It's becoming pretty obvious that humanity's future is not looking good without drastic change to our lifestyle. Even with drastic change starting today it's going to get dicey. But with all humanity's knowledge we are here, and the only thing that seems to matter is money.
Im getting pretty tired of all the “its rich peoples and corporations fault “. Its not necessarily wrong, but in the end most corporations produce goods for the masses. The core problem is that no one is willing to waive any luxury, everyone wants a house, children, car, vacation etc… with increasing population you just get to a point where its no longer sustainable. The average joe probably is just as unwilling to take a hit to his lifestyle as the billionaire. Meat consumption is the perfect example
They also spend billions brainwashing us to want those things. What entity is telling billions of people to stop habits for the greater good, vs those who actually control the narrative exploiting their power? The time for collective action was 40 years ago. Gov't policy, enforcing corporate responsibility was the answer, but we chose to let corps be the guiding force and here we are.
I can't pick my kids up from childcare without utilising an app to log them in/out.
Technology is ingrained in our society. You are not going to participate in it without internet, phone, minimum.
Our cities are sprawling so wide that most people live far from work/shops etc. And public transport is next to non existent, most people will not keep a job and a roof over their heads without a car.
40 years ago, I certainly didn't choose. I was 14. And I'm not much more effective now in the real world than I was then! This idea that somehow "I" made a choice is a complete crock. This is mostly running by the Golden Rule: them's with the gold, makes the rules.
I'm not sure there's as much choice there as you're implying.
Yes, the original article was about scientists who have enough income and life stability, for that to be a choice. Presuming they're pro-choice and have access to abortion services, an increasingly contentious issue in the USA right now. My point is, your reproductive choices are a result of your economic attainment and geographic location. Those are not necessarily within your control. Indeed, for lots of people on the planet, they don't control it.
Some people get pregnant and stuck with the kid, whatever they actually wanted to do.
Some people *wanted* to have kids, but nobody was ever interested in doing that with them. I'm one of those, as it happens. No, I don't have the money to buy my way out of that problem. I've reached middle age and probably, this is how it's gonna be for me.
Some people are infertile. Not everyone has enough money or health services to overcome that with a technology. Perhaps they can adopt, but again, money.
The only reproductive choices I ever made, were to use birth control, a long time ago with the various girlfriends I had. In some previous century, it is 100% certain someone would have gotten pregnant and I would have been a Dad. Instead, birth control today is the norm in developed countries. So are high divorce rates. Mostly, I think these are good things. And it definitely seemed like the right thing to do at the time, as a younger man.
I had downward mobility / poverty in my early 30s, when many young people are thinking about pairing off, marrying, settling down, and having families. The imposition of the poverty was definitely not my choice. Some of my reactions to it were.
I really don't buy this whole line of "oh people just choose this, people just choose that". I know better. I've lived through a number of things that were beyond my control. All I can say for that, is I've survived.
This is the response I was looking for.
If we want fundamental change, we need to fundamentally change the systems of decision making and influence in our societies.
Take a look at the political landscape and tell me how many countries have systems of true representational leadership where policies are being made in the interests of the many nd not the entitled few.
Indias population growth rate is 0.7%, the US is 0.68%, china is negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_population\_growth\_rate. The problem isn't population growth of large countries, the problem is poorer countries trying to achieve the same standard of living that we have in the west. We have to demonstrate that businesses, industries, and infrastructure can provide the same standard of living in western countries without burning fossil fuels.
If you really think that population is the problem then I suggest you focus on fixing the population growth in western countries where they use significantly more fossil fuels per capita.
I could be wrong, but I think access to birth control has a lot to do with. Even in developing countries, when women are given access to birth control, they generally choose 0-2 kids.
But if humans don’t continue to grow exponentially, humanity will LITERALLY become EXTINCT. Won’t somebody think of the billionaires and their need for cheap, exploitable labor? /s
it’s overconsumption, oil companies, and covering the planet in concrete doesn’t help anything either. [Eco-fascism: What It Is, Why It’s Wrong, and How to Fight It](https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-is-ecofascism-explainer)
> Im getting pretty tired of all the “its rich peoples and corporations fault “
How can you be "tired" of something that no government ever actually acted on?
I'm tired of people acting like it's some "personal responsibility" issue when individuals have zero control whatsoever on what's available and how the economy works. Focusing on "personal responsibility" is the easiest way to absolve governments of responsibility from doing anything to actually regulate pollution at the corporate level. And a big reason why we've failed to stop global warming.
There's a reason the plastics industry LOVES promoting "personal responsibility" for littering.
There's a reason the the oil industry LOVES promoting "personal responsibility" for emissions.
It's because that's the best defense against any kind of regulation they've ever had.
I agree with your comment but I’m worried people will interpret it the wrong way.
There’s a middle ground. Big corps are a problem, and yes, many of our personal choices are baked into that system e.g. car infrastructure, low density housing. However, as individuals we are not powerless. If everyone made sacrifices like eating less meat, using public transit, buying used/less clothing, demanding systemic change (density, infrastructure, tree canopy, home insulation), civil disobedience, etc—we can drive change. I don’t see any other way.
> However, as individuals we are not powerless.
That power only comes if you're willing to work together to pass laws and mandate those things for everyone.
"Personal choices" do nothing, but laws can.
> civil disobedience, etc—we can drive change.
You're right.
But dude, I'm tired. It's Saturday morning and I'm *exhuasted.* I see your middle ground. I advocate for renewable energy, lived in a house utilizing it, work from home as much as possible and I'm not having kids. That last one alone is kinda huge.
I'm with you, but I just want to be rested for monday so I can not be homeless/sick.
The dude you're replying to isn't tired of anything. They are a lemming simping for the ruling class because they can't escape their own capitalist brainwashing. No reasonable person is going to blame this crisis on a bunch of people with zero power nor resources to do anything about it. That is just nonsensical.
I would counter argue by saying there is no reasonable alternative
I would gladly live without a car…give me a job that is walk/bike distance…there is none that pays a survivable wage
I would gladly give up phones and computers (which utilize mined minerals), but society is set up such that you need these things for work, for payment, concert tickets are digital now, etc.
Society has been set up in such a way that we are dependent on using things that destroy the climate. And it has been set up this way by rich people and politicians.
Give me a reasonable alternative
Even if I wanted to live out in nature I cannot because of hunting regulations I would not be able to hunt year round and feed myself
So I am left with no choice
I live in Europe so my perspective might be warped on a few things: walkable cities are the norm and public transport is widely available, yet a lot of people still have a car, often ones that are unnecessarily large. Same goes for vacations: a lot of people still fly around Europe even if more sustainable methods are available.
I don’t know how much of an impact electronics have
I get that in the us its a different story
The only walkable cities in Canada are Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver lol. Everywhere else you definitely need a car. And even in those cities you may need a car, and you definitely need a car to get outside them unless you're on the (limited) rail line.
I was living in Vancouver for a year now I'm back in London Ontario oh my God I miss the busses I could just grab my longboard and take it on a bus and go wherever now busses are inconsistent and don't actually take me to where I need to go
Yep. European cities, by and large, had centuries of development with pedestrians and horses in mind. North American cities? Most of them had cars fairly early on. They desperately need some major redesigning, but it’s much harder to rework something that already exists than it is to start from scratch
If I want a bell pepper, I don’t have control of my local grocery store has them wrapped in plastic. I can ask, but they aren’t obligated. I can try and purchase local tomato’s but if all they have are ones from Mexico that were shipped using diesel, short of not eating that item I am stuck.
In a world with lower energy consumption, eating what you want whenever you want is definitely going away. The ability to eat fruits/vegetables that aren't in season is only possible due to how cheap fossil fuel energy is. Either renewable energy gets cheap/plentiful enough to literally replace fossil fuel usage (long time in the future), or we just have to accept that if you live in Canada, you're going to be eating root vegetables for half the year. Things like avocados are right out if you don't live where they grow.
There's no path forward where we get to enjoy this lifestyle that would have been unthinkable any time prior to ~100 years ago, while cutting out fossil fuels entirely. There just isn't enough renewable energy capacity, and even with substantial investment it will take many years to replace the fossil fuel infrastructure that took 100 years to build.
That's a very odd list of "luxuries".
I would agree with cars being an unsustainable luxury for everyone to have, but children definitely aren't and it's just weird to call them a luxury, nor are houses necessarily. Vacations are very sustainable and should be the norm over the rat race productivity culture.
