are made of dust and shall return to dust is really the voice of an authoritarian exerting control over another. The book is saying to the daughter you are nothing and will stay nothing. I am God, your boss; obey for any hope at all. At the time of the writing the idea worked for illiterate people needing an authoritarian to guide them. It is beautiful and powerful poetry, especially at funerals, but it is not effective strategy to combat TV ads with their similar authoritarian ideas -- telling you what to do; stay tuned, for example, and buy, buy, buy.
How about taking care of the ones that are already here instead of producing your own personal, boutique person? There are millions of children who are in foster care and need adoption.
77
It's simple. As a millenial my thoughts are that it's okay to both have children or be childless and find a happy life. Simply it only becomes irresponsible (imo) once someone passes the replacement rate with children but it isn't some great sin and ultimately if these people are raised properly caring for the earth and their fellow human then they can be a great resource for a better planet.
Personally however I dont see children in my future and know many young people who also have the same vision. But this for me is not motivated by ethics but by PRICE. With all of the other expenses that my generation has to absorb that were less impactful 30 years ago children are often a debt cascading proposition. I see a trend where population really begins to decline simply because of economics.
12
This argument, together with the fact that we simply cannot go on growing the population until there is a human on each square foot, is why I chose to have one child.
10
@Véronique
I would now choose none. The world is over populated by far - shortages of water, shortages of food, excessive CO and CO2 production, wars and trade fights looking for space.
We need fewer and smarter people - I can't guarantee the smarter, but fewer can be achieved.
10
This is non-sense on a lot of levels, the world is producing significantly more food than ever before, and more people are moving out of poverty globally then any pervious period. The only stagnation you describe is growth among highly developed countries.
In the future, an even higher portion of people will eat well. The technological innovation in agriculture will surpass population growth with ease. How do I know? I’ve watched the last 50 years with quantitative precision, and none of the doom and gloom you espouse is particularly likely.
2
You write that Bernie Sanders suggested that dissuading mothers around the world from having more children is a necessity for combatting climate change.
Given the choice between one or two children and eight or nine children, most women would choose one or two. Especially if those one or two were given equal access to education and a decent life. Childbirth can be dangerous. Child-rearing is also exhausting. It is a fact that when girls are given access to education, they grow up to have fewer children. For good reason.
32
@the quiet one: Except that Islam and Catholicism are putting pressure on women to raise large families. Many women acquiesce to this destructive command through ignorance of the problem.
1
It took all of history to get to the first billion people in ~1800. It took just 125 years to reach 2 billion in ~1930. It was 3 billion by ~1955. It's now 7.8 billion and adding 82 million per year. Not coincidentally, climate change, extinction of species, loss of open space, clean water and wilderness and almost all of humanities problems have accelerated along with our exploding numbers. I don't care how wonderful well raised or exceptional anybody's kids are, no one should have more than 2-ever. Our sheer weight of numbers are destroying the planet and the systems we and all life need to live. A sinking life boat over loaded with Einsteins and mother Teresas is still going to sink.
86
The problem with this argument is that one of the primary causes of climate change is overpopulation. So, responsible adults who want a child in spite of what the future seems to hold should have only one child. If this seems unfair, it is, but that is the reality we are faced with. My generation was, I believe, the first to talk about overpopulation and at that time the goal was to "replace yourself, do not add more", which for a couple meant having 2 children to replace 2 parents. So I chose to have only 2 children when I would have liked 3-we have the power to make the right choice. So far, my children have had none of their own and that's fine with me.
24
I wouldn't let a first-semester freshman get away with making an argument this flimsy. Yes, having children forces parents to focus their attention on someone other than themselves. Yes, parents should teach their children about our environmental problems. But the idea that having children can somehow be an act of environmental stewardship does not hold water. The author writes that, "The act of creation is opposed to the act of consumption," but creating children, especially creating children who will likely lead aflluent, Western lives, will inevitably result in resource consumption. I have two kids. If I were young today, I would consider having children, but I certainly wouldn't pretend that having a child was somehow green!
169
@Chris Rasmussen
I would even argue about the selflessness of expanding one's view to include a child.
The reason is that, in my experience, that the level of expansion ends at their children.
Look at the parents who balk at sending their children to less ideal schools as part of desegregation or the whole college admission scandal.
To say they were not taking the most expansive and compassionate view overall would be an understatement.
15
I have so many thoughts but I will distill it down to 2 ~
1. We only have one child. We decided to have only 1 child, personal choice. I understand the detriments to the world due to overpopulation being one of the biggest factors. We are totally happy with having only 1 child. But let me tell you, the judgement from others with multiple children or big families is ridiculous. And it seems like the more of an acquaintance (and less of a friend/family), the more opinions you'll hear about it. We've been called selfish on numerous occasions for stopping at one. Our society still pushes this idealized image of a big family and makes women, in particular, feel guilty for not want one.
