Maybe “push” was the wrong word to use, and this sentiment may well not be held by the majority, but there does seem, at least to me, to be a fairly pervasive idea in modern society that children are a liability and a burden to one’s own personal enjoyment, or seen as a liability to the planet (which is what started this conversation). The word “childfree,” which perfectly encapsulates that sentiment, has become a part of semi-mainstream vocabulary. And whether or not these ideas are held by the majority, I do believe they have real influence, as shown by declining birth rates.
At the end of the day though I realize I am probably not convincing anyone here of my opinion, and this conversation has gotten away from the original subject (partially/mostly my fault), so I will drop this subject
I haven’t noticed any societal push to avoid having children, but I’ve definitely noticed a pervasive idea based on a widely popular book of mythology that enjoins us to propagate early and often.
in Western lifestyles.
Better education of women. Better health and healthcare ( we eat our vitimultimins and don’t starve) Diet for the planet.
Given the large footprint of a ‘comfortable Western lifestyle’ - fewer children equals a smaller environmental impact. Which takes us straight back to the title of this topic,
Live simply, that others may simply live. I am a GINK. Green. No kids. But I do rely on some people to have some kids. Extinction Rebellion does not want to be forced to be the last generation as the baby boomers wreak havoc on their / our future.
Every country on Earth has declining birth rates.
Unless you include that country called Africa (also parts of Asia, South and Central America)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate
Every country has declining birth rates. Not all countries have a birth rate below the replacement rate, but all have declining birth rates.
I know I said I’d drop the subject, but one last thing to consider: environmentally-minded parents having kids and raising them to love nature could likely be better overall for the planet in the future than leaving the propagation of our species to those who couldn’t care less for the planet
I think that implying that
are somehow worse than the environmental impacts of Western countries is unfair.
Even though it is true that environmental regulation is often less restrictive in industrializing countries in the Global South than in countries traditionally considered part of ‘The West’, the impact caused by production in these countries is not just their own. After all, a lot of the products produced in the Global South are produced for Global North markets.
The high levels of consumption in ‘Western’ countries is at least partly (and I would argue mostly) responsible for the environmental impacts of production in ‘non-Western’ countries. Take an example like Texaco’s oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon: very simply put, a US corporation company comes into Ecuador, makes some investment deals with politicians to gain control over exploitiation rights, starts extracting oil for export to be consumed primarily in the US, and in the process ruins the local environment. Are these environmental impacts just Ecuador’s fault for not having enough (environmental and democratic) regulation to prevent this from happening, or is this impact to be attributed to the US for investing in this production process and consuming what is produced from it? Would this environmental devastation have happened at all if ‘Western’ countries weren’t so thirsty for oil in the first place?
It’s important to consider that this is not just a coincidence or a unique case, but that exporting the negative impacts of industrial production is by design. When governments are forced by their citizens to implement and enforce better local environmental protection, the prices of local production tend to increase. I agree with Seth that
but the reality is that this generally makes things more expensive. To make sure that the population can still consume the same amount of stuff, governments make trade deals with other countries so production can be off-shored to a country with less environmental protections in place. So, when a country implements new environmental regulations but does not alter its lifestyle and consumption habits, it tends to simply export/externalize its environmental impacts rather than truly protect the environment.
Is deforestation of the Amazon the responsibility of the Brazilian soy bean farmer who actually cuts down the forest? Is it the Brazilian government’s fault for not stopping the farmer from doing so fast enough? Is it the responsibility of the Dutch cattle farmer who feeds their cows those Brazilian soy beans? Is it the EU’s fault for allowing the Dutch farmer to import those beans from Brazil at a competitive rate? They probably all have some responsibility for the environmental harm that takes place, but it seems undeniable to me that the environmental impact in ‘non-Western’ countries is profoundly intertwined with the lifestyle of people in ‘Western’ countries.
EDIT: To conclude, improving environmental outcomes starts with consuming less, which should allow us to invest a little more (money or time) in more responsibly produced stuff.
Yes, as an expression of people’s own feelings and to push back against the existing pressure to have children (from family and society at large) that was absolutely pervasive until about 10 years ago.
Most people I know (I live in the US) have children. There’s no shortage of humanity for the foreseeable future. A 50% decline in the human population would only mean going back to where we were in 1975. It’s only a social problem because older people are able to work less but require more in health care etc.; by everything else but especially environmental measures a smaller population (at least back to 2–6 billion) would be better.
I agree. Eating local would include frozen food, though frozen produce is not really a thing here. (I suspect my refrigerator is smaller than many of the members’ though it is quite normal for here.)
It also includes products for the home, so we use laundry soap that originated in Chemax (same state about 3 hours away), for example, but is now fabricated here.
We are extremely intentional for the reasons I listed above.
The quinoa boom was therefore a welcome income boost to female farmers who had little in the way of alternative income sources.
… trade has resulted in a reduction of diversity of quinoa production into 20 or so improved varieties.
In the altiplano, subsistence farmers have cultivated up to 60 different varieties, which in future may offer a way to adapt to climate change.
And a similar story around rooibos (redbush) tea from the Western Cape.
Don’t worry. The way things are going, there would be no middle class left to overconsume.
That just means that the wealthy class will take over the former middle class’ overconsumption (in addition to their own overconsumption).
No they can’t. Even if they buy 100 cars, they can only drive one at a time. They won’t dine in 100 restaurants at the same time.
As a subatomic particle, I could do that. Quantum Superposition is fun!
(Joking pls dont actually do this if you don’t want to harm the planet)
Yes but Bezos fiance’s hen do.
11 minutes in outer space … how many restaurants, how many cars.
How many hens, sigh.
There used to be a great war every 30-60 years. Space exploration saved us from the one that was due 15 years ago: empires expanded upwards instead of sideways.
Digital empire, and warfare.
I think nukes and the threat of mutually assured destruction is likely the primary factor in why there hasn’t yet been a WW3 (as much as some politicians seem to want one)
it’s not the size of the population that matters exactly. it’s the overall consumption. six people living in 1000 sq ft structure walking to work and play probably consume less than 1 person living in a 5000 sq ft structure driving 50 miles a day and flying to distant locations occasionally, too.