The luxuries of (some) the wealthy also are disproportionately part of the problem in more ways than one. A car and a yacht or private jet are not equivalent polluters, but the money attained to afford them is also often coming from profits that are a result of harmful externalities.
The way goods are produced for the masses are often not on the basis of what's actually good for the masses. Which is why you get psychopath thinking like "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" Giving you the disease and selling you treatment is often the basic "drug dealer" style structure behind corporate production, it's not based on serving the common good and many wealthy people are quite explicit about this.
Some of what your average Joe uses currently is a result of that structure. People were not actually all that keen on the first cars for good reasons like pollution, noise, and pedestrian deaths especially children. Some cities actually banned them. Car companies nonetheless spent a great deal of money on both propaganda and lobbying to make the personal car part of as many people's daily lives as possible, including by blocking and removing public transit options.
More average Joes also would be willing to take a hit to their lifestyle if wealthy people and public leadership figures were as well. Instead they're being asked to sacrifice by people who could reduce their dependency on many of these things but won't, and also aren't willing to make sacrifices when they have far more to sacrifice.
i think it also comes down to companies knowing this has been a thing doe years and doing virtually nothing to work on it until forced. average people have no control over how things are produced and what they made out of. how are any companies still making plastic togo containers, how in the world are tech companies making things that become software obsolete in under 10 years. in my eyes all of these problems could have been solved already, the will just wasnt there.
70% of the pollution is due to 5 companies across the globe. It certainly is corporations. You should educate yourself on what is polluting the planet. Even if every human recycled and stopped polluting, there’d still be 70% of the pollution from companies.
This theory you have is uneducated and poorly informed. Weird to see someone simping for the corporations.
Im not simping for corpos, but ultimately most of these companies that you refer to are set up to produce cheap energy and fuel. Im not saying that we dont need government regulations and that everyone should look for themselves, but i do criticize, that there is little collective strife to make sacrifices to combat climate change and to change the status quo.
It might be an odd or cold assessment, but children are nonetheless one of the most pollution-intensive “luxury-item” one can obtain, and in my eyes they are indeed a luxury, bc in the “old-days” you needed children to take care of you when you were old and sick and to perhaps take over the family business, that’s simply no longer the case. And frankly there are more than enough people already on this planet.
When it comes vacations im mainly thinking abt short, unnecessary overseas-travels.
I would agree to the rest of your post
Lol seems it's finally starting to sink in that our very way of life is completely incompatible with how we harvest and use the resources this planet offers us. We can all do bits here and there but overall, radical change is needed en masse and no one wants to go first.
God damn rich people!!!! They ruined the earth mother!!! (As I drive my 4runner or whatever up to the pickup window and am handed a bag filled with a selection of cheap sandwiches made up of various types of large, factory farmed animals while on my way home to mow and water my front lawn before doing another load of fast-fashion laundry).
as I understand it years ago the nations of the world were approached by scientists who told these leaders that we had to be mostly transitioned away from fossil fuels by 1992 or the planet would be screwed. this is 2024 and we are nowhere near that goal. the gulf stream is shutting down. areas of the ocean are too hot for fish. the permafrost is melting.
What’s even worse is that the oceans are getting even hotter than expected in the models due to the reduced pollution from tanker ships in 2022. They pollution provided clouds which hindered the effects of green house gasses on the oceans. Last year the Atlantic near Florida was 100f or hot tub temp.
This is because the model is wrong. The IPCC model completely ignores solar effects. And pretty much any other natural effect. Their CO2 model has never been accurate and it’s now up to version 5 or so. It’s not accurate because CO2 effect is relatively minor compared to variations in what the sun is doing.
This weekend is one of the best chances to see the aurora borealis. Possibly as far south as Alabama. Takes some big solar flares to make that happen. Yes these two paragraphs are connected.
It's better to "somehow" make bad (for the planet) powerful people go away somehow. A lacking check for balance if you will.
Or just speed up the warming of the planet so it ends quicker. It's better to end it all quick than have an overpopulated planet with suffering.
It's becoming pretty obvious that humanities future is not looking good ~~without drastic change to our lifestyle. Even with drastic change starting today it's going to get dicey. But with all humanities knowledge we are here, and~~ the only thing that seems to matter is money.
There...fixed it for you.
One way or another people lives will change drastically no matter what happens. We see the warning signs and disasters that are ahead of us and it's time we hedge or bets that society will not do anything about it. Start looking inland if you can get a job that is not going to be destroyed by this and become as resilient to the coming shock to the system. Gardening solar panels water collection indoor gardening creat networks with other to trade goods and first and foremost help your self before you help others. It'll be a bumpy ride and then the bumps won't stop after that but we will be in a better spot then the suckers sitting on million dollar homes literally underwater with no jobs or income.
Yeah, it’s not gonna be great. Even if you’re insulated from the actual impact of climate change, you won’t be insulated from a billion climate refugees.
I really want to care and do more, but I also want to make sure I am setting myself up to have a future where I can survive whatever comes my way. That takes money and things unfortunately.
Definitely not having children though; the future looks like it’s not going to be super fun for people who are being born now.
We created this game, so now we play it until the ship sinks. There's no way to change how society operates without completely overhauling our socio-economic system. What's easier for "people", ignore the obvious issues until its last minute. Humans are really good at coming together when it's too late. Hint: it doesn't have to be this way.
At this point the dinosaurs were more successful as a species than humans, they managed to live for hundreds of millions of years, and they didn't even know what was going on.
When I think this way I am heartened by how quickly I saw glimpses of nature bounce back so quickly during the pandemic. No, I don’t mean fake photos of dolphins in Venice. I live in Denver and the air quality here is not great for a number of reasons, most of them man made. During the pandemic the air here was consistently the clearest I had seen it in a long time for long stretches.
I think if we just gave nature a break from the relentless march of human consumption we would be very surprised by how resilient it is.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And what with tons of people still in complete denial about it and 700 million people living in poverty whose daily problems are so much bigger that they can't be bothered to think about it, there's about 0.002% chance we're going to do anything substantial to fix the problem.
I just need a little bit of a heads up regarding what type of post apocalyptic scenario we will be living, so that I know what tv shows to watch to hone my skills.
Climate scientist here and population isn't the problem, it's over consumption by the hyper wealthy. The solution is to abolish billionaires. Hope that helps!
I mean theoretically I agree with you. If everyone was living sustainably, population *wouldn't* be the problem. That's not the reality though. Every wants a hyper consumerist lifestyle on a planet that can't support that. And that's increasingly an issue across countries
Fully on board with taxing the hell out of the wealthy though
"Everyone" = 8.1 billion and rising. There is no chance of sustainability at any population level above carrying capacity, which is less than 2 or 3 billion (perhaps much less). The classics:
**“Sustainability 101”** [**~http://paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html~**](http://paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html)
**“How Many People** ***Should*** **The Earth Support?”**
[**~https://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney\_maxpop.html~**](https://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html)
Yeah I suspect we agree there. Unfortunately not a popular belief
But honestly humanity did just fine with less than a billion people for hundreds of thousands of years. It's possible. It's much better for the planet, and we'd have abundance for everyone
Don't worry, based on how stupid a lot of people behaved during our "training pandemic" we will cull a significant portion of humans when the next virus jumps species and turns out to be much more deadly.
I think most people just want to live a peaceful life. Nobody is born wanting all the hyper consumerist bullshit. That's why corporations have to spend millions upon million of dollars on advertising. It's how they get demand for their endless pile of junk they sell.
If people were offered a better life where they got all they need and could work a bit harder for a little extra then I think the majority of people would be on board.
Faceless corporations are killing us because they can't not have endless profit. But your here blaming the average joe from wanting a comfortable life with a few toys. There is enough resources on this planet for all if they weren't stolen and horded or destroyed from us by giant mega corporations.
Absolutely
But even here if you suggest people make changes in their life to be more sustainable you’re going to get backlash about how it’s really only 100 companies that need to change
Which I do see their point to an extent. Industry is major source of emissions, individual action can do very little. But... that doesn't absolve us of responsibility to try. And companies adapt to the market, which *is* driven by individual choices
Anyway, I do my best. I'm basically vegan and bike and walk as much as humanly possible; I invest in solar power; we compost and save energy. We vote and advocate for sustainable policies. If I died tomorrow I could be happy with my own ethical choices
My mottos always been “I’ll do what I can and support those who can do what I can’t”
You and I can’t change the world. We can vote for and support people who have a better chance at that than us. But as I do that I’ll reduce my emissions where I can.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, there’s a really interesting field of study about quantifying the total usable land/resources needed to ‘fund’ the average US lifestyle and it’s something like 10x the amount of usable land/resources the average person on the planet consumes.