2. The US is doing a great job in making it harder and harder for women to make their own reproductive decisions. Access to free/cheap birth control, comprehensive sex ed, and safe abortion would go a long way in making a dent in this problem.
We aren't tilling the fields. With immunizations, child mortality rates have plummeted. I personally don't see the reason for having 4+ kids any longer.
43
@Real Thoughts
>>We aren't tilling the fields. With immunizations, child mortality rates have plummeted. I personally don't see the reason for having 4+ kids any longer.<<
Could someone give this memo to the members of conservative religions all over the world, but particularly in developed nations?
Religion is a touchy subject - almost as touchy as reproduction. But it's about time we get the religious leaders together - not just the pope! - to address this enormous problem: their tendency to pressure congregants to increase the flock.
6
I do not believe that the author understands the urgency of the situation. Our children may starve, become refugees and die because of climate change. That's sooner than most of us realize. How having a child changes us, or how we raise them would have mattered 20 years ago, but not right now. We need to cut population and consumption down in rich countries. But also, having a child did not change me, and I don't believe it changes many people. It's mostly a myth we like to believe-that love somehow changes us, but does it? We change, of course, with every event in our lives, with time, but having a child does not transform us. The belief that it will is damaging to all the people who wake up being the same depressed, unhappy, or selfish person after having a child.Having a child changes your life but not your personality or your ideology.
97
While anecdotal reflections (rationalizations?) may be helpful for the individual, we need more science based facts. Most mathematical biologists, climate scientists, et al those that study the anthropologic impact on the environment, broader ecological...believe realigning to a harmony with Earth will require a 3 prong approach: slowing human population growth, improving tech/engineering, and changing culture, better decision making as the author advocates.
His evoking of God and personal responsibility, one can assume places him in the Right politically.
Only government Policy can move the world to a more holistic view of our place in it and decrease our impact.
This piece actually is an affront to all reasonable people when currently we are at 1.5:1 resource extraction on the way to 3:1...and have an administration that has gutted the EPA, and is using a twisted perversion of Anti Trust law to go after CA and car manufacturers who are trying to make a difference through tech/engineering.
So maybe in language more akin to the author: we have not be good Sheppard’s or Stewards, have NOT tending to the Garden eg over tilling the soil
We have NOT respected the creatures of the seas or land as we are already in the Sixth Extinction
The next will be our own.
32
The subject of this opinion piece dances around another "inconvenient truth", which is that current human population is unsustainable. How wonderful it would be if everyone was vegan, stayed at home, and was peaceful, and technology afforded minuscule footprints. Now that you've indulged yourself for a moment in that fantasy, wake up!! I live on Cape Cod, and I am seeing changes in my world which should be measured in millennia...not my lifetime. We are in freefall, and if we look up, we can't even see the tipping points passed years ago. So excuse me, but I don't need to hear someone trying to validate having more kids. Obviously at this point we can see that no matter how good a parent you are, it's not working. Having a kid in the hopes that they will save the world is megalomaniacal and just plain selfish.
129
I honestly don't think it makes any difference at all whether you have children or not—at least in the absence of a coordinated global plan to transform our economic system into something environmentally sustainable. Sure, individual actions have some tiny affect on the environment—and cumulatively they do make a large difference. But unless people globally are coordinated in their actions and following some universally agreed-upon plan, individual action will be ineffective.
What's solipsistic maybe is thinking that this problem can be solved by our own individual choices and actions. This is a problem that can be solved only by collective decision-making and coordinated planning. If you want to do something useful individually, support political leaders who are wiling to seriously push for big solutions like a Global Green New Deal. Because that's what's needed.
19
If you have 2 kids, you push the population in the right direction, down (because some will always have 1 or no kids), albeit slowly.
If you have 3 kids, you contribute to overpopulation. It's that simple.
Humanity consumes, today, more resources than the earth can sustainably provide. Each generation impoverishes the planet, leaving the next generation with a worse planet. The poorer 2/3 of the world consumes very little resources, and their per capita resource consumption is rising very very fast, and that is a good thing, because their lives are improving BUT it means that any marginal improvments the developed world makes in per capita consumption, will be swamped by the increases on per capita resource use of the bottom 4 billion.
We must reduce the population. We need to talk about it. We need to talk about it in very clear terms. We need to get over our sensitivity about talking about this topic. That doesn't mean you need to not have children, but the difference between 2 and 3 kids is this: you are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
On a personal note, I have 2 kids. I love them to death, and I would really really like to have a third, but this, to me, crystal-clear moral imperative prevents me from doing so. It should everyone else too.
