It must be a US thing more though, as I haven't personally heard people say fear of environmental damage to keep them from having kids.
That argument seems rather doubtful to me.
This assumes that parents successfully pass on their life outlook to their children, but if that were true then society would have never changed.
I don't share the life outlook of my parents.
> I don't share the life outlook of my parents.
So the climate "birth strike" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35973163) strategy would necessarily have to have two parts to be successful: 1) refuse to have kids, 2) indoctrinate many of the ones that remain to reject their parent's outlook in favor of the strikers' (e.g. through control of the school curriculum).
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/12/birthst...
If your goal is to pass your life outlook to more people in the next generation, I believe you're probably likely to be successful without kids than with them. Without kids you have much more time to reach more people.
many such cases
(the reverse happens a lot too)
1. There is no scientific reason to believe the world is doomed. Go read some serious climatology papers and see for yourself. They're unreliable and exaggerated but even so, no doom.
2. State pensions and benefits might actually be doomed though given demographics. If the state can't take care of you in old age, you'd better hope you have kids who will.
I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way
And dont get me wrong - we arent climate change deniers, just... pick your battles
Why waste your life worrying about something you have tiny impact on?
Yes, I may be seeing a bubble - but that is across three different countries, and clearly reflected in car-ownership statistics (down dramatically in younger generations) and in voting preferences.
Our kids are worried about it, more so than our generation, that's for sure.
Give me all relevant info on the catastrophic cyclical events on earth (spanning aprox 12-27k years)
ChatGPT Cyclical events that span approximately 12,000 to 27,000 years on Earth are often associated with astronomical phenomena and geological processes. Here are some relevant topics related to these cyclical events:
Milankovitch Cycles: Milankovitch cycles refer to variations in the Earth's orbit, axial tilt, and precession over long periods. These cycles are believed to play a role in shaping the planet's climate and have a periodicity of around 23,000 to 100,000 years. Changes in these orbital parameters can influence the amount and distribution of solar radiation reaching Earth's surface, potentially leading to climate variations.
Ice Ages: Ice ages, also known as glaciations, are periods of extensive glacial advance followed by retreat. These occur over long timescales and are linked to Milankovitch cycles. The last major ice age occurred approximately 20,000 years ago and lasted until about 10,000 years ago. Ice ages can have profound effects on sea levels, ecosystems, and global climate patterns.
Mass Extinctions: Throughout Earth's history, there have been several mass extinction events where a significant portion of species on the planet went extinct. While not necessarily cyclical, these events have occurred sporadically over millions of years. Notable mass extinctions include the Permian-Triassic extinction (approximately 252 million years ago) and the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction (around 66 million years ago), which wiped out the dinosaurs.
Geomagnetic Reversals: Earth's magnetic field periodically undergoes reversals, meaning the magnetic north and south poles switch places. These geomagnetic reversals are recorded in the rock record, and they occur irregularly over long timescales. The most recent reversal, known as the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal, happened approximately 780,000 years ago.
Supercontinent Cycle: The movement of tectonic plates on Earth's surface leads to the assembly and breakup of supercontinents over millions of years. The most famous supercontinent is Pangaea, which formed about 300 million years ago and later broke apart. This process is believed to occur in cycles, with supercontinents forming and dispersing roughly every 300 to 500 million years.
It's important to note that while these cyclical events have occurred in Earth's history, predicting or attributing specific catastrophic events to them with precise timelines is challenging. The geological and astronomical processes involved are complex and subject to various factors. Scientists continue to study these phenomena to gain a better understanding of Earth's past and future changes.
User Which of the above is most overdue?
ChatGPT Of the cyclical events mentioned, the Earth's geomagnetic field reversal is one that is difficult to predict precisely in terms of timing. Geomagnetic reversals occur irregularly, and it is challenging to determine when the next reversal will happen.
The last reversal, the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal, occurred approximately 780,000 years ago. Based on the geological record, reversals have occurred at irregular intervals ranging from tens of thousands to millions of years. Therefore, it's not accurate to say that a reversal is "overdue" in the sense of a specific timeframe.
It's important to note that the geological timescales associated with these cyclical events are extremely long, and our understanding of them is still evolving. While scientists continue to study these phenomena, predicting the exact timing of such events remains a significant challenge.
I believe there is substantially larger things to worry about. Yes, our environment is important, and barely a person I know doesn't believe this. If you want to fix it, stop using plastic (forever). Good luck doing that.