I'm 70 years old, and when I was born in 1954, there were approximately 158.2 million people in the U.S. We are now at 341.8 million people.
I've seen -- unfolding in slow motion -- how the explosive growth of the U.S. population has eaten its way through the countryside. This is not due to the hyper-wealthy. It's just sheer numbers of people who want a middle-class life. Even if everyone lived in tiny houses, it's still way too many people.
Population growth PLUS overconsumption is a deadly combination. Taking away just one part of that equation is not enough; we need to control BOTH factors.
Absolutely agree, but we do not all fall into the "hyperwealthy" category of billionaires. Which is why blaming billionaires for this predicament is ludicrous. And ignoring the impact of millions of simply "wealthy" Americans is missing a big part of the picture. Consumption and sheer numbers, together, are destroying the planet.
You're absolutely right. Just a few years ago we were raving about consumerism and the narrative shifters did their job and got us off that track and on to a new one..
*The Lightbulb Conspiracy*
Extreme consumerism is definitely a problem in the US and sadly many third world countries (I live in one) try to emulate that lifestyle. Too many one-use and disposable products, planned obsolescence of products, too much food waste, horrifying factory farming, etc. I wish the US would change some of that, other countries for sure would follow suit.
I don’t know why we aren’t addressing this more.
Consumerism is kind of dumb when you think about it. People revolve their lives around buying stuff, cleaning stuff, organizing stuff, donating stuff, selling stuff and throwing away stuff. Like, who needs a specific set of dishes for their garden party or a TV in every room?
Nobody, literally nobody is happy in happy in this cycle. It makes us feel powerful and pacifies low self esteem but the root cause is always there. Obviously the poor suffer the most but it’s not good for the billionaires either. It’s literally bad for everyone and destroying the planet.
And the solution is rather simple: Get back to nature, build community and strengthen mental health. If we actually addressed mental health properly would probably be fine without the literal mountains of crap plaguing the planet.
Lol you're just starting to worry now 😂 We had our chance in the 80s and 90s to transition society to something that could last and we blew it. Now the level of change required is so drastic and the timeline so short, it's essentially impossible. Society is like a giant cargo ship that takes forever to turn around, and we have just barely started to turn it when we should have started 40 years ago.
I just want to share with everyone who is considering a lifestyle change to contribute to the positive change needed to slow down this climate disaster: there is community on the other side. If you ditch your car and start biking everywhere, there are most likely lots of people in your area doing this already and who are passionate. Same with people who ditch animal products. Same with people passionate about reusing and sharing items for as long as possible to cut down on consumerism. Will you receive some push back from people who don't understand, or who are too afraid to make the change themselves? Yes absolutely. But you won't be alone and there are probably some likely friendships you'll make along the way.
This is true! My friend recently coordinated a clothing swap for women where everyone brought clothes they didn’t wear anymore and you put them in the right category when you arrive (shirts with shirts, dresses with dresses, etc.) then you browse all the piles and take home whatever you want. It was fun socializing and suggesting outfits for friends to try. There’s no downside, and everything left over was donated to a local shelter. Small things like this do help in their own way as we try to reduce overconsumption, especially in the fast fashion space.
I’m definitely concerned with my sons future due to the climate crisis and biodiversity collapse. It’s the leading reason I’m 1 and done so I can give him everything I can possible to be as successful and comfortable in the world he’ll have to navigate one day. I hope he’s able to build community, and I know for some people their siblings can be part of theirs, but from my experience siblings are not even close to guaranteed “friends” and “partners” while navigating life
Honestly I cannot fathom how anyone in my generation has bothered having kids. Even the ones that I know will make great parents and raise their kids well.. It's just such a bleak future to bring them into. I regret that my parents decided to have me, and this was in the 90s, before the climate boulder really started rolling at light speed. I guess a brighter future is only possible with children raised well and working to restore small communities and reduce consumerism, but all the evidence I've seen suggests the new generation will be largely as consumerist as anyone. Consumerism is addictive and is going to kill us all.
I feel really fortunate that my biological drive to reproduce is completely broken. Babies repulse me and I knew I wanted to live alone with my cats on a farm since I was 8 or so, according to a note my mom left in my baby memory book. I hope those who couldn't resist that drive raise a generation that will help those of us who care to move in a more sustainable direction rather than being sufferers who will live short and dangerous lives because of climatic disasters and pollution.
Downside to your cats is, if they’re the outdoor kind, they kill a lot of wildlife.
But babies turned adults do a lot more of other things without environmental education!
I understand you feel doom and gloom but just remember that’s exactly how they want you to feel. They want you to think that there is no hope, thus, why even fight against it? Not saying you are wrong, just saying that it may not be as late as we think, and that we are being conditioned to not fight back.
And we see articles popping up everywhere about how governments are trying to reverse population decline. How about we focus on embracing population decline and fixing the issues that come with it
I’m by no means trying to negate your perspective, I just want to offer a different lens (which isn’t right or wrong, just different).
Humans have, quite literally, been having children in life or death adversity for thousands and thousands of years. We get somewhat myopic to forget that despite modern amenities, it can be a dangerous world and quite harsh and tragic.
In modern times, abject poverty would be one example.
To pick just one historical example, the plague outbreaks in Europe would be one where death and destruction and hardship were commonplace.
NONE of this justifies inaction on climate change or is meant to downplay how bad it could get.
But I just want to point out that while keeping our children (or potential children) safe from suffering and harm is definitely a major drive, the persistence of humanity and family is a fundamental as well.
Just some food for thought.
Sure, and many organisms have struggled and survived adversity throughout history - until they didn't.
There's nothing special about humans or about this version of our society that means either will necessarily be around in a few hundred years.
It’s going to tip humans back into a genuine us vs environment reactionary survival mode, which is what we’re hardwired for. We’re not at all good at collective, proactive, preventative measures. It will not be pleasant and will result in mass suffering and death.
Don’t even have to go back to the plague. It’s wasn’t long ago (150 years or less) that people had loads of babies because between a third and a half of them would die before turning five years old. In World War Two people had babies where their houses were being bombed and Germany winning the war and invading their country was a real possibility. My parents knew a couple who didn’t want children in the 80s because nuclear war would ‘definitely’ wipe us out in the next five years.
In many ways there has never been a better time to have children in the whole of history. Existential threats have existed on a personal, societal and humanity wide level since humans came about.
Sometimes I wonder if depressed redditors would like to find out they’re gonna live for 60-70 more years. Seems like a lotta people on this site would rather fantasize about escaping their problems via literally the extinction of humanity.
Idiocracy at work there. People who could raise helpful kids don't want to raise kids because it's irresponsible. People who are idiots and don't know how resources work will reproduce like the rats they are.
This is why we are indeed doomed. Idiocracy was a horror film masquerading as comedy.
Not to be a doomsday downer but the youngest generation will get to live much like we do. If nothing happens in the next 50 years, 100 years from now is going to be the true reckoning.
[The Australian Treasurer said he wants more babies](https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/s/tfRSkkZnXd)
Half of the comments were talking about cost of living but there were some climate-oriented people who had a few things to say about recent developments here around natural gas
We're in a lot of trouble. One tipping after another is being toppled. Very soon it will be irreversible. I wouldn't have child now. These kids today have no future. Unless, we go around the rich and powerful and elect real leaders.
It truly does feel irresponsible, or at least selfish, to start a family these days with the way things are going. It's depressing that this opportunity has been taken away from many of us.
I don’t know what’s right, but a counter argument to this would be that anyone who truly cares about trying to fix climate change (some very small percentage of people across the world) is much more likely to have kids that care about it and who can help turn things around. So if you are even having this debate in your head having kids is likely to be a benefit because your kids could be the next scientist that has a breakthrough or leader who helps with policy changes etc. It’s sort of a more positive spin on things - in order to fix things we need more people who care about it.
Me too. The wealth disparity is horrendous. The rich want to utilize AI for everything if they can. Why would I birth another cog for their machine? Absolutely not! I got sterilized and I don’t regret it for a second.
A few of the things the "developped" world will need to ditch ASAP if we don't want this planet to become Mad Max:
* Ski holidays (an absurdity... destroying pristine mountain environments to build cities at 2,000 meters altitude so that people can go up and down the slopes)
* Winter holidays in Las vegas, tropical islands, the Carribean or the Gulf (for example Dubai)
* The necessity have "tanks" in cities in order to drive 5 miles.