26
@nick r, I am sorry but your math, while appearing to have the merit of common sense, does not add up. If everyone had 2 and only 2 children the population would continue to grow.
Consider: At the age of 24 to 30 a couple has 2 children. By the time they are 60 they will have 4 grandchildren. By 72 they will have their first great grandchild. In one century from their own birth their decendents will number more than 8.
7
In our 20s, my wife and I made a list of all the reasons to have children and all the reasons not to have children. None of the reasons to have children applied to us and all of the reasons not to have them did. So we didn’t. Now in my 70s, I can attest to the fact that it is possible to achieve fulfillment and satisfaction in life without having children. As most of the comments responding to this article indicate, there are now several more reasons not to have children.
88
If you do have children, educate them to be open minded so they may see the potential of nuclear energy to help us through this era of climate change rather than dismissing it out of misunderstanding and unreasonable fear.
@NY
human error that can lead to such cataclysmic consequences is not unreasonable fear. You can never eliminate human error from the calculation of a nuclear plant. Just ask survivors of nuclear disasters. And by the way would you want one in your backyard? I doubt it.
We tend as human beings to either be drawn to optimism or pessimism, but never, it seems, to realism. Even now, with increasing awareness, we do not seem to see things as they are. We have set too many environmental feedback loops into motion now to avoid catastrophe, and and are in fact increasing rather than decreasing our carbon emissions. Trump is actively dismantling any and all environmental safeguards in the United States, and even if we are fortunate enough to be rid of him in 2020 without violence from his followers many Republican lawmakers will remain. Australia is redoubling its commitment to coal production. Amazonia is nearing the tipping point at which it will begin transforming into savanna due to forest loss. Worse yet, and truest to human nature, rising nationalism precludes international cooperation, especially in the face of increasing numbers of refugees. The hottest parts of the world, difficult to live in now, will rapidly become uninhabitable. India is literally running out of water. Will it, a nuclear armed nation, be expected to remain within its borders and die of thirst? No, we as a species are behaving precisely like a man with stage 4 cancer who avoids his doctor because he fears the diagnosis and at the same time doesn't want to stop smoking and drinking. He hopes it will go away, that it isn't cancer, that a last minute cure will be found, or if he's religious, that God will save him. We, like him, are already dead.
53
How about we support family planning in places like Guatemala? WINGS, for example brings women’s health care and education to areas far and wide. They also teach family planning and provide LARCS. Girls are getting pregnant, family sizes of 10 plus are not uncommon, and childhood malnutrition is endemic, the highest in our hemisphere. Do some good, and create a reproductive offset. Then we can all have the family size that works for us.
25
@Jackie Dzaluk
That example illustrates the complexity of the whole problem. Overpopulation in certain regions is too often tied to despotic regimes (which police land use, often leading to hunger and high infant mortality) and patriarchal control over reproduction. Even if birth control were available, many women would be prevented from using it. Thus the big families, the growing conflicts, the political corruption, and on and on. No wonder biodiversity loss is way down the list of what to attend to.
3
I’m concerned that this comment—and the idea of a “reproductive offset”—values the parenting of the privileged over the patenting of the poor. Prevent a brown woman in a country from the global South from having a kid to allow a white Westerner to have one? Really?
Reproductive justice is environmental justice.
1
@Jackie Dzaluk With all due respect, Guatemala? Yeah, “family planning” in Guatemala, that’s a good look for the American empire.
(And Trump’s stopped aid to Guatemala, remember?)
As the poet Wordsworth wrote ( and as has been repeated throughout the years because of its insight), " the child is father of man".
In early childhood , we learn most rapidly (e.g., languages, ethics, empathy ) and carry those learnings into our adulthood, when we are able to put them into effect.
We have these pliable young minds given to us as a godly gift and the opportunity to mold them into caring, decent adults who can make a difference in our world. Have children and take the time to teach them, to read to them, to inspire them to care for others and to care for the globe---to respect wisdom and science. Grace Olmstead is apparently a very decent and caring thinker and I am certain her children will be assets to our world. When older they will not be climate change deniers or racists.
Parents who care about others and about being truthful should have the most children.
2
The question is not children per se, but how many children. The respective families of my wife and I have had replacements only for multiple generations. The population growth data by country points out the obvious, in developed countries such as the US, the native born population already have or will reach zero population growth based on birth rate. What is needed is family planning and education in many parts of the world to slow population growth. Alas, our current administration seems opposed to family planning of any sort, foreign or domestic which makes the problem worse.