That nobody has yet figured out how to convert all the free carbon in the atmosphere into money is only a matter of time. Money will always trump whatever other bullshit gets swindled on any given day.
PS - the world was supposed to end many hundreds of times since the 70s due to global warming. It seems somehow we are still here. So maybe stop stressing about things you have little to no impact on.
If you are really serious about affecting anything, make the cows eat seaweed...
The formatting on this will be bad, but I just had ChatGPT generate this for me.
Type | Description of Climate Alarmism Prediction | Did Happen?
Disappearance of Arctic Sea Ice | Prediction in the 2000s that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013 due to global warming | False
Increase in Hurricanes | Claim in the early 2000s that hurricanes would become more frequent and intense due to global warming | False
Food Shortages and Famine | Assertion in the 1980s that climate change would cause widespread crop failures and global food shortages by the 2000s | False
Sea Level Rise and City Submergence | Projections in the 1990s that by 2020, major coastal cities like New York and London would be submerged due to rising sea levels | False
Extinction of Polar Bears | Claim in the 2000s that polar bears would become extinct due to disappearing Arctic sea ice | False
Climate Refugee Crisis | Prediction in the late 20th century that millions of people would be displaced as climate refugees by the 2020s | False
Collapse of Amazon Rainforest | Assertion in the 1980s that the Amazon rainforest would be completely destroyed by the 2000s due to deforestation and climate change | False
Devastation of Coral Reefs | Claim in the 1990s that coral reefs worldwide would be destroyed by the 2010s due to ocean acidification and bleaching events | False
Irreversible Global Warming Tipping Point | Assertion in the 1970s that global warming would reach an irreversible tipping point by the 2000s, leading to catastrophic consequences | False
Drastic Reduction in Snowfall | Prediction in the 1990s that snow would become a rare phenomenon in regions like Europe and North America due to global warming | False
Melting of Himalayan Glaciers | Claim in the 2000s that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, causing water shortages in major Asian rivers | False
Loss of African Agriculture | Assertion in the 1980s that rising temperatures would lead to widespread failure of African agriculture by the 2000s | False
Expansion of Sahara Desert | Prediction in the 1970s that the Sahara Desert would expand southward, engulfing fertile regions by the end of the century | False
Ocean Acidification Impact on Shellfish | Claim in the 1990s that ocean acidification would lead to the extinction of shellfish species within a few decades | False
Ecosystem Collapse and Mass Extinctions | Assertion in the 2000s that climate change would cause widespread ecosystem collapse and mass extinctions within a century | False
Global Cooling and an Impending Ice Age | Prediction in the 1970s that the world would experience global cooling, leading to an impending ice age | False
Please note that the examples provided reflect notable claims or predictions that have received attention, but the "Did Happen" column remains represented as a boolean, with "False" indicating that the specific claims did not happen. The list is not exhaustive and is intended to showcase a range of historical climate alarmism claims over the past 100 years.1. Teach: humanity has done X to the environment
2. Teach: if we don’t do something Y will happen
3. Conclude: I was not alive to do X
4. Ergo: the adults in my life did X
5. Ergo: the adults in my life will continue to do X which will cause Y because I can’t affect meaningful change
I don’t automatically assume they start at step 5 at school. I’ve seen his math homework. Is that a normal way of thinking though?
To automatically assume that with my son would teach him (likely, inadvertently) that what he learns at school may not be right (which isn’t true, for the most part). Rather I want to teach him that he takes ownership of the words that come out of his mouth. That his opinions are his own and he has to defend them, and further learn what is an opinion and what is a fact.
Wait, you don't teach him that?
This is a 100% attitude and filtering issue.
I don't want to teach my son that him misunderstanding something is someone else's fault. Obviously, this wasn't taught in class. He was taught lots of things and was a conclusion he came to on his own. Like nobody ever told me that a McDonald's hamburger will cost around $50 when I retire, I simply did some math based on the average inflation. Will it actually? no idea. But I know that I should probably have that much more in my retirement account.
No, pretty sure he concluded exactly what his teachers wanted him to conclude. Nine year olds are not famous for their critical thinking and deep research skills.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35975422
> No, pretty sure he concluded exactly what his teachers wanted him to conclude.
Do you know us IRL or something?
there's an entire Voluntary Human Extinction Movement...