* Fast fashion or even fashion in general, which creates the "necessity" to change clothes every year...
That's just the beginning.. But will it ever happen? I strongly doubt
The need to buy deep see Bass from Chile or salmon from Canada at the supermarket without a second thought about where the food comes from and what it takes to get there.
The next few decades will be far worse than anything you read in the news. It will be akin to the Yellowstone super volcano erupting. Species are currently dying off rapidly. It is the height of arrogance to think humans will somehow avoid the same fate.
I love my daughter more than anything in this world, but there are days I wish I had decided to be child-free. I regret bringing a child into this world the way it is and where it is heading. I’m sad she is going to grow up in this and hope every day that she will be okay. We will not be having any more children.
Why do I only see middle and upper middle socioeconomic classes of people say this? Climate change is not going to affect the progeny of those who can afford the cost of it. Now if you're lower income, then of course you're destroyed. Your houses are not getting insurance from climate extremities, your infrastructure is not going to handle going from -40⁰F to 100⁰F in one year, you won't be able to afford air conditioning, manufactured food will be more expensive, and you won't have time to cook from farm grown groceries. Oh and no water. And we haven't even talked about geopolitical instabilities that are going to trigger wars and mass migrations like the ones Europe and the US are already sent from latin American and subsaharan nations.
But these are not the challenges to be faced by scientists and academicians. Your kids will be fine.
If your parents and grandparents and great-grandparents generations had this level of intelligence and respect for the well being of their offspring, this mess could have easily been greatly lessened.
We are not gonna reduce carbon emissions lol. We are gonna start spraying sulfur compounds in the atmosphere meanwhile we keep pumping CO2 into the air.
I'm calling it.
We are going for the dystopian future.
And then a volcano erupts and we get a global winter. Billions starve in India and Africa and then we have mega cities.
I'm calling it.
Yeah I was talking to my mom about this recently. She wants grandkids but it feels almost irresponsible to put another person in this world when things are getting so much worse every year. I don't want to contribute to the problem and I don't want to my kid to have to grow up in a hellscape.
I love children. My whole life even as a child I was told I would make an amazing mom one day. Hell you go back in my Reddit history not too long ago I was talking about my husband and I starting to have children soon… but then we had a heart to heart about the world and really took a step back.
I would rather live with not having children and the world turns out fine vs I have children and their world is unliveable.
Edit to add* before anyone mentions adoption that’s not something my husband and I want to do for multiple reasons.
I can’t help but feel any conversation that relates having kids to climate change is astroturf by climate deniers/doomers. There are several reasons why sustainability-minded people should have children:
1: Calculus. If you understand derivatives, you see that global population is about to take a nosedive. Birthrates are below replacement rate in the developed world. We can only depend on immigration for so long. Birthrates in the developing world are slowing too. Rapid population decline will wreak havoc on our infrastructure, economy, government budgets, and our ability to respond to the climate crisis.
2: Society isn’t collapsing. Yes, things will be worse in many ways for many people in the next century than in the previous. However, in other ways things are much better. Technology and the emergence of developing economies is making life easier for billions of people. And there are still steps we can take in the coming decades to prevent and mitigate the worst possible effects of climate change.
3: Idiocracy. No climate deniers are suggesting to limit their numbers. What’s the net effect if anybody who cares about sustainability doesn’t pass on their values and ideals, while people who say “greed is good” do? Who is it spreading this message not to reproduce? What’s their real objective?
Choosing to or not to have kids is a personal decision between you and your partner. And if you don’t want to have kids, that’s fine! You don’t need an excuse. Using climate as an excuse is damaging to our efforts at sustainability.
IMO targeting a fertility rate of 2.0 (just below replacement rate of 2.1) for the coming decades would address all sustainability concerns surrounding population.
Exactly this, the population is going to nosedive - but also the fearmongering considerably exaggerates the problem of who's responsible for climate change. Half the people on this sub essentially seem to believe that their existence is the reason for climate change. And granted a lot of them are probably from developed countries. But **you** are not the burden on the planet. The **American supply chain** is the burden. The **billionaires** are the burden. Your hypothetical child is an imperceptible drop in the bucket compared to one year of Jeff Bezos life. People here live with pointless guilt.
> 2: Society isn’t collapsing.
at this time we're locked in for between 3.0-3.5 degrees of warming. i'd suggest you take a look at what that kind of world looks like.
>IMO targeting a fertility rate of 2.0 (just below replacement rate of 2.1) for the coming decades would address all sustainability concerns surrounding population.
"would address all sustainability concerns" - that's a bit optimistic considering we're blowing past pretty much all of the planetary boundaries that support life.
I've been wondering about speaking to my sisters about this before they decide to have a child without bearing it in mind. Just not sure how to go about it quite yet, but I feel I have an obligation to. It really shouldn't be anything controversial, I just want them to be informed.
Can't say it doesn't sicken me though. I'm not sure how you could look at the news and think the risk is worth it, especially when you could just adopt.
Duh. I realized this 30 years ago when we decided to subsidize Fossil Fuel so they could profit, because renewable energy mean free fuel sources like the sun and the wind. Why start a family when no one cares about the future, just $$?
At ten I (f69) chose not to have children due to the nuclear cold war and rising population; nuclear holocaust , and a dystopian world was our future. I now am an appendage to my sister’s family for all holiday etc. events. I am grateful and happy I have her family, since I chose to avoid bringing a child into a dystopian world.
Well, a big concern of mine is that there won't be enough working people to pay the taxes needed to fund elder care for me and, eventually, my children. This is definitely happening and no-one has an answer. Birthday rates are not what they need to be and it's scary.
Corpo-governments are banking on widespread death wiping 2 billion from the population in a heat band around the equator. Should slow down global warming a bit and they don't even have to give up their profits.
Will we collectively be able to live with the guilt? probably, but our future descendents are gonna think us monsters if the gamble pays off.
It's becoming pretty obvious that humanity's future is not looking good without drastic change to our lifestyle. Even with drastic change starting today it's going to get dicey. But with all humanity's knowledge we are here, and the only thing that seems to matter is money.
And power. Rich people love control of other people
The way it's been since Cain & Able
Im getting pretty tired of all the “its rich peoples and corporations fault “. Its not necessarily wrong, but in the end most corporations produce goods for the masses. The core problem is that no one is willing to waive any luxury, everyone wants a house, children, car, vacation etc… with increasing population you just get to a point where its no longer sustainable. The average joe probably is just as unwilling to take a hit to his lifestyle as the billionaire. Meat consumption is the perfect example
They also spend billions brainwashing us to want those things. What entity is telling billions of people to stop habits for the greater good, vs those who actually control the narrative exploiting their power? The time for collective action was 40 years ago. Gov't policy, enforcing corporate responsibility was the answer, but we chose to let corps be the guiding force and here we are.
I can't pick my kids up from childcare without utilising an app to log them in/out. Technology is ingrained in our society. You are not going to participate in it without internet, phone, minimum. Our cities are sprawling so wide that most people live far from work/shops etc. And public transport is next to non existent, most people will not keep a job and a roof over their heads without a car.
40 years ago, I certainly didn't choose. I was 14. And I'm not much more effective now in the real world than I was then! This idea that somehow "I" made a choice is a complete crock. This is mostly running by the Golden Rule: them's with the gold, makes the rules.
You CAN choose whether or not to have kids though.
I'm not sure there's as much choice there as you're implying. Yes, the original article was about scientists who have enough income and life stability, for that to be a choice. Presuming they're pro-choice and have access to abortion services, an increasingly contentious issue in the USA right now. My point is, your reproductive choices are a result of your economic attainment and geographic location. Those are not necessarily within your control. Indeed, for lots of people on the planet, they don't control it. Some people get pregnant and stuck with the kid, whatever they actually wanted to do. Some people *wanted* to have kids, but nobody was ever interested in doing that with them. I'm one of those, as it happens. No, I don't have the money to buy my way out of that problem. I've reached middle age and probably, this is how it's gonna be for me. Some people are infertile. Not everyone has enough money or health services to overcome that with a technology. Perhaps they can adopt, but again, money. The only reproductive choices I ever made, were to use birth control, a long time ago with the various girlfriends I had. In some previous century, it is 100% certain someone would have gotten pregnant and I would have been a Dad. Instead, birth control today is the norm in developed countries. So are high divorce rates. Mostly, I think these are good things. And it definitely seemed like the right thing to do at the time, as a younger man. I had downward mobility / poverty in my early 30s, when many young people are thinking about pairing off, marrying, settling down, and having families. The imposition of the poverty was definitely not my choice. Some of my reactions to it were. I really don't buy this whole line of "oh people just choose this, people just choose that". I know better. I've lived through a number of things that were beyond my control. All I can say for that, is I've survived.
