680
submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

A fifth of female climate scientists who responded to Guardian survey said they had opted to have no or fewer children

Ihad the hormonal urges,” said Prof Camille Parmesan, a leading climate scientist based in France. “Oh my gosh, it was very strong. But it was: ‘Do I really want to bring a child into this world that we’re creating?’ Even 30 years ago, it was very clear the world was going to hell in a handbasket. I’m 62 now and I’m actually really glad I did not have children.”

Parmesan is not alone. An exclusive Guardian survey has found that almost a fifth of the female climate experts who responded have chosen to have no children, or fewer children, due to the environmental crises afflicting the world.

An Indian scientist who chose to be anonymous decided to adopt rather than have children of her own. “There are too many children in India who do not get a fair chance and we can offer that to someone who is already born,” she said. “We are not so special that our genes need to be transmitted: values matter more.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BigBenis@lemmy.world 68 points 5 months ago

I decided that I personally felt unethical bringing people into this world nearly a decade ago

load more comments (30 replies)
[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 58 points 5 months ago

Something something literally Idiocracy (2006)

[-] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago

At least the president in Idocracy had the humility and self awareness let the smartest guy in the room advise him on policy.

[-] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago

I donno, you really think that guy was that smart? He wanted to give plants water. Like, you know, what is in the toilet.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Seriously. Plants crave Brawndo.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] zcd@lemmy.ca 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

+ Don't look up

[-] Asclepiaz@lemmy.world 49 points 5 months ago

I knew when I was 12 I never wanted children. I got married at 20. I got fixed at 24. I am almost 40 and have no regrets other than not getting fixed sooner, but finding a doc to fix a lady at 18 is damn near impossible.

[-] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 45 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

A friend of mine had the same issue at 22. She even had already had a child at 16 but multiple doctors refused, claiming "she might want more". One doctor would do it but wanted a signed permission slip from her husband first.

All women deserve bodily autonomy.

[-] Asclepiaz@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

Yeah I also needed my husband to approve for some reason. So demeaning.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago

Wow, wtf, that's crazy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago

1/5th is low, and doesn't appear very different to the general female population.

This really just highlights the underlying problem and why our "efforts" are destined to amount to little more than shuffling deck chairs on the titanic — humans are selfish, and most of us are not willing to make major sacrifices to avert disaster; hell, most struggle to accept minor inconveniences.

[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 12 points 5 months ago

due to the environmental crises afflicting the world

You're removing the context behind the reasoning. Unless you're claiming 1/5th of the general female population does not want to have kids due to climate change as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago

most struggle to accept minor inconveniences.

This is the really jaw dropping thing whenever I see it. I just have no idea what to say and don’t get how people don’t have an instinct for when there might be a bigger picture.

Some are really cruising through life just trying to maximise convenience and comfort.

[-] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

COVID lockdowns demonstrated that we could kick climate change with enough will power. Id start by mandating work from home where possible.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 23 points 5 months ago
[-] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 15 points 5 months ago

1/5th want no or fewer kids... so 4/5 were pushing forward like normal.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 4 points 5 months ago

"We'll figure it out in time. Even the oligarchs can't be that greedy and short sighted."

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago

Yeeaah, that is what I thought too, 25 years ago, when we still could make a difference.

Now we're in it and we're only going harder. Gotta get richer sooner!

[-] olicvb@lemmy.ca 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

lmao 'starting' ?? I believe starting should have been done years ago.

Reminds me of this South Park clip XD (youtube link)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 17 points 5 months ago

Title could have said majority of millennials

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 14 points 5 months ago

I always thought my children, if I'd have them, might die a horrible death due to climate change.

Now, knowing that humanity with climate change in mind, only increased spewing CO2 in to the atmosphere, I think I actually eillmdie a horrible death due to climate change.

The no children thing for the climate is multiple generations too late already.

Also, keep the idiocracy effect in mind. Only the good and caring people decide not to have children, the idiots and selfish assholes will have ten for them.

[-] wavebeam@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

As an adoptive parent of two kids from foster care, I know this is biased. And actually now that I’ve got a few years of parenting kids with trauma under my belt I actually think most people shouldn't take on this challenge, because they actually wouldn’t be able to handle it. That said, I think that’s the only real way to counter the idiocracy effect. Adopt kids of the least responsible people to those who are most responsible. It’s mostly an opt-in, self selecting process that generally only moves things in the right direction. It’s also not really enough to actually offset the problem as a whole.

Still a good thing for folks to pursue though.

[-] bleistift2@feddit.de 12 points 5 months ago

no or fewer children

So… they killed other people’s children?

[-] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago

Gotta fight climate change somehow

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

Fewer than they otherwise would have had.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Noedel@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Getting snipped this week!

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 5 points 5 months ago

im surprised its a fifth have no or fewer and not the other way around.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Ninety-seven female scientists responded, with 17, including women from Brazil, Chile, Germany, India and Kenya, saying they had chosen to have fewer children.

Most of the female scientists interviewed had made their decisions about children in past decades, when they were younger and the grave danger of global heating was less apparent.

They said they had not wanted to add to the global human population that is exacting a heavy environmental toll on the planet, and some also expressed fears about the climate chaos through which a child might now have to live.

Compulsory population control is not part of today’s population-environment debate, with better educational opportunities for girls and access to contraception for women who want it seen as effective and humane policies.

Prof Regina Rodrigues, an oceanographer at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil, who also chose not to have children, was influenced by the environmental destruction she saw in the fast-expanding coastal town near São Paulo where she grew up.

A study of Americans aged 27 to 45 – younger than the IPCC scientists surveyed – found concern about the wellbeing of children in a climate-changed world was a much bigger factor than worries over the carbon footprint of their offspring.


The original article contains 1,186 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
680 points (96.7% liked)

World News

38861 readers
2885 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS