Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change | Hacker News Reader

Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change

theatlantic.com

If you live in a place like the US, in the context of world history there’s never been a safer time to have a child. These people need to turn off the news and take a walk.

> there’s never been a safer time to have a child.

Now.

The entire point is that people are afraid about the future.

Honestly, did you even read the article?

We need more data, but the silent generation did not seem to be that concerned during the cold war.

I think this article points to a culture shift and the success of liberal pro-choice propaganda if anything.

> but the silent generation did not seem to be that concerned during the cold war.

The silent generation didn't grow up expecting reproductive choices. And that's ignoring the fact that nuclear war was just theoretical. Catastrophic climate change is actually happening.

> the success for liberal pro-choice propaganda if anything.

Giving people access to birth control and condoms is propaganda?

> And that's ignoring the fact that nuclear war was just theoretical.

Not after Hiroshima, it wasn't.

I would say that the dread of nuclear war was greater than the dread of climate change. You think we could be hosed in 100 years? Thinking we could all be dead in 15 minutes is... different.

And the fear seemed more palpable at the time. I saw the way my dad moved when the Emergency Warning System came on the TV. He doesn't react like that to climate change warnings...

There's never been a more expensive time to have one either.

This resonates with me. I'm a Millenial(?[1]) and I've chosen not to have children on the basis of climate change.

Talk all you want about how climate change is not a personal issue -- the decision to have children (and how many) is the singlemost environmentally impactful decision you will ever have direct, personal agency in making. For me, it's practicing what I preach, because I view climate change as the most pressing existential threat to our species (albeit on a longer timescale than my own life).

I have other justificiations, too -- in terms of life priorities, I simply consider children as "nice to have". For someone on the fence like me, this is enough. If you disagree... more power to you! It's your decision to make, and I mean that earnestly.

[1]: Born 1996

> I'm a Millenial(? 1996)

These lines are by nature fuzzy and a bit arbitrary, but yeah just barely:

> In order to keep the Millennial generation analytically meaningful, and to begin looking at what might be unique about the next cohort, Pew Research Center decided [in 2018] to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials for our future work. Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 ... is considered a Millennial

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-mille...

It's your prerogative not to have children, but if you're doing it for the climate, just know that there's going to be plenty of others in developing countries that will more than offset your decision not to have kids.

> there's going to be plenty of others in developing countries that will more than offset your decision not to have kids.

First, this is at least racism-adjacent as far as I'm concerned.

Second, birth rates are declining throughout the world thanks to increased access to reproductive technology, improvements in income and quality of life, and increased urbanization:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-...

Nothing I said was racist. Many developing countries have a higher birth rate than the US, no one disputes this. You are the one brought that baggage to the conversation. Why? I don't know. Maybe you need to do some reflection on that.

Second, birth rates ...

Irrelevant to my point.

> Nothing I said was racist. Many developing countries have a higher birth rate than the US, no one disputes this.

The trope that folks in "developing" countries universally pop out huge numbers of kids sufficient to "more than offset your decision not to have kids" is just that, a trope, based on, generously, a paternalistic western view of the rest of the world that lacks any kind of nuance.

For example, China's birthrate is below replacement rate. Is China a "developing" nation in your mind?

What about India? Birthrates have also been dropping consistently, averaging around 2.5 children per couple, which is just a bit above replacement rate (2.1), and in many communities birth rates are actually below replacement:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-bel...

Sub-Saharan African birthrates are on average much higher but they've been plummeting for years and the trend is likely to continue:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

All of this reflects a global crash in fertility rates:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

> Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 - and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.

Frankly, you might want to reflect on why you hold on to these outdated beliefs about the "developing" world.

For example, China's birthrate is below replacement rate. Is China a "developing" nation in your mind?

That's why I said many, not all.

paternalistic western view of the rest of the world that lacks any kind of nuance

To reiterate again: there's nothing racist about the fact that many "developing" countries have higher birthrates than the West. Post all the statistics you want about them leveling off: right now in 2021, many are still higher than the West. You are saying it's "paternalistic". You are senselessly bringing in this irrelevant context. If I had to guess, it's because you feel the need to inject politics into conversations so you can argue in bad faith.

The term "developing countries" is a commonly used phrase; the UN uses it. Go complain to them if it's so racist.

They will have those children regardless of OP's choices.

I know, which is precisely why declaring one is not going to have kids because of "the climate" is nonsensical.

I disagree. You might think "gee, why should I do anything to help when no one else is?", but some of us have different philosophies.

If your marginal, insignificant impact on the climate is enough to prevent you from having kids, then you probably never really wanted them anyways. It scares me that people seriously suggest giving up children “for the greater good.”

Raising a child is the most meaningful experience in most people’s lives. Why should anybody give up kids but keep their iPhones, AC, avocados, and software engineering jobs?

You might feel differently when you’re older.

> If your marginal, insignificant impact on the climate is enough to prevent you from having kids, then you probably never really wanted them anyways.

Or they have different values than you. Shocking, right?

> Why should anybody give up kids but keep their iPhones, AC, avocados, and software engineering jobs?

> You might feel differently when you’re older.

Ahh, there it is. That moral superiority that oh-so-often exudes from folks with kids criticizing folks who don't want them.

I'm 42. Married almost 20 years. No kids. Still no desire to have them. Amazing, right?

Suggestion: Don't talk down to people about their reproductive choices. You might not agree with folks but you're no one's moral superior.

Maybe I've come off the wrong way here. I do not believe that either party can claim the moral high ground for their decision on raising children.

I DO however, get annoyed when I see people present themselves as some kind of martyr simply for being child free. Those same folks on this forum gladly spew out carbon in pursuit of building a new ML model, cryptocurrency, or unnecessary startup cash-grab.

> I'm 42. Married almost 20 years. No kids. Still no desire to have them. Amazing, right?

> Suggestion: Don't talk down to people about their reproductive choices. You might not agree with folks but you're no one's moral superior.

For the record, I am 26 and have also have no children. Your suggestion is exactly my point. Seems like we have some common ground!

> Maybe I've come off the wrong way here. I do not believe that either party can claim the moral high ground for their decision on raising children.

And the difference is the OP literally was just talking about themselves and their own choices. Go read their comment. They even went out of their way to say "For me, it's practicing what I preach, because I view climate change as the most pressing existential threat to our species" and finished their comment by stating "If you disagree... more power to you! It's your decision to make, and I mean that earnestly."

Never once do they deign to make moral statements about anyone else. It's purely about their decision and why they've made it.

The only way to take offense to that is to look for it.

You, by contrast, proceeded to attack the person's beliefs, going so far as to say of their desire to have children: "you probably never really wanted them anyways."

As for this...

> For the record, I am 26

I'd wait until at least your 30s before you start telling people what they might or might not feel when they get older...

> Never once do they deign to make moral statements about anyone else. It's purely about their decision and why they've made it.

I just straight up disagree here. The implication here is that they're making a significant personal sacrifice in an attempt to save the earth. In reality, they already don't want children and this is a convenient way to present themselves in a positive moral light. You're leaving out the part where OP says he doesn't really want kids that much.

"I have other justificiations, too -- in terms of life priorities, I simply consider children as "nice to have". For someone on the fence like me, this is enough."

This is pretty far away from someone who wants to start a family. Children are just "nice to have?"

> The only way to take offense to that is to look for it.

You could say the same thing about my response to OP.

Choosing not to have kids is still an uncommon stance. Are they really presenting themselves as martyrs, or just trying to normalise an unpopular idea that has merits? Is it helpful to dismiss them like that? Maybe they're not the same ones doing high carbon pursuits?

If it's really not a big deal, then we can just accept others' differences without getting annoyed.

> Maybe they're not the same ones doing high carbon pursuits?

It's possible but I seriously doubt it. Just being on this forum tells me that OP has likely emitted more carbon than almost every other human in the history of our species. The startup space openly celebrates carbon intensive profit chasing behavior.

How can we have it both ways? We've gotta reduce our personal carbon footprint but also let's create tech startups to get rich. It's just a bit silly imo.

Yes you are right. But so have the majority of people alive today with phones connected to the Internet. It's hard to be perfect in today's world.

Unnecessary startup cash-grabs are no good indeed. Maybe one day they'll see it your way and abandon high-carbon pursuits. But for now if they're taking steps towards being sustainable, then let's encourage them.

A drop of rain is small indeed, but many drops can fill oceans.

It is scary indeed, to think we can't help raise children unless we give birth to them ourselves, while ignoring millions of struggling kids today. Why can't we love them as our own? Ultimately, we all come from the same source [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Thanks for the flowery language master Yoda.

I am in no way advocating against adopting children. That is a wonderful thing to do for another human being. It has very little to do with climate change and surely you understood that the original comment was discussing having no kids at all.

The carbon footprint of your child is there whether or not you adopt it.

Welcome, you are.

Highly religious people like Mormons and Amish have 3 kids on average, same for highly religious societies in Africa and Asia. Fun times ahead. Ironically from a darwinian point of view religion is a great adaptation for fitness

Healthy attitudes are the ones that promote life and human flourishing, period.

By definition, nature always purges unhealthy attitudes from the gene pool. And the biggest threat to health in the modern era is not global warming, but people becoming hysterically moralistic about what are complex issues that we have little understanding of. Every purchase, every job, every interaction is judged on some creepy moralistic lense by those who would make the Spanish inquisition look nuanced in contrast to their own nursery-rhyme fanaticism.