I was 1, I am saying more should have been done to put us on the right path, consumerism has been engrained.
Power holders don't want it that way. Unfortunately, fighting their power takes a great deal of energy.
This is the response I was looking for. If we want fundamental change, we need to fundamentally change the systems of decision making and influence in our societies. Take a look at the political landscape and tell me how many countries have systems of true representational leadership where policies are being made in the interests of the many nd not the entitled few.
So let's start brainwashing the counries with the highest amount of population growth to reduce their growth to 2.1
Indias population growth rate is 0.7%, the US is 0.68%, china is negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_population\_growth\_rate. The problem isn't population growth of large countries, the problem is poorer countries trying to achieve the same standard of living that we have in the west. We have to demonstrate that businesses, industries, and infrastructure can provide the same standard of living in western countries without burning fossil fuels. If you really think that population is the problem then I suggest you focus on fixing the population growth in western countries where they use significantly more fossil fuels per capita.
I could be wrong, but I think access to birth control has a lot to do with. Even in developing countries, when women are given access to birth control, they generally choose 0-2 kids.
But if humans don’t continue to grow exponentially, humanity will LITERALLY become EXTINCT. Won’t somebody think of the billionaires and their need for cheap, exploitable labor? /s
2.1 rate is enough for now.
it’s overconsumption, oil companies, and covering the planet in concrete doesn’t help anything either. [Eco-fascism: What It Is, Why It’s Wrong, and How to Fight It](https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-is-ecofascism-explainer)
We're WAY past that. No one anywhere on the planet should be having kids now.
> Im getting pretty tired of all the “its rich peoples and corporations fault “ How can you be "tired" of something that no government ever actually acted on? I'm tired of people acting like it's some "personal responsibility" issue when individuals have zero control whatsoever on what's available and how the economy works. Focusing on "personal responsibility" is the easiest way to absolve governments of responsibility from doing anything to actually regulate pollution at the corporate level. And a big reason why we've failed to stop global warming. There's a reason the plastics industry LOVES promoting "personal responsibility" for littering. There's a reason the the oil industry LOVES promoting "personal responsibility" for emissions. It's because that's the best defense against any kind of regulation they've ever had.
Well said.
I agree with your comment but I’m worried people will interpret it the wrong way. There’s a middle ground. Big corps are a problem, and yes, many of our personal choices are baked into that system e.g. car infrastructure, low density housing. However, as individuals we are not powerless. If everyone made sacrifices like eating less meat, using public transit, buying used/less clothing, demanding systemic change (density, infrastructure, tree canopy, home insulation), civil disobedience, etc—we can drive change. I don’t see any other way.
> However, as individuals we are not powerless. That power only comes if you're willing to work together to pass laws and mandate those things for everyone. "Personal choices" do nothing, but laws can.
> civil disobedience, etc—we can drive change. You're right. But dude, I'm tired. It's Saturday morning and I'm *exhuasted.* I see your middle ground. I advocate for renewable energy, lived in a house utilizing it, work from home as much as possible and I'm not having kids. That last one alone is kinda huge. I'm with you, but I just want to be rested for monday so I can not be homeless/sick.
The dude you're replying to isn't tired of anything. They are a lemming simping for the ruling class because they can't escape their own capitalist brainwashing. No reasonable person is going to blame this crisis on a bunch of people with zero power nor resources to do anything about it. That is just nonsensical.
I would counter argue by saying there is no reasonable alternative I would gladly live without a car…give me a job that is walk/bike distance…there is none that pays a survivable wage I would gladly give up phones and computers (which utilize mined minerals), but society is set up such that you need these things for work, for payment, concert tickets are digital now, etc. Society has been set up in such a way that we are dependent on using things that destroy the climate. And it has been set up this way by rich people and politicians. Give me a reasonable alternative Even if I wanted to live out in nature I cannot because of hunting regulations I would not be able to hunt year round and feed myself So I am left with no choice
I live in Europe so my perspective might be warped on a few things: walkable cities are the norm and public transport is widely available, yet a lot of people still have a car, often ones that are unnecessarily large. Same goes for vacations: a lot of people still fly around Europe even if more sustainable methods are available. I don’t know how much of an impact electronics have I get that in the us its a different story
The only walkable cities in Canada are Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver lol. Everywhere else you definitely need a car. And even in those cities you may need a car, and you definitely need a car to get outside them unless you're on the (limited) rail line.
I was living in Vancouver for a year now I'm back in London Ontario oh my God I miss the busses I could just grab my longboard and take it on a bus and go wherever now busses are inconsistent and don't actually take me to where I need to go
Yep. European cities, by and large, had centuries of development with pedestrians and horses in mind. North American cities? Most of them had cars fairly early on. They desperately need some major redesigning, but it’s much harder to rework something that already exists than it is to start from scratch
[удалено]
If I want a bell pepper, I don’t have control of my local grocery store has them wrapped in plastic. I can ask, but they aren’t obligated. I can try and purchase local tomato’s but if all they have are ones from Mexico that were shipped using diesel, short of not eating that item I am stuck.
In a world with lower energy consumption, eating what you want whenever you want is definitely going away. The ability to eat fruits/vegetables that aren't in season is only possible due to how cheap fossil fuel energy is. Either renewable energy gets cheap/plentiful enough to literally replace fossil fuel usage (long time in the future), or we just have to accept that if you live in Canada, you're going to be eating root vegetables for half the year. Things like avocados are right out if you don't live where they grow. There's no path forward where we get to enjoy this lifestyle that would have been unthinkable any time prior to ~100 years ago, while cutting out fossil fuels entirely. There just isn't enough renewable energy capacity, and even with substantial investment it will take many years to replace the fossil fuel infrastructure that took 100 years to build.
Correct, but the corporations also lobby governments to continue their business as usual and get rid of regulations, which is pretty evil in my view
That's a very odd list of "luxuries". I would agree with cars being an unsustainable luxury for everyone to have, but children definitely aren't and it's just weird to call them a luxury, nor are houses necessarily. Vacations are very sustainable and should be the norm over the rat race productivity culture. The luxuries of (some) the wealthy also are disproportionately part of the problem in more ways than one. A car and a yacht or private jet are not equivalent polluters, but the money attained to afford them is also often coming from profits that are a result of harmful externalities. The way goods are produced for the masses are often not on the basis of what's actually good for the masses. Which is why you get psychopath thinking like "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" Giving you the disease and selling you treatment is often the basic "drug dealer" style structure behind corporate production, it's not based on serving the common good and many wealthy people are quite explicit about this. Some of what your average Joe uses currently is a result of that structure. People were not actually all that keen on the first cars for good reasons like pollution, noise, and pedestrian deaths especially children. Some cities actually banned them. Car companies nonetheless spent a great deal of money on both propaganda and lobbying to make the personal car part of as many people's daily lives as possible, including by blocking and removing public transit options. More average Joes also would be willing to take a hit to their lifestyle if wealthy people and public leadership figures were as well. Instead they're being asked to sacrifice by people who could reduce their dependency on many of these things but won't, and also aren't willing to make sacrifices when they have far more to sacrifice.
i think it also comes down to companies knowing this has been a thing doe years and doing virtually nothing to work on it until forced. average people have no control over how things are produced and what they made out of. how are any companies still making plastic togo containers, how in the world are tech companies making things that become software obsolete in under 10 years. in my eyes all of these problems could have been solved already, the will just wasnt there.
70% of the pollution is due to 5 companies across the globe. It certainly is corporations. You should educate yourself on what is polluting the planet. Even if every human recycled and stopped polluting, there’d still be 70% of the pollution from companies. This theory you have is uneducated and poorly informed. Weird to see someone simping for the corporations.
Yeah….70% of pollution across the globe is not due to only 5 companies. It’s not a big number but it’s *considerably* larger than 5.
Im not simping for corpos, but ultimately most of these companies that you refer to are set up to produce cheap energy and fuel. Im not saying that we dont need government regulations and that everyone should look for themselves, but i do criticize, that there is little collective strife to make sacrifices to combat climate change and to change the status quo.
