Do you see a lot the argument that having kids is bad for the environment? Can I ask where? I do not disagree, I just rarely hear it, it's something people are afraid to day out loud in my social network, it's socially unacceptable, but it's changing a bit.

A lot of links and discussion on this account: https://twitter.com/Sashkapapashka

“life is futile and will inevitably lead to suffering, decay and death”. Ok, but she really is of the opinion that life in general is futile, independently of the state of our planet… I mean life has always lead to death and decay, and had always meant suffering (amonst other things), especially thousands of years ago.

Not saying what she says is meaningless, but she’s not really about saving the planet.

When I ask younger people why they don't want children, many answer me that they don't want to raise children in a world doomed due to global warming.

It is not exactly the same argument, but the idea that children are bad for the environment is implied (at least that's how I understand it)

I think “doomed” means it’s happening no matter if children are put in this world or not.

But I can totally relate to the fact that raising children without future seems absurd.

Woah, really? That many people believe the future is so without hope??

As in "I think the world will such a bad place to be a human being, that not being a human at all would be preferable"?

That's a lot of fear and fragility …

This is everywhere. Google something like "childfree environment" and see floods of articles and testimonials. People will also say this in person, or at least express reticence over it, but I also find that less so than I see it online or YouTube. As to what percent of people actually follow through with not having kids with this as the true primary motivation, Idk.

Very interesting. My social circles are significantly older than the women deciding not to have children – apart from Stephanie Mills, which actually did have a child. I guess time will tell if these women are being serious or if it’s just a pretext to push back on social pressure (and I 100% agree on pushing back this type of pressure).

NPR had a segment on women who chose to be child free and it was a widely cited reason. They either didn't want to bring a child into a world that would be in bad shape or felt it was selfish to bring more burden onto mother nature.

Read HN posts on climate change. On almost every one, there will be a subthread on "don't have kids because of environmental impact" (and another one that says not to have kids because they're doomed).

Interesting, somehow this doesn't reflect in birth rate decline. The decline has started long ago and continues roughly at the same pace, no massive acceleration [0].

[0] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/1_Demographic%20Profile...

My ignorant as all hell take is that this is tied to the collapse of the enforced nuclear family social construct. Women grew their careers and were able to have financial independence. As women began to have the option to choose not to have children many decided to take that approach. Once the decline really sets in it's during the wealth extraction of the middle and lower classes by Reagan and the destruction of leftist and minority family units through the War on Drugs in the '80s and starting in the '70s respectively. By the time the '90s roll around the trends are entrenched and here we are.

To hell with the nuclear family; all that was was a barely veiled attempt to maximize the consumption factor of the economic equation by seperating disparate generations in seperate homes.

It's an interesting issue as folks who want to get married, start a family, and develop that nuclear style household are presently the same folks who are not able to buy a house, afford medical bills, hell even most cannot afford a $500 emergency. Even without everyone having their own home and driving consumption, it's not likely that the situation would be all that much different.