Some have become so absolutely certain of their own self-righteous stance to the point of sabotaging themselves and removing themselves from the gene pool. Thank goodness we will be rid of these attitudes in a few generations, and through no violence on the part of the sane. We can simply let them line up and drink the koolaid while the rest of us go about our pragmatic lives, living humbly in understanding that we don't really know what is right or wrong unless it has been proven to promote human flourishing over hundreds of generations. Everything else is speculative and prone to error.

Note that this is not to say people shouldn't be concerned, from a technical or engineering point of view, with various problems facing us, but when you cross the line to turning everything into a hysterical moral stance, that's when knowledge turns into blind faith and becomes toxic.

Reminds me of the intro to Idiocracy...

I'm not having kids because it's too expensive. Nursery costs near me in London are approximately £18k/year per child.

Basically it comes down to choosing between buying a house and having a kid.

What??? You could send them to a private secondary school for that.

Indeed. It's almost cheaper to buy a slightly larger house and get an au pair.

> Basically it comes down to choosing between buying a house and having a kid.

If you already had a kid but everything else in your life was the same, what would you do?

I don't know. It's not something I've ever given too much thought to because it's too expensive to realistically consider.

> it's too expensive to realistically consider

Too expensive under what constraints and how impossible is violating those constraints? For instance, does the UK have cheaper areas to live with childcare costs in-line with incomes? Can you or the other parent take a career holiday to look after the children? Your lifestyle expenses are so reduced you have no room to make savings and apply it to your child?

Too expensive compared to what I am willing to spend, so it doesn't warrant any further consideration.

There's simply no situation where the opportunity cost and actual costs of a child through ages 0 to 18 are anywhere near what I am willing to spend, no matter where I live in the UK. I don't want to move or impact my (or my partner's) career to that extent.

Thinking any more about it would be like me trying to decide which Tesla I would want when I wouldn't even be willing to spend the money for a Toyota Yaris.

> There's simply no situation where the opportunity cost and actual costs of a child through ages 0 to 18 are anywhere near what I am willing to spend

You’ve moved from language implying insurmountable expense to admitting that you’re unwilling to tolerate that expense. The vast majority of the use of money to justify no children when you scratch the surface are really hiding the preference for status and lifestyle, at least on this site. I’m quite passionate about eliminating the real hardships that do put economic barriers in the way of children because it has become a major global problem.

I didn't ever say it was insurmountable, I said it was too expensive. Obviously poor unemployed people manage to have kids so it's possible, but the costs are too high for me.

I don't consider it a realistic prospect to find a new job in another part of the country and have my partner leave her career just to have a kid. If that's the choice, we're not having kids - they're not worth it.

I can't knock some individual's decision, it is theirs alone to make, but the decision-making process strikes me as so extremely odd that it is hard to relate, and it's very difficult to believe that this is really about climate.

It is almost in some sense insulting to one's ancestors, who traveled over glacial passes in search of the next 8,000lb mammal to eat. What would they think of these environmental setbacks as a reason to lay down your future? I am reminded of W.H. Auden's poem, Ode to the Medieval Poets, which opens:

    Chaucer, Langland, Douglas, Dunbar, with all your
    brother Anons, how on earth did you ever manage,
       without anaesthetics or plumbing,
       in daily peril from witches, warlocks,
 
    lepers, The Holy Office, foreign mercenaries
    burning as they came, to write so cheerfully,
       with no grimaces of self-pathos...

Something just seems deeply off about the modern pessimism, and it definitely did not start with climate. Climate seems like a salient thing for people to point to, but something that is merely salient in this rhetorical way. Even the people in this thread saying that this resonates with them mention that climate is just one of an array of reasons for them. It's not like, after all, birth rates plummeting below replacement for many populations had anything to do with climate reasons until very, very recently. I think we need to look a little deeper than that.

(full text of that poem: https://simonsarris.com/ode-to-the-Medieval-Poets)

Hard to relate to you, but you can try to understand.

Insulting to our ancestors? Is it really, if one's making this decision for the love of all life on Earth, wishing to reduce harm and suffering caused by our unsustainable way of life?

Pessimism. Optimism. About the climate. Not about the climate. Deeply off or deeply on. We can do psychoanalysis all day, but reasons for declining birth rates are well-researched. The world is not running out of humans anytime soon, while nature and other living beings could use our help (or lack of harmful actions) now. So let's do that.

So apparently it's not all Millennials but mostly millennials in industrialized countries who are fretting. Millennials in places which would suffer the brunt, if projections are correct, are having babies!