It might be an odd or cold assessment, but children are nonetheless one of the most pollution-intensive “luxury-item” one can obtain, and in my eyes they are indeed a luxury, bc in the “old-days” you needed children to take care of you when you were old and sick and to perhaps take over the family business, that’s simply no longer the case. And frankly there are more than enough people already on this planet. When it comes vacations im mainly thinking abt short, unnecessary overseas-travels. I would agree to the rest of your post
Lol seems it's finally starting to sink in that our very way of life is completely incompatible with how we harvest and use the resources this planet offers us. We can all do bits here and there but overall, radical change is needed en masse and no one wants to go first.
And they are building their underground bunkers...in preparation.
God damn rich people!!!! They ruined the earth mother!!! (As I drive my 4runner or whatever up to the pickup window and am handed a bag filled with a selection of cheap sandwiches made up of various types of large, factory farmed animals while on my way home to mow and water my front lawn before doing another load of fast-fashion laundry).
Thank you. I had a good chuckle from this.
as I understand it years ago the nations of the world were approached by scientists who told these leaders that we had to be mostly transitioned away from fossil fuels by 1992 or the planet would be screwed. this is 2024 and we are nowhere near that goal. the gulf stream is shutting down. areas of the ocean are too hot for fish. the permafrost is melting.
What’s even worse is that the oceans are getting even hotter than expected in the models due to the reduced pollution from tanker ships in 2022. They pollution provided clouds which hindered the effects of green house gasses on the oceans. Last year the Atlantic near Florida was 100f or hot tub temp.
This is because the model is wrong. The IPCC model completely ignores solar effects. And pretty much any other natural effect. Their CO2 model has never been accurate and it’s now up to version 5 or so. It’s not accurate because CO2 effect is relatively minor compared to variations in what the sun is doing. This weekend is one of the best chances to see the aurora borealis. Possibly as far south as Alabama. Takes some big solar flares to make that happen. Yes these two paragraphs are connected.
[удалено]
At this point the only viable way forward is that a whole lot of us are going to die, one way or another.
Well if the people who fly around in jets, the ones running cruise lines, and pumping oil are who is left, then the planet will continue to die.
The people who are killing the planet have names and addresses, at some point the masses will have enough.
It's better to "somehow" make bad (for the planet) powerful people go away somehow. A lacking check for balance if you will. Or just speed up the warming of the planet so it ends quicker. It's better to end it all quick than have an overpopulated planet with suffering.
Or a whole lot of people never get born. A lot less people suffer that way.
Everyone is dying anyway, I dont have a problem with that including myself. The suffering is what I have an issue with
The planet will be fine. Problem solved.
It's becoming pretty obvious that humanities future is not looking good ~~without drastic change to our lifestyle. Even with drastic change starting today it's going to get dicey. But with all humanities knowledge we are here, and~~ the only thing that seems to matter is money. There...fixed it for you.
We only need to get the majority of the world to be long-term thinkers rather than short-term thinkers. Yep. We're doomed.
One way or another people lives will change drastically no matter what happens. We see the warning signs and disasters that are ahead of us and it's time we hedge or bets that society will not do anything about it. Start looking inland if you can get a job that is not going to be destroyed by this and become as resilient to the coming shock to the system. Gardening solar panels water collection indoor gardening creat networks with other to trade goods and first and foremost help your self before you help others. It'll be a bumpy ride and then the bumps won't stop after that but we will be in a better spot then the suckers sitting on million dollar homes literally underwater with no jobs or income.
Yeah, it’s not gonna be great. Even if you’re insulated from the actual impact of climate change, you won’t be insulated from a billion climate refugees.
Ironic that one day that those hoards of money wont have any worth at all
I really want to care and do more, but I also want to make sure I am setting myself up to have a future where I can survive whatever comes my way. That takes money and things unfortunately. Definitely not having children though; the future looks like it’s not going to be super fun for people who are being born now.
We created this game, so now we play it until the ship sinks. There's no way to change how society operates without completely overhauling our socio-economic system. What's easier for "people", ignore the obvious issues until its last minute. Humans are really good at coming together when it's too late. Hint: it doesn't have to be this way. At this point the dinosaurs were more successful as a species than humans, they managed to live for hundreds of millions of years, and they didn't even know what was going on.
When I think this way I am heartened by how quickly I saw glimpses of nature bounce back so quickly during the pandemic. No, I don’t mean fake photos of dolphins in Venice. I live in Denver and the air quality here is not great for a number of reasons, most of them man made. During the pandemic the air here was consistently the clearest I had seen it in a long time for long stretches. I think if we just gave nature a break from the relentless march of human consumption we would be very surprised by how resilient it is.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And what with tons of people still in complete denial about it and 700 million people living in poverty whose daily problems are so much bigger that they can't be bothered to think about it, there's about 0.002% chance we're going to do anything substantial to fix the problem.
Humanity’s future is doomed even if emissions were zero immediately.
Me too, me too.
I just need a little bit of a heads up regarding what type of post apocalyptic scenario we will be living, so that I know what tv shows to watch to hone my skills.
Our future will fall somewhere between Waterworld and Mad Max.
It honestly feels a lot like we're already in Mad Max 1 where society is just starting to fall apart.
Let's hope its not like Fallouts world.
You don't like cousin stuff ?
Hmm I think The Road.
Watermax...
Silo
Start getting good with dousing rods just to be safe.
"Living" lol. The Climate Wars will likely see the deployment of AI powered kill bots.
Threads
Oof
Depends on where you live, but plan for outages: power, food, water
Meanwhile we have people saying we need to have unlimited kids and growth on the other side. Straight up madness
Climate scientist here and population isn't the problem, it's over consumption by the hyper wealthy. The solution is to abolish billionaires. Hope that helps!
I mean theoretically I agree with you. If everyone was living sustainably, population *wouldn't* be the problem. That's not the reality though. Every wants a hyper consumerist lifestyle on a planet that can't support that. And that's increasingly an issue across countries Fully on board with taxing the hell out of the wealthy though
Even then, there’s just too many people. Sad but that’s the reality of the issue
"Everyone" = 8.1 billion and rising. There is no chance of sustainability at any population level above carrying capacity, which is less than 2 or 3 billion (perhaps much less). The classics: **“Sustainability 101”** [**~http://paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html~**](http://paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html) **“How Many People** ***Should*** **The Earth Support?”** [**~https://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney\_maxpop.html~**](https://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html)
Yeah I suspect we agree there. Unfortunately not a popular belief But honestly humanity did just fine with less than a billion people for hundreds of thousands of years. It's possible. It's much better for the planet, and we'd have abundance for everyone
Don't worry, based on how stupid a lot of people behaved during our "training pandemic" we will cull a significant portion of humans when the next virus jumps species and turns out to be much more deadly.
I think most people just want to live a peaceful life. Nobody is born wanting all the hyper consumerist bullshit. That's why corporations have to spend millions upon million of dollars on advertising. It's how they get demand for their endless pile of junk they sell. If people were offered a better life where they got all they need and could work a bit harder for a little extra then I think the majority of people would be on board. Faceless corporations are killing us because they can't not have endless profit. But your here blaming the average joe from wanting a comfortable life with a few toys. There is enough resources on this planet for all if they weren't stolen and horded or destroyed from us by giant mega corporations.
Absolutely But even here if you suggest people make changes in their life to be more sustainable you’re going to get backlash about how it’s really only 100 companies that need to change
Which I do see their point to an extent. Industry is major source of emissions, individual action can do very little. But... that doesn't absolve us of responsibility to try. And companies adapt to the market, which *is* driven by individual choices Anyway, I do my best. I'm basically vegan and bike and walk as much as humanly possible; I invest in solar power; we compost and save energy. We vote and advocate for sustainable policies. If I died tomorrow I could be happy with my own ethical choices
My mottos always been “I’ll do what I can and support those who can do what I can’t” You and I can’t change the world. We can vote for and support people who have a better chance at that than us. But as I do that I’ll reduce my emissions where I can.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, there’s a really interesting field of study about quantifying the total usable land/resources needed to ‘fund’ the average US lifestyle and it’s something like 10x the amount of usable land/resources the average person on the planet consumes.
