These lines are by nature fuzzy and a bit arbitrary, but yeah just barely:
> In order to keep the Millennial generation analytically meaningful, and to begin looking at what might be unique about the next cohort, Pew Research Center decided [in 2018] to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials for our future work. Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 ... is considered a Millennial
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-mille...
First, this is at least racism-adjacent as far as I'm concerned.
Second, birth rates are declining throughout the world thanks to increased access to reproductive technology, improvements in income and quality of life, and increased urbanization:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-...
Second, birth rates ...
Irrelevant to my point.
The trope that folks in "developing" countries universally pop out huge numbers of kids sufficient to "more than offset your decision not to have kids" is just that, a trope, based on, generously, a paternalistic western view of the rest of the world that lacks any kind of nuance.
For example, China's birthrate is below replacement rate. Is China a "developing" nation in your mind?
What about India? Birthrates have also been dropping consistently, averaging around 2.5 children per couple, which is just a bit above replacement rate (2.1), and in many communities birth rates are actually below replacement:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-bel...
Sub-Saharan African birthrates are on average much higher but they've been plummeting for years and the trend is likely to continue:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
All of this reflects a global crash in fertility rates:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521
> Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 - and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.
Frankly, you might want to reflect on why you hold on to these outdated beliefs about the "developing" world.
That's why I said many, not all.
paternalistic western view of the rest of the world that lacks any kind of nuance
To reiterate again: there's nothing racist about the fact that many "developing" countries have higher birthrates than the West. Post all the statistics you want about them leveling off: right now in 2021, many are still higher than the West. You are saying it's "paternalistic". You are senselessly bringing in this irrelevant context. If I had to guess, it's because you feel the need to inject politics into conversations so you can argue in bad faith.
The term "developing countries" is a commonly used phrase; the UN uses it. Go complain to them if it's so racist.
Raising a child is the most meaningful experience in most people’s lives. Why should anybody give up kids but keep their iPhones, AC, avocados, and software engineering jobs?
You might feel differently when you’re older.
Or they have different values than you. Shocking, right?
> Why should anybody give up kids but keep their iPhones, AC, avocados, and software engineering jobs?
> You might feel differently when you’re older.
Ahh, there it is. That moral superiority that oh-so-often exudes from folks with kids criticizing folks who don't want them.
I'm 42. Married almost 20 years. No kids. Still no desire to have them. Amazing, right?
Suggestion: Don't talk down to people about their reproductive choices. You might not agree with folks but you're no one's moral superior.
I DO however, get annoyed when I see people present themselves as some kind of martyr simply for being child free. Those same folks on this forum gladly spew out carbon in pursuit of building a new ML model, cryptocurrency, or unnecessary startup cash-grab.
> I'm 42. Married almost 20 years. No kids. Still no desire to have them. Amazing, right?
> Suggestion: Don't talk down to people about their reproductive choices. You might not agree with folks but you're no one's moral superior.
For the record, I am 26 and have also have no children. Your suggestion is exactly my point. Seems like we have some common ground!
And the difference is the OP literally was just talking about themselves and their own choices. Go read their comment. They even went out of their way to say "For me, it's practicing what I preach, because I view climate change as the most pressing existential threat to our species" and finished their comment by stating "If you disagree... more power to you! It's your decision to make, and I mean that earnestly."
Never once do they deign to make moral statements about anyone else. It's purely about their decision and why they've made it.
The only way to take offense to that is to look for it.
You, by contrast, proceeded to attack the person's beliefs, going so far as to say of their desire to have children: "you probably never really wanted them anyways."
As for this...
> For the record, I am 26
I'd wait until at least your 30s before you start telling people what they might or might not feel when they get older...
I just straight up disagree here. The implication here is that they're making a significant personal sacrifice in an attempt to save the earth. In reality, they already don't want children and this is a convenient way to present themselves in a positive moral light. You're leaving out the part where OP says he doesn't really want kids that much.
"I have other justificiations, too -- in terms of life priorities, I simply consider children as "nice to have". For someone on the fence like me, this is enough."
This is pretty far away from someone who wants to start a family. Children are just "nice to have?"
> The only way to take offense to that is to look for it.
You could say the same thing about my response to OP.
If it's really not a big deal, then we can just accept others' differences without getting annoyed.
It's possible but I seriously doubt it. Just being on this forum tells me that OP has likely emitted more carbon than almost every other human in the history of our species. The startup space openly celebrates carbon intensive profit chasing behavior.
How can we have it both ways? We've gotta reduce our personal carbon footprint but also let's create tech startups to get rich. It's just a bit silly imo.
Unnecessary startup cash-grabs are no good indeed. Maybe one day they'll see it your way and abandon high-carbon pursuits. But for now if they're taking steps towards being sustainable, then let's encourage them.
It is scary indeed, to think we can't help raise children unless we give birth to them ourselves, while ignoring millions of struggling kids today. Why can't we love them as our own? Ultimately, we all come from the same source [1].
I am in no way advocating against adopting children. That is a wonderful thing to do for another human being. It has very little to do with climate change and surely you understood that the original comment was discussing having no kids at all.
The carbon footprint of your child is there whether or not you adopt it.
Talk all you want about how climate change is not a personal issue -- the decision to have children (and how many) is the singlemost environmentally impactful decision you will ever have direct, personal agency in making. For me, it's practicing what I preach, because I view climate change as the most pressing existential threat to our species (albeit on a longer timescale than my own life).
I have other justificiations, too -- in terms of life priorities, I simply consider children as "nice to have". For someone on the fence like me, this is enough. If you disagree... more power to you! It's your decision to make, and I mean that earnestly.
[1]: Born 1996