10
@tom
The native US population has been at essentially zpg for some time. Our population growth now (the highest in the developed world) is driven by immigrants and their kids, especially over the last 40 years. The left likes to call anyone who objects to their mass immigration agenda a "xenophobic racist" but the truth is, we are the highest per capita co2 producers on earth and the third most populous country (5% of the people using 25% of the planets resources). Population growth in the US is probably the worst thing that can happen for climate change or the environment. And it doesn't matter if the people are coming from Guatemala or Norway.
2
"My daughters and I are part of this world and ought to be seeking the health of the whole, even as we seek to cultivate health and wholeness in ourselves."
I have two college-age daughters, and I'd like to reinforce the wisdom in this sentence. Like others, they're deeply concerned about the state of the world they are going to be spending the rest of their lives in and have become active in the Sunrise Movement.
One is getting her degree in environmental studies and plans to pursue this as a career.
Yes, they'll consume, but I think they and others can give back just as much. Having said that, stop at two (max).
2
My son has a master in environmental science and wants to work in solar energy but the jobs are scarce! Companies go out of business.... if trump gets re-elected our grandchildren will drink polluted water and breath dirty air, vacationing in denuded forests. Not to mention that they will need a kayak to get out of their NY City apartment.... not a great picture.
4
@Baboo
Yeah, I worry about jobs too. That's where a GND jobs program and regime change comes in.
It's time for societies to recognize the value of NOT having children. Not reproducing is in itself a service to a vastly overpopulated planet. This isn't only a matter of sheer survival in a finite world of limited resources. It is a psychological and spiritual necessity. Human life is meaningful in the context of a wider world of other living things. Already, we live in an overhumanized world where the human taint touches everything and all other creatures are crammed into their tiny left over habitats. As the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins has written:
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
64
Many of my millennial cousins are having 3 kids because it seems to be the thing today. A sign of status. It's scary because I have A LOT of millennial cousins.
8
@JulieB
Ask them how they are saving for three college educations.
4
@The Poet McTeagle We both know they don't think that far ahead!
Unlike many who commented on this article, I agree with the author. There is no question that all of us and our government must take action now to improve the world’s environment. Which means we all need to vote in the next presidential election.
However, the work must be continuous and won’t end in the next 20, 50, or 100s of years. And the work will need to be more creative and innovative over time. Who will do this ? Thoughtfully raised children who treasure Mother Earth. I am not advocating for large families. But having one or two children is not a large family.
On a personal note I spend time every week with two grandkids—6 and 8 years of age. Their understanding of what we need to do to improve our environment is remarkable. They get climate change—unlike some of the adults in this country. I have promised my next car will be electric (at 73, a bike won’t work for me). Kids like these will be future leaders in improving our environment and we need them.
4
@Mary
I, too, am amazed at how the young seem to get it better than older people. They often move me to tears.
But let's hope they *hold onto* those ideals longer than previous generations of idealistic kids. I went to school with some of them, and almost all became part of the problem once they "grew up."
I am grateful for the vision which you are passing on to your daughters. I see that parenting, well done, is a selfless and demanding act of creative hope.
I'm also grateful for your acknowledgment that there are other valid forms of stewardship, creativity and self-giving. I'm a celibate farmer and community volunteer, and I am sometimes frustrated by narratives that seem to assume that childless people must be immature and self-centered.
There is need for parents and non-parents, I think. as we try to live creatively, responsibly, humbly and gratefully in an endangered world. Blessings on you and your daughters.
6
Here we go again...
I'm a social worker, in direct practice with marginalized people in my city. I've been an ethical vegan for about 15 years (I don't need to eat animals to live, and animals need me not to eat them if they are to live, so). I donate 15% of my post-tax income to highly effective charities that address global poverty and health in the developing world. I strive to be a good partner to my spouse, a good daughter to my aging parents, a good steward of the resources I have, and a good neighbor to those around me.
And I'm an intentionally childfree woman in my 40's. I knew from a young age that parenthood was not something that I was interested in.
I'm not a saint, and I don't want accolades and praise. But it is so very tiresome to see it implied (as I have, again and again) that I cannot know "real" love, responsibility, or selflessness simply because I haven't had children.
385
There are so many ways to love and parent in this world. I’m with you.
37
@M
The Bible says children are a gift from the Lord. the Bible NEVER implies that children are the ONLY gift from the Lord. So both you and Ms. Olmstead are correct and it sounds like both of you are living your lives as a blessing to others--which is at the very heart of the Bible's message. God bless you for that! Keep up the good work !
Many of the other commentators here apparently ONLY see human beings as consumers of resources and not also creators of resources. I suppose that's inevitable in a world which constantly strives
to degrades the dignity of all human life.