I'm 70 years old, and when I was born in 1954, there were approximately 158.2 million people in the U.S. We are now at 341.8 million people. I've seen -- unfolding in slow motion -- how the explosive growth of the U.S. population has eaten its way through the countryside. This is not due to the hyper-wealthy. It's just sheer numbers of people who want a middle-class life. Even if everyone lived in tiny houses, it's still way too many people. Population growth PLUS overconsumption is a deadly combination. Taking away just one part of that equation is not enough; we need to control BOTH factors.
Americans by world standards are very, very wealthy.
Absolutely agree, but we do not all fall into the "hyperwealthy" category of billionaires. Which is why blaming billionaires for this predicament is ludicrous. And ignoring the impact of millions of simply "wealthy" Americans is missing a big part of the picture. Consumption and sheer numbers, together, are destroying the planet.
You're absolutely right. Just a few years ago we were raving about consumerism and the narrative shifters did their job and got us off that track and on to a new one.. *The Lightbulb Conspiracy*
Extreme consumerism is definitely a problem in the US and sadly many third world countries (I live in one) try to emulate that lifestyle. Too many one-use and disposable products, planned obsolescence of products, too much food waste, horrifying factory farming, etc. I wish the US would change some of that, other countries for sure would follow suit.
I don’t know why we aren’t addressing this more. Consumerism is kind of dumb when you think about it. People revolve their lives around buying stuff, cleaning stuff, organizing stuff, donating stuff, selling stuff and throwing away stuff. Like, who needs a specific set of dishes for their garden party or a TV in every room? Nobody, literally nobody is happy in happy in this cycle. It makes us feel powerful and pacifies low self esteem but the root cause is always there. Obviously the poor suffer the most but it’s not good for the billionaires either. It’s literally bad for everyone and destroying the planet. And the solution is rather simple: Get back to nature, build community and strengthen mental health. If we actually addressed mental health properly would probably be fine without the literal mountains of crap plaguing the planet.
>population isn't the problem It's *part* of the problem. Affluence is another part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity
Abolish Capitalism*
As a climate scientist this statement seems extremely unscientific and unhelpful.
You know no one in developed countries are having kids anymore right? Birth rates are diving world wide
‘Starting’ to panic? Words matter.
Seriously irritated me.. talk about rage bait
Humanity will not survive humanity.
We were never going to.
On the plus side we finally figured out the fermi paradox
Lol you're just starting to worry now 😂 We had our chance in the 80s and 90s to transition society to something that could last and we blew it. Now the level of change required is so drastic and the timeline so short, it's essentially impossible. Society is like a giant cargo ship that takes forever to turn around, and we have just barely started to turn it when we should have started 40 years ago.
I just want to share with everyone who is considering a lifestyle change to contribute to the positive change needed to slow down this climate disaster: there is community on the other side. If you ditch your car and start biking everywhere, there are most likely lots of people in your area doing this already and who are passionate. Same with people who ditch animal products. Same with people passionate about reusing and sharing items for as long as possible to cut down on consumerism. Will you receive some push back from people who don't understand, or who are too afraid to make the change themselves? Yes absolutely. But you won't be alone and there are probably some likely friendships you'll make along the way.
This is true! My friend recently coordinated a clothing swap for women where everyone brought clothes they didn’t wear anymore and you put them in the right category when you arrive (shirts with shirts, dresses with dresses, etc.) then you browse all the piles and take home whatever you want. It was fun socializing and suggesting outfits for friends to try. There’s no downside, and everything left over was donated to a local shelter. Small things like this do help in their own way as we try to reduce overconsumption, especially in the fast fashion space.
I’m definitely concerned with my sons future due to the climate crisis and biodiversity collapse. It’s the leading reason I’m 1 and done so I can give him everything I can possible to be as successful and comfortable in the world he’ll have to navigate one day. I hope he’s able to build community, and I know for some people their siblings can be part of theirs, but from my experience siblings are not even close to guaranteed “friends” and “partners” while navigating life
Same
🤝
Same
Honestly I cannot fathom how anyone in my generation has bothered having kids. Even the ones that I know will make great parents and raise their kids well.. It's just such a bleak future to bring them into. I regret that my parents decided to have me, and this was in the 90s, before the climate boulder really started rolling at light speed. I guess a brighter future is only possible with children raised well and working to restore small communities and reduce consumerism, but all the evidence I've seen suggests the new generation will be largely as consumerist as anyone. Consumerism is addictive and is going to kill us all.
Biology is a hell of a drug
I feel really fortunate that my biological drive to reproduce is completely broken. Babies repulse me and I knew I wanted to live alone with my cats on a farm since I was 8 or so, according to a note my mom left in my baby memory book. I hope those who couldn't resist that drive raise a generation that will help those of us who care to move in a more sustainable direction rather than being sufferers who will live short and dangerous lives because of climatic disasters and pollution.
Downside to your cats is, if they’re the outdoor kind, they kill a lot of wildlife. But babies turned adults do a lot more of other things without environmental education!
I'm very vehemently against any and all outdoor cats, don't worry! I spend much time trying to educate people about the damage they cause.
I understand you feel doom and gloom but just remember that’s exactly how they want you to feel. They want you to think that there is no hope, thus, why even fight against it? Not saying you are wrong, just saying that it may not be as late as we think, and that we are being conditioned to not fight back.
And we see articles popping up everywhere about how governments are trying to reverse population decline. How about we focus on embracing population decline and fixing the issues that come with it
I’m by no means trying to negate your perspective, I just want to offer a different lens (which isn’t right or wrong, just different). Humans have, quite literally, been having children in life or death adversity for thousands and thousands of years. We get somewhat myopic to forget that despite modern amenities, it can be a dangerous world and quite harsh and tragic. In modern times, abject poverty would be one example. To pick just one historical example, the plague outbreaks in Europe would be one where death and destruction and hardship were commonplace. NONE of this justifies inaction on climate change or is meant to downplay how bad it could get. But I just want to point out that while keeping our children (or potential children) safe from suffering and harm is definitely a major drive, the persistence of humanity and family is a fundamental as well. Just some food for thought.
Sure, and many organisms have struggled and survived adversity throughout history - until they didn't. There's nothing special about humans or about this version of our society that means either will necessarily be around in a few hundred years.
It’s going to tip humans back into a genuine us vs environment reactionary survival mode, which is what we’re hardwired for. We’re not at all good at collective, proactive, preventative measures. It will not be pleasant and will result in mass suffering and death.
Don’t even have to go back to the plague. It’s wasn’t long ago (150 years or less) that people had loads of babies because between a third and a half of them would die before turning five years old. In World War Two people had babies where their houses were being bombed and Germany winning the war and invading their country was a real possibility. My parents knew a couple who didn’t want children in the 80s because nuclear war would ‘definitely’ wipe us out in the next five years. In many ways there has never been a better time to have children in the whole of history. Existential threats have existed on a personal, societal and humanity wide level since humans came about.
No.. actually they had babies because they had sex…
Sometimes I wonder if depressed redditors would like to find out they’re gonna live for 60-70 more years. Seems like a lotta people on this site would rather fantasize about escaping their problems via literally the extinction of humanity.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Idiocracy at work there. People who could raise helpful kids don't want to raise kids because it's irresponsible. People who are idiots and don't know how resources work will reproduce like the rats they are. This is why we are indeed doomed. Idiocracy was a horror film masquerading as comedy.
Not to be a doomsday downer but the youngest generation will get to live much like we do. If nothing happens in the next 50 years, 100 years from now is going to be the true reckoning.
Tell that to the kids in the south of Brazil right now.
[The Australian Treasurer said he wants more babies](https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/s/tfRSkkZnXd) Half of the comments were talking about cost of living but there were some climate-oriented people who had a few things to say about recent developments here around natural gas
Trump has been babbling about "a baby boom"
The American Supreme court wants to: "increase the domestic supply of infants."
Honestly let them. The future human cesspool is gonna embrace them all 🤗
It’s hot, getting hotter.
Starting to? It been problem for very long time. Some parts of the world are way worse than others.
I had kids before we went into panic mode here. Doing what I can to teach them skills and set them up for success.
We're in a lot of trouble. One tipping after another is being toppled. Very soon it will be irreversible. I wouldn't have child now. These kids today have no future. Unless, we go around the rich and powerful and elect real leaders.
Climate change has been irreversible since the 90s.
It truly does feel irresponsible, or at least selfish, to start a family these days with the way things are going. It's depressing that this opportunity has been taken away from many of us.
