
Women who refuse to have children until climate change ends - jogjayr
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/12/birthstrikers-meet-the-women-who-refuse-to-have-children-until-climate-change-ends
======
grayed-down
Well I suppose these goofy women won't be giving birth until the Earth ends.
Actually this is probably a wise decision on their part, but not for the
reason they believe.

~~~
NavyNuke
I was thinking the same thing...these people are doing the world a favor
though...skipping parenthood for a lame career/political cause will likely
lead to an unfulfilled and lonely life.

~~~
jogjayr
Three objectively wrong statements in that comment:

1\. Climate change isn't a "lame career/political cause". It's not like
they're putting off children until net neutrality is enshrined in the US
constitution. Climate change is an existential threat for large portions of
humanity. The scientific consensus on this is virtually unanimous. Until
serious, large-scale action against climate change is taken, fearing for the
future of any children one may have is perfectly rational, as is opting out of
having any.

2\. Not having biological children is not the same as skipping parenthood.
Adoption exists.

3\. Couples that don't have children out of choice are just as happy and
fulfilled as those who have them.

------
RikNieu
I'm not an academic but have started reading some climate related papers, and
from the little I've read, the future seems to be inevitably grim.

Especially the trends in recent methane readings up north and those indicating
fresh water aquifiers running dry world-wide.

Its made me reconsider whether I want children too.

~~~
grayed-down
C'mon. What if your future children want to live?

~~~
RikNieu
I just tried asking them, but got a ArgumentNullException...

------
dexen
I think the proper framework for considering morality of those choices should
take into account the history of childbirth and child rearing.

Right now we are mostly insulated from concerns of childhood mortality; there
is an extensive network of medical care and parental aides that made the
subject all but disappear [1]. In the present day a child dying is a freak
accident, something that happened years ago to a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-
friend. Even concerns of major birth defects aren't all that common.

However we the humans have biologically evolved, and our civilizations have
culturally evolved, in environment where childhood mortality was high, and
parents had only limited means of providing safety. Granted, the family
planning back then was also of lower availability and reliability back then
[3], to some extent muddying the waters here.

At any rate, I believe our moral choices should be informed by our
(humanity's) origins, and the way we have successfully overcame various
problems in the past. That includes considerations of bringing children to the
world when we know they could end up experiencing hardships and misfortunes,
or even that _they could possibly die one day_.

\--

[1] aside of miscarriage, which is a prevalent problem, but due to various
factors it _appears_ somewhat less impactful.

[2] herbal and mechanical anticonception was a thing for millenia now
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control)

------
Kaiyou
This is silly. They should have >20 children each until climate change ends.
It's the equivalent of suicide to get your way. Rather pointless.

------
lowdest
The world is guaranteed to be terrible if educated, moral people slowly die
off.

~~~
jogjayr
People who choose not to have their own children can still adopt and raise
educated, moral people.