6
@M. Thank you for this. Your life circumstances and choices are very close to mine, yet I still, in my 60s, hear condescending comments about my childlessness, these days in the form of "what, you have no grandchildren?" I knew from a very early age that I didn't want children and I have never regretted that choice. The world doesn't need more humans and I try to give to my community and family members in meaningful ways. Why is this never enough for these people? Any organism on earth can reproduce itself. This author needs to get over herself.
38
Interesting piece--stewardship needs to mean acting to preserve a stable climate and biodiversity.
1
The problem is not one woman having two children; that’s required for sustainability ; it’s going from 7.5 billion to, say, 10 billion consumers.
18
That math is very wrong, a common fallacy. Having two children will increase the population exponentially. The only way it works otherwise is if one parent drops dead every time a child is born. Lifespans overlap.
1
"Children are a clear statement of hope, a demand that we claim accountability for the future" How about we show that we're accountable for the future BEFORE we have kids and expect them to save the planet?
182
@Adam. Here here Adam. Well said.
4
Creating a new middle-class American results another middle-class American's worth of a carbon footprint, a very large footprint indeed. Perhaps the new American will be able to shift their consumption down by a factor of 2 over their lifetimes relative to their parents, but that still implies an increase by 50% of your own large carbon footprint per child you have.
You can try to argue that having kids is worth it in other ways, or you can choose not to care very much (like I do when I eat meat), but from a strict carbon accounting perspective, having kids is easily the most carbon-intensive thing that people regularly do.
69
It is better to have the earth warming than cooling. What would happen if an ice age came again? What would a glacier do to Chicago? People worry too much. The fittest will survive any change in the environment and will produce children whose genes have adapted to any earth changes.
2
@Aaron Adams
"The fittest will survive any change in the environment and will produce children whose genes have adapted to any earth changes."
This is not how natural selection works. Organisms change over long periods of time becoming "fit" to survive in the environment in which (and with which) they are evolving. A sudden large change in the environment (and by geological standards sudden can be thousands of years) can lead to extinction because the organisms in the changed environment are "fit" for a different environment and don't have enough time to change through genetic mutation.
48
@Aaron Adams
I must react. It is better to have a moderate cancer than an aggressive cancer, but that is not a sufficient reason to do nothing about the moderate cancer, which is just as deadly. That it could be worse is no reason to vote to do nothing for the warming.
9
@Aaron Adams, What, me worry?
You, me, our children and their children will be long gone by the time a glacier entombs Chicago. The question is not which Hollywood doomsday scenario will befall our great cities. It's about a thousand small stresses applied all over the globe, which will strain our natural resources and spark geopolitical conflict that could spiral into a self-inflicted mass extinction event. Genes adapt to environmental changes when the changes are gradual. Darwin's "survival of the fittest" means "survival of the best-adapted" — we as a species will only be fit to survive if we have time to adapt. You know how it worked out for the dinosaurs. Mammals took over and some of them wear alligator boots.
2
Many would-be parents in the millennial generation are correct: the number one cause of global climate change is population.
Before there was an "environmental movement" theer was ZPG: zero population growth.
But we have fetishized pregnancy, motherhood and babies to the point where it is just another commodity, fitting in perfectly with our consumption-oriented society.
224
@DaveInNewYork Agree. And you have to ask yourself why would the corporations, their media and politicians, want fewer consumers?
31
@Newell McCarty
Right, and business wants a high unemployment rate (flooded labor market) so that wages can stay unsustainably low, the way they have since Reagan took office. Too few workers would mean wages would rise. Lower bottom line!
6
Isolating “overpopulation” as the primary cause of climate change is , in my opinion, a convenient way for people to maintain a sense of self-righteousness about their reproductive decisions, while avoiding discussing (and taking painful responsibility for) the real cause of climate change, which is overconsumption (driven primarily by wealthier nations and their inhabitants’ demands for comfort and convenience).
Major public health organizations, like the WHO, consider 2.1 children per couple to be the replacement rate needed to maintain our population “where it’s at.” Major ecological organizations consider the Earth’s carrying capacity to be around 9-10 billion humans (based on a variety of metrics). To get everyone at or below this rate, we need to empower and educate women (see reproductive/economic empowerment for women and its effect on reducing/mitigating population growth and increasing overall prosperity).
The earth could very well support 9 billion people, if those people all lived sustainable lives, if our resource supply chain revolved around reusables rather than single use commodities, if we didn’t drive cars, if we relied primarily on renewable energy, if we ate plant based diets, etc.