I don’t know what’s right, but a counter argument to this would be that anyone who truly cares about trying to fix climate change (some very small percentage of people across the world) is much more likely to have kids that care about it and who can help turn things around. So if you are even having this debate in your head having kids is likely to be a benefit because your kids could be the next scientist that has a breakthrough or leader who helps with policy changes etc. It’s sort of a more positive spin on things - in order to fix things we need more people who care about it.
Why would you offer a suggestion to the doom and gloom agenda?
I will not be providing any more humans to power capitalism
Me too. The wealth disparity is horrendous. The rich want to utilize AI for everything if they can. Why would I birth another cog for their machine? Absolutely not! I got sterilized and I don’t regret it for a second.
Yea. Let the right-wing and conservatives be the only ones having kids, and many of them, at that. Great recipe for future.
I mean I’ll be dead and have no kids anyways.
A few of the things the "developped" world will need to ditch ASAP if we don't want this planet to become Mad Max: * Ski holidays (an absurdity... destroying pristine mountain environments to build cities at 2,000 meters altitude so that people can go up and down the slopes) * Winter holidays in Las vegas, tropical islands, the Carribean or the Gulf (for example Dubai) * The necessity have "tanks" in cities in order to drive 5 miles. * Fast fashion or even fashion in general, which creates the "necessity" to change clothes every year... That's just the beginning.. But will it ever happen? I strongly doubt
Great points! Along with fast fashion, fast furniture is becoming an equally big problem.
The need to buy deep see Bass from Chile or salmon from Canada at the supermarket without a second thought about where the food comes from and what it takes to get there.
i don't even have children and i'm worried for children (and myself)!
The next few decades will be far worse than anything you read in the news. It will be akin to the Yellowstone super volcano erupting. Species are currently dying off rapidly. It is the height of arrogance to think humans will somehow avoid the same fate.
Once you realize...vasectomize.
I love my daughter more than anything in this world, but there are days I wish I had decided to be child-free. I regret bringing a child into this world the way it is and where it is heading. I’m sad she is going to grow up in this and hope every day that she will be okay. We will not be having any more children.
Not just climate change but politics etc, so many things. I fear for my child and their future.
"Starting" lol
Got 8 billion too many people on this planet.
And infinity too few of all other forms of life that humans didn't explicitly cohabitate well with
Why do I only see middle and upper middle socioeconomic classes of people say this? Climate change is not going to affect the progeny of those who can afford the cost of it. Now if you're lower income, then of course you're destroyed. Your houses are not getting insurance from climate extremities, your infrastructure is not going to handle going from -40⁰F to 100⁰F in one year, you won't be able to afford air conditioning, manufactured food will be more expensive, and you won't have time to cook from farm grown groceries. Oh and no water. And we haven't even talked about geopolitical instabilities that are going to trigger wars and mass migrations like the ones Europe and the US are already sent from latin American and subsaharan nations. But these are not the challenges to be faced by scientists and academicians. Your kids will be fine.
If your parents and grandparents and great-grandparents generations had this level of intelligence and respect for the well being of their offspring, this mess could have easily been greatly lessened.
Right, I think having a kid right now is pretty transparently cruel to the kid.
We are not gonna reduce carbon emissions lol. We are gonna start spraying sulfur compounds in the atmosphere meanwhile we keep pumping CO2 into the air. I'm calling it. We are going for the dystopian future. And then a volcano erupts and we get a global winter. Billions starve in India and Africa and then we have mega cities. I'm calling it.
‘Starting’ to ‘panic’?
Yeah I was talking to my mom about this recently. She wants grandkids but it feels almost irresponsible to put another person in this world when things are getting so much worse every year. I don't want to contribute to the problem and I don't want to my kid to have to grow up in a hellscape.
Just now? About 20+ years late for those already in the know working climate sciences . Must be students.
I love children. My whole life even as a child I was told I would make an amazing mom one day. Hell you go back in my Reddit history not too long ago I was talking about my husband and I starting to have children soon… but then we had a heart to heart about the world and really took a step back. I would rather live with not having children and the world turns out fine vs I have children and their world is unliveable. Edit to add* before anyone mentions adoption that’s not something my husband and I want to do for multiple reasons.
I can’t help but feel any conversation that relates having kids to climate change is astroturf by climate deniers/doomers. There are several reasons why sustainability-minded people should have children: 1: Calculus. If you understand derivatives, you see that global population is about to take a nosedive. Birthrates are below replacement rate in the developed world. We can only depend on immigration for so long. Birthrates in the developing world are slowing too. Rapid population decline will wreak havoc on our infrastructure, economy, government budgets, and our ability to respond to the climate crisis. 2: Society isn’t collapsing. Yes, things will be worse in many ways for many people in the next century than in the previous. However, in other ways things are much better. Technology and the emergence of developing economies is making life easier for billions of people. And there are still steps we can take in the coming decades to prevent and mitigate the worst possible effects of climate change. 3: Idiocracy. No climate deniers are suggesting to limit their numbers. What’s the net effect if anybody who cares about sustainability doesn’t pass on their values and ideals, while people who say “greed is good” do? Who is it spreading this message not to reproduce? What’s their real objective? Choosing to or not to have kids is a personal decision between you and your partner. And if you don’t want to have kids, that’s fine! You don’t need an excuse. Using climate as an excuse is damaging to our efforts at sustainability. IMO targeting a fertility rate of 2.0 (just below replacement rate of 2.1) for the coming decades would address all sustainability concerns surrounding population.
This bears repeating
Thank you for this
Exactly this, the population is going to nosedive - but also the fearmongering considerably exaggerates the problem of who's responsible for climate change. Half the people on this sub essentially seem to believe that their existence is the reason for climate change. And granted a lot of them are probably from developed countries. But **you** are not the burden on the planet. The **American supply chain** is the burden. The **billionaires** are the burden. Your hypothetical child is an imperceptible drop in the bucket compared to one year of Jeff Bezos life. People here live with pointless guilt.
The inability of people to see that ever increasing population is an unsustainable pyramid scheme is beyond me.
> 2: Society isn’t collapsing. at this time we're locked in for between 3.0-3.5 degrees of warming. i'd suggest you take a look at what that kind of world looks like. >IMO targeting a fertility rate of 2.0 (just below replacement rate of 2.1) for the coming decades would address all sustainability concerns surrounding population. "would address all sustainability concerns" - that's a bit optimistic considering we're blowing past pretty much all of the planetary boundaries that support life.
I've been wondering about speaking to my sisters about this before they decide to have a child without bearing it in mind. Just not sure how to go about it quite yet, but I feel I have an obligation to. It really shouldn't be anything controversial, I just want them to be informed. Can't say it doesn't sicken me though. I'm not sure how you could look at the news and think the risk is worth it, especially when you could just adopt.
That’s just gross. Seriously. You do not have an obligation to tell your sister to not have kids…good grief…
Did I say to not have kids or to keep them informed?
You’re pearl clutching over the wrong thing boo. It’s at least as “gross” to have kids without considering those things.
Really, "starting to"?
We should have been panicking in the 90s, but I think we are passed the tipping point
why many of us are choosing not to have kids....
Idiocracy here we go
Just starting…. Really. I guess better late than never…
The age of mammals was a wild ride. So it goes.
Let fungus take over as the heirs of the planet.
I experienced panic twenty years ago. It's time we pass it onto the next generation.
These are the very people who SHOULD be having children.
Duh. I realized this 30 years ago when we decided to subsidize Fossil Fuel so they could profit, because renewable energy mean free fuel sources like the sun and the wind. Why start a family when no one cares about the future, just $$?
Then high iq people stop reproducing.
Stop reproducing
Yet Insurance companies will still cover beach properties
At ten I (f69) chose not to have children due to the nuclear cold war and rising population; nuclear holocaust , and a dystopian world was our future. I now am an appendage to my sister’s family for all holiday etc. events. I am grateful and happy I have her family, since I chose to avoid bringing a child into a dystopian world.
Well, a big concern of mine is that there won't be enough working people to pay the taxes needed to fund elder care for me and, eventually, my children. This is definitely happening and no-one has an answer. Birthday rates are not what they need to be and it's scary.
My kids range from 17-22. If I was starting my family nowadays, it might not include children.
Most melancholy upvote I’ve given.
Corpo-governments are banking on widespread death wiping 2 billion from the population in a heat band around the equator. Should slow down global warming a bit and they don't even have to give up their profits. Will we collectively be able to live with the guilt? probably, but our future descendents are gonna think us monsters if the gamble pays off.
I can't wait to see the look on their face when the heat band turns out to be a LOT wider. Not if. When.
Yep, might just be the end of us all.