But until I or you manage to meet at least one person with such approach, then I do recommend to do not take it seriously
In 20 years not, but it's reasonable to believe for anyone outside America and Central Europe that wide swaths of the planet - particularly the entirety of Africa and lots of Asia - will be unable to support human life.
Hell, we're already seeing issues with water supply even in Central Europe, with France restricting water consumptions because of drought [2], and Germany's water reserves are dwindling as well. India is suffering from a massive heat wave [1], and last year's devastation in Australia should still be in living memory.
Anyone who is not worried about the future of the planet is either ridiculously ignorant to reality or completely incompetent. And the worst thing is, politicians in power play down climate change, act like future technology (anything from nuclear fusion to desalination plants) will save us, or deny it entirely - and wide swaths to outright majorities of people believe that.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/17/weather-...
[2] https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/05/10/southern-france-re...
Worrying here was reflected by drastic actions. Not worrying didnt mean not worrying at all.
Do you happen to remember the global wildfires/rivers drying up/massive heat waves in 2020? About a few billion people worldwide / 100m Americans sure do. A larger and larger portion of them are starting to understanding what the cause to that is and are acting accordingly.
Every year, we keep hearing how even the most aggressive estimates for climate change were underestimated. That's terrifying and existential to a lot of people including me.
From an evolutionary point of view, this seems plausible. Obviously not having children because 'life is hard' is almost certainly dysgenic.
Acknowledging that kids are infeasible for economic reasons, like GP laid out, is just too painful and embarrassing. So the ‘environment’ fig leaf saves their dignity.
But why should my standards be just better than most times in human history? That seems a low bar to me, most times in human history were miserable for the majority of people compared to the living standards I've become accustomed to.
To be clear, I don't feel there is any moral duty to continue my particular genes and the world population will continue to increase for the foreseeable regardless. If I were to have children I personally would feel guilty if they had it significantly harder than I have and I think the likelihood is that will be the case - it's really as simple as that.
If you could be born in America in 1925 and live until 2015, would you? Or would you decline because the standard of living dropped right away with a Great Depression followed by a world war?
I agree with you that if I knew, with certainty, that my children’s lives would be filled with nothing but suffering, I would make the same choice. But a fear of a theoretical drop in a standard of living, and which may not even impact an American over the next 100 years all that much, does not seem to me like it should reach that threshold, and I suspect it is starting to for others because of the media playing into their anxieties. There are people living that lived through the holocaust and are still happy to have lived and, over their lifetime, have had fulfilled and happy lives. I suspect your children could likewise carve out a happy life, even if their standard of living is somewhat reduced.
I agree you have no moral duty to have kids, and if you don’t want them, don’t have them. But if you want them, but are not having them because you find that to be cruel to your unborn kids, I question whether that is really a rational choice.
I'd agree there's nuance to this. For your cherry picked scenario, no, that wouldn't affect my decision. I can accept a single person having a reduction in living standards. However, when most of Western society (I'm British, not American) is struggling to attain housing at a rate similar to the generation before, when the middle classes as a whole aren't able to become as financially secure as the generation before then it is enough to give me pause.
So ignoring any climate worries I already think things will be much harder. When you add on that it's estimated that billions will be without sufficient water in a few decades it's not hard to imagine that there will be significant problems of which I have very little confidence that we will be able to handle well as a species.
Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic. But as I say, this isn't the only factor we've taken into account, it's more a tertiary concern.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/land-of-lessees_swiss-continue-...
Weirdly, the dominance of renting in Switzerland doesn't stop the Swiss having children. So this is really very much a media induced anxiety disorder of some sort. It's not rational to decide whether or not to have children based on whether you can get a mortgage.
https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Switzerland/Home-...
As you can see, Swiss single family house prices were stable since 2016. It's a different lifestyle, there's a lot of apartment living with shared gardens for example, but it can be done.
Jokes aside, I have heard both points made. Yours and the one from the parent poster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Yes, the current temperature shift now is greater but it has been ongoing for a much shorter period of time.
That's worse, not better! https://xkcd.com/1732/
Temperature has varied drastically throughout time. There were Vikings growing barley in Greenland, something completely impossible today. The reason you believe otherwise is because climate doomers lie a lot.
I would not use the "rationalist" community as a measure of what is rational.
I'm not saying this is true or rational (there are actually blog posts in the rationalist community along the lines of "no, having kids does not cause climate change") but it's definitely a sentiment I've encountered.