Saying that reducing the population will stop climate change is like saying that closing abortion clinics will stop abortion. Yeah, it’ll have some effect, but it won’t be nearly as effective as fixing real underlying causes (unwanted pregnancies) and overconsumption.
12
It’s going to take at least 15-20 years before the average child has sufficient awareness of the scope of the problem and can start to do something in the form of advocacy or think about innovating a potential solution. I am afraid that we don’t have that long to turn things around before the planet goes down a trajectory of no return. The author is putting a lot of faith in others to instill environmental consciousness in their offspring. Given the number of people who are willfully ignorant of and/or choose to outright dismiss the problem of climate change, I think the argument to have more children because they may save the world is kind of disingenuous. The focus should be on creating a better educated society that values science and civics, that understands the importance of the collective not just the individual, and that ensures access to birth control. Until then (if ever), population control seems prudent.
85
It’s going to take at least 15-20 years before the average child has sufficient awareness of the scope of the problem and can start to do something in the form of advocacy or think about innovating a potential solution. I am afraid that we don’t have that long to turn things around before the planet goes down a trajectory of no return. The author is putting a lot of faith in others to instill environmental consciousness in their offspring. Given the number of people who are willfully ignorant of and/or choose to outright dismiss the problem of climate change, I think the argument to have more children because they may save the world is kind of disingenuous. The focus should be on creating a better educated society that values science and civics, that understands the importance of the collective not just the individual, and that ensures access to birth control. Until then (if ever), population control seems prudent.
1
If the act of creating children and becoming a parent was a necessary condition to developing a sense of obligation to each other as humans, Donald Trump with his 5 children ought to have been a poster child of selflessness, delayed gratification and other noble qualities.
212
“Children who are raised to love the world around them, to use their talents and imaginations for its good, could be an essential part of that work.”
The world of pain that children born today are going to experience in 50 years will be like nothing our species has ever seen. We are not going to be okay, and your kids and grandkids are really not going to be okay. That doesn’t mean don’t fight for a better world and it doesn’t mean don’t have or adopt a kid—but adding more kids to this world is far from the selfless act that this author contends.
188
Yes, well, I am a Christian as well. The universe is infinite, the mind of God is infinite; the earth is NOT infinite. If the earth is a metaphor for the body, the human species has become a cancer on it. As much as I love and admire my children (born 1991 and 1993), I do not want biological grandchildren. I'm not even sure the children of my body won't die gasping for breath, lungs rotted by air pollution , or poisoned by the chemicals we sprinkle everywhere, or of heatstroke or in a flood caused by climate change, or of simple sadness and despair that the generations before didn't give a hoot about them. Focus on the stewardship -- NOT the dominion.
76
@December . Beautifully put.
2
@December Well said.
2
Parenting is noble, but not the only way to be so. It is also a way to become more self-centered, compartmentalized, and isolated from community needs. Articles like this encourage parents to think of themselves as martyrs for a greater cause, not lucky enough to be able to afford the price and pleasure of children. They should raise their children to conceive of multiple paths to bringing about a better future, including doing so by not having children. I'd like to see more humility from parents, who have been indoctrinated to believe parenting is the only noble path in the modern world.
110
In order to raise your children to be responsible citizens you must demonstrate that responsibility and commitment as an adult. If you don’t demonstrate that commitment then you can’t expect the children to either. How many show their concern for any matter external to their own small family or tribe? If my experience is any barometer...it is a very small number indeed.
36
@William McLaughlin
Excellent points.
2
Excellent essay. I am blessed to have two young children and would be happy if we had more. They bring a light to the world. I hope we can successfully raise them to be stewards of this world.
Nothing irritates me as much as a bunch of old NYT posters telling us that having children is dooming the world. No one has suggested that if overpopulation is such a concern, maybe we should get rid of Medicare for those over 70 and let old people die...after all they create emissions through travel and building if new housing etc. Or let the disabled or institutionalized die because they use too many plastic coated supplies. Such ideas are reprehensible. But the ultra-left has no problem with sacrificing the unborn or the never conceived towards such goals.
Climate change will need to be mitigated in how we live, not how many. We are trying to do our part, and hope our children will do the same.
14
These labels of “ultra” this and that are meaningless. Who is the regular left or right? Do you hate them any less? How does one become less ultra in this world of comment section non-dialogue? Can an “ultra” become a regular, and if so, will their past sins be forgotten? If we can’t even be civil when typing in a comment section, what makes anyone think we can turn the destruction of the entire planet around? How do parents so concerned with the sanctity of the planet and it’s children justify voting for a monster like Donald Trump? So many questions.
3
Mitigated by BOTH how we live and how many of us there are.....
1
@UpstateMD
" They bring a light to the world."
