Agree on almost everything you said, but not having children will have far more impact than giving up meat. Going childfree almost like a taboo subject when discussing the environment.
In the long term it means that you don't pass your set of values onto the latter generations.
> consciousness about the environment does not transmit through genes
Intelligence, conscientiousness and empathy are all heritable to a degree. More importantly, your kids will likely inherit most of the socioeconomic factors that made you become environmentally-conscious in the first place. And I'm assuming you want the next generations to be as eco-friendly as possible.
I'm also incredibly skeptical of the environmental impact of antinatalism among hardcore environmentalist first-worlders vs the exploding birth rates across the globe. It just seems performative and hairshirty.
Education, activism, involvement in the community, publishing research, etc. are all effective ways to pass on values to future generations. Nudging the overton window of society is arguably a much more effective way to pass on values.
> Intelligence, conscientiousness and empathy are all heritable to a degree.
Nowhere near enough to keep up with technological and societal change.
> More importantly, your kids will likely inherit most of the socioeconomic factors that made you become environmentally-conscious in the first place. And I'm assuming you want the next generations to be as eco-friendly as possible.
Those kids would need to have a net-positive contribution to the environment for this argument to make any sense. It also seems mostly irrelevant to the argument about whether to have kids or not: any virtue you ascribe to those potential kids can also be ascribed to anyone else: if those kids could be a net-positive to the environment, why not the friends and neighbours that are already here? If influencing others in similar socioeconomic situations is beneficial, we can find plenty of those people around already. And so on.
> exploding birth rates across the globe
Do you have a source for this? All the evidence I've seen says the exact opposite (e.g. the UN's data and projections for this century show birth rates declining across every continent https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery )
Edit: I have 2 children (we went through 8 rounds of IVF for those 2 buggers), would probably have more if we could but funds are tight now. Though, we might adopt. Luckily insurance paid most of it back when I wasn't freelancing. So, I say this even though I don't have a huge family of 6+ kids, but if you're up to the challenge I salute you!
Adoption is also admirable and while you're not passing genes, you can pass on values and your ethical systems to a new generation so if you want to help the environment by not having kids but also change things generationally --think about fostering and adoption. We used to be foster parents and it'll change your entire viewpoint on life, it's hard though when the kids are reunified with the family even though mom and dad are still doing drugs... lots of heartbreak there, but it's worth it for the difference it makes.
However, I think that giving up meat is a lot easier for people than not having children (reproducing is a pretty strong biological imperative). It also has the possibility to amplify your impact by encouraging those around you to make the same switch - that way you can impact many many lives.
Interesting that you find it taboo - talking about "population control" is definitely taboo in my opinion because it sounds like eugenics or forced sterilisation etc etc, but I've never heard people respond badly to personal choices to not have children.
"Industrial farming is tapping underground aquifers faster than they can be replenished, threatening global water supplies. Nitrates from fertilizers contaminate drinking water. Agricultural runoff rich in nitrogen and phosphorus has created hundreds of dead zones in coastal waters around the world. And then there's the toll taken on the Earth from the sheer number of human beings we can now feed." https://phys.org/news/2014-06-humans-derailed-nitrogen-track...
"He concluded that 40 percent of the global population in 2000 were dependent on food production from synthetic fertilizers." https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-people-does-synthetic-fe...
I don't think telling the poor to have less children is very appropriate since the rich are the ones who pollute the most, even when they are environmentally-conscious. However, we should be aware that it is technology that is sustaining population growth, and that technology is emitting entropy into the systems life on earth depends on. It should be scaled back.
If by "we" you're referring to those like the parent comment (no pun intended) who aren't having children, it's presumably to help save the environment for those children that will grow up in the world that we leave behind.
If by "we" you're referring to a hypothetical scenario where the entire human species stops reproducing and hence ceases to exist, then I think you're in the wrong place because (as far as I'm aware) this is a discussion about actual people taking individual actions in the real world.