Because this is the angsty hand-wringing of people with enough time and money to actually sit and make up problems (not saying climate change is made up, just the idea that it’s the biggest worry when it comes to having a child).

Have you considered that people with time and money also might be better educated and have time to actually research and think things through?

Haven't read it, but Gunter Grass wrote a novel, Headbirths: Or, the Germans Are Dying Off.

The boomers didn't have babies because of Vietnam (at least once that didn't work for deferments), ecology, what have you. Then they did.

Probably a good thing. It's industrial & post-industrial babies that produce most of the climatic impacts anyway. The carbon footprint of a western baby is several times higher than that of someone born in a developing country.

The more we breed, the more they die.

So if it's going to be cataclysmic or there is going to be suffering due to climate change, who is better prepared to soften the consequences?

Or, if being a developing country is "better" for climate change, would it make sense for industrialized countries to become "developing" countries?

What's especially stupid about this is that almost nobody knows that we have a quite workable backup plan (solar geoengineering). It's not ideal but at some point it will have to be deployed. It'll be relatively cost effective and can be 'tuned' quite easily.

Solar geoengineering isn't a solution for ocean acidification, and once we start we have to keep doing it until we figure out carbon sequestration.

Yes injecting more things into the atmosphere—what could go wrong!

The best lies contain some element of truth, for they need to be believable

Instagram...Today's tech industry & social media has exacerbated corporations' ability to brainwash the masses

We don't know if this is another marketing stunt/scam like recycling, sugar vs. fat, diamonds, bottled water, milk, etc.

Climate change might be true, but it is those who use it for personal gain that twist truths to their advantage. Think of Elon Musk, crypto, pro-choice... that use social media pervasively to shape the narrative.

Be very careful of these invisible forces that affect our behaviors unconsciously. Always search for truth, be a critical thinker.

1. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

2. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eIDBV4Mpek

4. https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...

Who's benefiting from less kids?

We don't know for sure, but the article seems to have some clues.

> Green: But are there shared characteristics along lines of education? Do people share a certain progressive political outlook?

> Kallman: They tend to be at least college-educated. And they tend to be, certainly, pro-choice. For the most part, they’re on the left of the political spectrum. They’re certainly, on the whole, younger. Our house parties have been not exclusively white, but they’re pretty white.

Maybe a pro-choice political propaganda. Wild guess: Planned Parenthood? With marketing, everything is on sale.

Anyone who sincerely believes any story starting with "$Group not $X because $Y" is part of the problem.

What problem do you think they're part of?

I have a better idea. Millenials should get 1-3 babies (median 2) because then mostly people mankind needs (sustainability aware people) get the babies, and teach them good ethics. Instead science deniers should not be convinced to vaccinate, so they and their surroundings die out mid term when corvid or the next pandemic reaches them.

Are you really suggesting that you want everyone with different political beliefs than yourself to all die?

No. That's not what the letters say there. Even here you try straw man arguments. I was talking about science deniers. And about the world needing less of them instead of less people in general.

Actually reading again, sounds like you exacly know who in your country are science deniers.

He’s one of the good people who can tell us the right way to do things. Never mind the 150k vaccine deaths.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Hitchens's razor

Now apply that to long term vaccine safety.

Ooh hitchens is fun when his logic goes against theistic religion. Not so enjoyed when it works against the modern religion of scientism.

Compare long term vaccine safety to long-lasting after-effects of covid-19.

How? There’s no data

How did they miss the increased mortality during he vaccine testing period? Sample size too small for representative casualties, or organized cover up?

150k vaccine deaths? Source please.

I added a source but hacker news isn’t fond of analysis or thinking in regards to political issues; it was flagged.

I saw your link...I would like an explanation for why it was flagged and removed.

It's because it's nonsense. ~200M Americans have received a COVID vaccine. Some of those people died afterwards. Correlation does not imply causation.

There is plenty of nonsense on HN. I'd like to evaluate it for myself.

It might be getting flagged because the author of the PDF started out openly with the objective of linking deaths to vaccines. That or that it's not an objective document, it reads like a hit piece on vaccines with shaky evidence and random unsourced testimonials.

When you read PDF with that in mind, the author's repeated pointing to the massive jump in unverified self-report stats on VAERS (right after the president of the United States cast aspersions on vaccinations to boot) doesn't really feel that compelling.

So what? It’s asserting an analysis that the vaccine is killing people.

Doctors have an obligation to report adverse events on VAERS, which they don’t actually seem to be doing very frequently as far as reactions are seen.

Really? Let me try

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-deaths/fact-...

That's not the link that GP tried to post.

[flagged]

We've banned this account for using HN for political/ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you favor, because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for, i.e. curious and thoughtful conversation. Political battle is the opposite of that.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future, but please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com