What does that mean, exactly? That they're burning fossil fuel to create light?
" But the ultra-left has no problem with sacrificing the unborn or the never conceived towards such goals."
Yup, I'm just fine with "sacrificing the unborn". They're "unborn". They don't exist. You might as well blame the "ultra-left" for wasting sperm. It's as equally absurd.
"Climate change will need to be mitigated in how we live, not how many."
That's a false statement.
5
I too want to believe that human creativity and compassion will prevail -- and that each generation will be an improvement over the next. Sometimes, however, I don't see that happening at all. Agent Smith: "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed."
21
In science class in elementary school kids are taught about deforestation and global warming. My daughter was crying the other night because she said the earth was dying.
I don't understand why we think it's such a great idea to put the burden of our own selfish irresponsible deeds on the shoulders of future generations and expect them to fix our mess.
143
@Helena C Learning about the ecology and understanding the challenges that we all face as we struggle to deal with the environmental impacts of modern civilizations is too much for elementary students to handle? Wow. There are no trigger warnings or safe spaces to protect them from reality on this issue. Perhaps it’s time to discuss with your school the various ways they plan to help students learn how the can be part of the solution.
12
@Neal Monteko I agree. I learned about ecological problems in the 1970s in elementary school and it (partly) put me off breeding for life. At 50 I'm childless, happy (oh, and, uh, rich, so I give to environmental causes). The planet thanks me silently. Helena's kids need to learn! D.A., NYC
16
@Helena C Indeed. Kids have to learn traumatizing “active shooter” drills starting in kindergarten in America because we can’t do anything about guns. Central American children at the border are separated from their parents and kept in cages. This is not a society that respects and protects children, to say nothing of the world.
12
To suggest that having more children in a world that is already overpopulated by billions is breathtaking in its lack of objectivity. It is a fine example of how instinct gets sieved through a fine mesh of rationale to justify itself, donning the robes of reason to hide the bare animal instinct beneath.
Virtually all of the problems we face globally have their roots in overpopulation. From global climate change to mass shootings, massive refugee populations, failed states, and emergent totalitarian 'populism', human overpopulation is the engine driving these changes. To claim that we are 'creators and stewards' without accepting the truth of our egregiously overpopulated world is nothing more than a fine example of rationale ignoring reality in favor of instinct.
330
@Art Likely This piece will be looked back on as a perfect example of the deeply-rooted denial at work of so many in this time.
66
There is no way to have children without adding to the consumption. To survive the human race needs to drastically reduce consumption, particularly of fossil fuels. We can do that many ways, but cutting the world population in half is a great start. As for each new child having the potential to grow up and bring about solutions - that feels like the man who buys 100 lottery tickets instead of 1. Not buying lottery tickets is a guarantee on improving your financial future just like a less populous world is a guarantee on less global consumption. Honestly having children is often, at least in part, about ego. People say it's very selfless thing, but I would argue just the opposite. It's like having a pet in the city or deciding to have kids when you don't have the means to support it. You are doing it for you and not for the greater good.
281
@Jay Hold on Jay, some people (me) have pets INSTEAD of children. My dog's consumption in his lifetime doesn't match a child's in a month.
4
@David Anderson
You missed the point
“Having pets in the city”
3
@Jay
I agree with you on some of what you say, but I have to push back on the pet thing. Most pet owners are much more connected to the natural world because they care for members of another species. Is it ok if I rescue a dog that’s already here, or should I pay the shelter to kill it? Do I need to move out of the city to have a pet? Where we live we rarely drive, have no grounds to keep, and our energy consumption is a fraction of a single family home in the country or suburbs. Walking our dogs has also made our bonds with our community stronger.
8
This is not a plan.
My wife and I HAVE raised our two kids to be environmentally responsible. Our son owns an electric car, but he almost never uses it because he lives within walking distance of his work. Our daughter and her husband own one car because they almost always travel by bicycle. Their effects on climate change have been negligible.
We need a global response to climate change and America, the richest country in the World, needs to be the leader. Instead, the Trump administration is actively contributing to the problem by quitting the VOLUNTARY Paris Climate Accord and cancelling the few regulations that we have that were designed to address the problem.
Climate change is getting worse and will soon reach the tipping point. WE need to act, and it has to be now. Leaving this catastrophe to our children and hoping for the best is irresponsible.
Our next big chance to make a difference is to vote Trump and his Republican enablers out in 2020 so that America can, once again, assume a leadership position.
54
You make excellent points and your children’s transportation choices are laudable, still, show me a human and I will show you their unsustainable carbon footprint, even your kids: it is not negligible. As tuned in as you are, this “negligible” statement is still underestimating the scale and pervasiveness of the overconsumption problem. By the bye, I do the same thing because it’s hard to consider and hold the scale of change needed in mind. Fewer people is a good start though. Do what you can, then do more.