Why?
> I can't believe it's even entertained.
Why?
> I meant it in both ways.
As I implied above, the second situation is utter lunacy. This seems to be nothing more than concern trolling about the perils of underpopulation.
Who says? We can be anything we want to (within the laws of physics).
> We have an innate biological drive to reproduce and a core part of the human/animal experience.
True, but the existence of contraception, sterilisation, celibacy, etc. are all examples that such "innate biological drives" are pretty trivial to avoid.
> Its like asking people not to breathe or not to eat.
Breathing not so much, since it's automatic (with a manual override). Eating is comparable, and is also a drive that many people successfully override for rational reasons (AKA "a healthy diet", rather than the "innate biological drive" to eat as much fat and sugar as possible). It's also something that public health efforts are trying to help us cut down on.
You don't have kids because of the physical act. That's the how not the why.
I dunno, it's like life's main directive to reproduce, and not having children means than in 30 years we have a mostly aging population and no youngsters. And besides, there are people that already have kids and to those I say: cut back on mean and dairy.
Sure, but that's a very black-and-white take.
Firstly, those things aren't in opposition; it's trivial to advocate both.
Secondly, "telling someone that wants to have a kid that they shouldn't" is picking a losing battle. In many (most? all?) societies having children is effectively the default: choosing not to have kids is an explicit opt-out, that many people might not even consider. Lots of activities can help tip the scales a little, in a much more effective way, such as:
- Challenging everyday assumptions that everyone wants kids (e.g. if asked "when are you planning to have kids", pointing out that the "when" is presumptuous; or if asked "do you want a boy or a girl", what about "neither"; etc.)
- Sticking up for those who don't have/want kids, if getting pressured e.g. by their family (I get this a lot)
- Normalising childlessness in media by having more characters who just-so-happen to not want kids (often it's only ever mentioned in order to set up those characters to later either have kids, or express regret at not doing so; e.g. the Wilsons in the US Dennis the Menace come to mind)
- Promoting adoption and fostering, including possible changes to the rules. I've had many conversations where adoption is dismissed due to the difficulty of the process, which I can imagine is pushed more by the risk of (hopefully) rare abuses than by the reality of (unfortunately) common day-to-day struggles.
- Rebalancing the economics, to financially disincentivise having children (and certainly to avoid children being an income stream for prospective parents). Possibly have more existing support going directly to the children, e.g. via school-provided facilities, rather than as cash to parents.
- Increasing availability of contraception, and removal of associated myths/taboos (Thailand seems to be a good example here https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/6/10-010610/en ). Ideally reproduction would be opt-in (as with IUDs, for example): creating a human life is too important to happen "accidentally". Research and development of a male equivalent to the contraceptive pill would also be very important.
- Removing taboos around vasectomies and sterilisation. I've heard many stories of doctors refusing to carry out these procedures, or making patients jump through extraneous hoops to get it done (e.g. it's brought up a lot on https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree ). Here's another Thai example https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/12/06/Thailand-gives-free-...
- Encouraging closer-knit communities. Whilst technology like social media has made it easier to find and communicate with like-minded individuals, it also makes it easier to avoid human contact with those around us. For many, child-rearing instincts might be satisfied by helping to raise children who don't happen to share their genes. Perhaps technology could help with this, e.g. for organisation at a local level.
These are things off the top of my head. "Telling someone that wants to have a kid that they shouldn't" is a woefully simplistic dismissal.
Just watch them delete this post and ban me.
Interesting take. Does menstruation strike you as not fundamentally different from murder? Do you consider ejaculation to be fundamentally the same as genocide of hundreds of millions of living people?
> for whom are you even saving the environment, exactly? Obviously not your children, if you don't have any.
Presumably the billions of people who live, and will live, all over the Earth?
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm, trolling, or a genuine disregard for the lives of every who doesn't share 50% of your genes.