680

‘I am starting to panic about my child’s future’: climate scientists wary of starting families (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

111 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.”

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How do you have fewer than no children? (=P tongue in cheek purposeful misunderstanding, not true pedantry)

Edit: (Damn, even being clear I was being cheeky I still managed to piss someone off xD)

[-] thejml@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Someone’s gotta have that half child from the 2.5 average!

[-] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

But that would be like going to the gym 3.5 times a week! How do you go 3.5 times?! Do a half workout or something?

[-] TwigletSparkle@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 months ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eECjjLNAOd4

[-] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That's where this originated from, the forum is still online, a highlight of human history:

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 6 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://m.piped.video/watch?v=eECjjLNAOd4

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

-0.5 children

[-] octatron@lmy.drundo.com.au 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The population is actually tipped to massively reduce on the next 100 years due to a large portion of people not have babies simply due to crappy economic conditions, inflation, war the lying flat movement in china and the ever increasing destruction of the middle class into the homeless poor. Aside from rich people destroying peoples ability to have happy lives, there's also the plastic problem that's quite literally made every male living thing have a reduced sperm count and it continues to drop as plastic is in the air, our clothes carpet and oceans. Endocrine disruptors in our bodies are being effected by chemicals found in vinyl products, thermal receipts and Tupperware releasing chemicals when heated in microwaves. These things are so small they enter the bloodstream and pass through the blood brain barrier.. Fuuuck

So if you want to save the future start by sniping off rich oligarchs and ban plastic completely

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

It'll start to level off around 10 billion, in 35 years.

The thing about a growing population is that fewer people having babies has a diminished effect when there are so many more people. Each new pair having a slightly smaller chance of reproducing doesn't matter when there are twice as many new pairs.

The population won't decrease dramatically, save for some catastrophic event.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

The population very well might drop suddenly. Clearly that 10B is too many, but what happens after that. Some projections have a very steep decline, looking at developed countries approach an average closer to one child instead of closer to replacement value. What happens when most of those 10B age then pass, but there are only 5B to replace them? In the time of one generation, we could see a very serious depopulation in places

[-] kinsnik@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

i agree with your general idea, but not with all the reasons. war, crappy economic conditions and inflation have all happened multiple times before (and much worse that the current situation), but I've never heard that there were large portion of people choosing not to have kids before (please, correct me if I am wrong)

i think that the current mental health crisis (which is caused by all those problems + the housing crisis, destruction of middle class, climate change concerns + social media) makes it different this time

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip -1 points 6 months ago

... "starting" feels like a horrible word to use in this context, in my humble opinion. Not as bad as not thinking about it tho.

[-] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Have them. Just raise them to be resilient little cockroaches.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 10 May 2024

680 points (96.7% liked)

World News

39161 readers

1390 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.