16
Fine and dandy, they bought an electric car but rarely use it as they bicycle most of the time. That rarely used electric car took resources to build it. More stuff. More consumption.
10
Personally, I think the natural decline in birth rates that we are seeing in the western world is a good thing. Children born into these countries will consume more resources and create more pollution than those born into developing countries. While some articles I have read raise alarms about not replacing ourselves, ending up with an age distribution like Japan's and leaving large number of elders in need of care, I think we should be developing strategies for a "soft landing" that allows for a gradual decrease in our population. We could embrace it, plan for it and change our land use patterns to accommodate it.
Consider that artificial intelligence and automation will be eliminating many jobs in the future. Climate change will force us to abandon some areas we currently inhabit and or cultivate to grow our food. It will take years to rein in carbon and plastic pollution. A shrinking population may work best in this scenario, benefitting not only our society, but also the planet. It is time to let go of the mindset that to succeed as a country, we must grow or maintain our population.
144
Plan for a soft landing or your kids get a very hard landing indeed. Meanwhile I only meet parents who complain if their kid’s diesel school bus doesn’t drop them at the kitchen table.
4
The population explosion in developing countries is a massive, massive problem. Nigeria will exceed one billion in a few years. That is a disaster in the making.
10
@Mary Rossano Our population in the US is beginning to level off and would begin to decline. Unfortunately, immigration is the factor driving the US's population growth so population reduction is not a possibility in the US.
Leading a thoughtful life does all the things the author claims having a child leads to, but without the huge increase in consumption.
The earth does not need more humans.
421
@Woody Guthrie Agreed. Also '“70 percent of the pollution, of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air, comes from three industries” — building and construction, electric power, and oil. Our consumption is just a small piece in a much larger puzzle.' Does she not know who lives in houses, and uses electricity and oil? This is classic parents trying to justify their own life decisions.
155
@Woody Guthrie
Agreed about the benefits of living thoughtfully.
From the fossil record, it seems safe to say that the earth does not need _any_ humans.
OTOH every human needs the earth.
If we the species want to continue to exist, we -- not the earth -- do need more humans: the next generation. We need a "reasonable" number of them. And personally to live thoughtfully as a good steward, part of which is recognizing when it is time for us to say goodbye.
5
@Camille Moran
Who do you think consumes that electric power? Who do you think benefits from construction and oil? It's PEOPLE. duh. And furthermore, that's not a bad thing. We have become masters of the earth. Nature does not protect us from climate. We developed technology to insulate ourselves from dangers and yes that may result in warming. But we can master that too. But you're not separate from those three "industries", especially since one of those "industries" is literally "building and construction". Do you realize that just means all of actual industry??
2
"But parenting slowly turns that impulse on its head, and over time, responding to the needs of my children, I am learning to embrace patience and delayed gratification in the interest of a greater good and fostering the health and happiness of my daughters."
Why is it that every parent thinks parenting is the only way people become "patient" or able to "delay gratification in the interest of a greater good"? Did it ever occur to the author that an engaged, reflective life by anyone, including the childless, would produce the same character traits - perhaps even more altruistically, because for the childless the "greater good" doesn't stop with the health and happiness of their own children?
Reaching my 60s and childless, I find myself frequently grateful that I did not have children. It's not related to climate change, though. It's because this country has gotten so cruel, mean, and requires so much work for so little. Maybe my kid could have been the messiah. But I spared him/her from having to live up to that.
490
@Marguerite Sirrine
I am also in my 60s and never had children. When I was still of child-bearing age I had to listen frequent queries about why I had no kids, when did I plan to have kids, was I able to bear kids, etc. I was treated like an incomplete person or a freak of nature by some mothers. However, later on I watched as some of these people had to deal with their children’s mental health problems as their families disintegrated, failure in school, run-in’s with the law, inability to keep jobs, etc. One of the formally smug mothers even told me recently that she hoped not to have grandchildren because she was so pessimistic about the future.
63
@Jodrake I am gently encouraging my daughters not to have kids of their own when they grow up (as in, "you don't have to have kids, it's okay to not have kids"). My Boomer mother is horrified, and thinks I'm being dramatic.
Marguerite: " It's because this country has gotten so cruel, mean, and requires so much work for so little." Perfectly said, unfortunately.
44
Not only does “every parent” think having children is the “only” way to learn about selflessness, I’d venture to say vanishingly few do.
I, for one, don’t think that. And I’ve never met a fellow parent who would say such a thing.
20