[willio58]

Is anyone on HN reconsidering having children because of climate change? Recently I've had a big shift myself on this topic, probably influenced by not many women my age (younger than 30) having any interest in bringing a child into a world where they could potentially suffer real physical danger due to climate change.

[testfoobar]

I wish you the best as you figure out the direction of your life.

I'm a bit older and have kids. They've positively impacted my life in ways I could not have imagined when I was younger. Having said that, the speed of climate change and what feels like a global political class that is incapable of taking meaningful action, I am very concerned for my kids' near future. I cannot imagine a life without them, but I do wonder whether they will suffer, or whether my grand kids will suffer due to climate change. And so I wonder whether the joy and fulfillment they bring me will be worth any suffering they will be forced to endure. I cannot successfully do this computation. I am left with a persistent concern that will not lift.

But then I think about people who had children during times of war and during famines. The urge to procreate is so amazingly strong.

By definition the adults who will tackle climate change have to be conceived by the adults who will suffer from it.

[t8e56vd4ih]

only those conceived will suffer ...

[reidjs]

The irony of this is that the people who care about the wellbeing of the planet enough to question having children due to climate concerns are the ones who really should be having children. They are more likely to raise them to be conscious of issues like this, to look for solutions, and to minimize their impact.

[toss1]

And right there, you have the thesis underlying the plot for Idiocracy, a time-shifted documentary masquerading as a comedy, in which the value of t is claimed to be 500 years, but is actually unknown (and current data suggest far lower value).

[King-Aaron]

Such an underrated movie

[KennyBlanken]

Yep, and even worse: it's the super-religious loonies that are pumping out children like no tomorrow.

[obmelvin]

One would (likely) have the biggest impact on their own children as opposed to other children, but by volunteering for various organizations one can impact far more kids than the few in one's own family.

[cagenut]

On a long enough timeline I agree with your point, but your argument is one of the many many common examples we see now of people simply not understanding the timeline. 2050 is 29 years away. Kids born in the next few years will barely be out of school by the time we have to have this mostly solved.

[cmpb]

True, but odds are by 2050 we will not have this mostly solved and we will still be arguing with each other about what's important when it comes to preserving the current climate vs adapting to a changing climate. I think that on the short timeline it definitely makes sense to use progeny as a means to effect change according to ones own ideals.

[jvanderbot]

Well, the birds aren't going to fix climate change.

I can't speak for the women you know, but the women I know in their 20s-30s tell me they aren't thinking about children at all probably thanks to the empowerment of women of the last 100 years.

Over my life, I've heard all kinds of excuses for all people to not consider children until they are in their late 30s or 40s, then it's a rush. I did the same.

I'm not sure it's climate change.

[KennyBlanken]

Most people I know are not having children because they don't have the economic stability to do so. Housing, individual low/middle income tax burden, cost of living, stagnated wages over the last several decades for all but the top 25%.

[jvanderbot]

Let me tell you one thing I've learned: There's never ever a good time to have children.

[lotsofpulp]

I imagine raising children is much easier if you can afford round the clock nannies.

Or even just retired physically able grandparents a few doors down who can help serve as a redundancy.

[jvanderbot]

Maybe, but man, money can't help you be a good parent.

You're tired, at work, and not part of their day-to-day life. It'd almost be easier to be 20 and have mom/dad still around and just start career at 35. Hell, I practically started my career at 35 and have nothing to show for the delay!

[tamaharbor]

My wife and I are those grandparents, and frankly we don’t want the job.

[klipt]

What's funny is if you're completely broke and have kids, there are tons of government benefits designed to keep you afloat. But if you have a little too much money to qualify for those benefits, you'll feel like you'll never have money for kids.

[adamrezich]

yeah I've noticed that the antinatalists never seem to be saying, "man, I really really want to have kids, it's one of if not the most important driving forces in my life... but the threat of climate change looms ever-present, so it would be irresponsible to bring my heirs into this fallen Earth!"—it usually if not always seems to be a post-hoc excuse for a decision they've already made, or at the very least, a justification to move off the middle of the fence toward "no" instead of "yes." if anyone knows of anyone who's written something that contradicts this I would love to read it.

[goldenchrome]

If you are strong and capable you should have kids to help build a better tomorrow. There aren't many young women who want to have kids because there aren't many young men who seem strong enough to bear the responsibility.

[redprince]

I always enjoy when the decision against having kids is subtly framed as a weakness or a character flaw.

I posit a different guideline: If having kids is something you feel is of vital importance to you personally and not because other people expect it from you, then by all means, try to find someone who feels the same way and have kids.

[hanklazard]

It is daunting, but the world has looked at least this scary before and it didn’t stop the generations of people who led to our existence right now.

As a person who just had a child, I strongly recommend it so far. It is more challenging than most things I have done in my life, but also more rewarding. I am forced to be selfless in a way that I never have been before. And I know it’s annoying to hear people say these things, but they are true.

For those who don’t want children, of course that’s your choice. I just hope we don’t let fear ruin such a beautiful opportunity for those who would be parents and children.

[Axien]

I agree. Exactly when was this utopian time to have kids? Things look pretty damn good now.

[cosmic_shame]

Yes. Interesting counterpoint from Scott Alexander: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-dont-give-up-on...

[boppo1]

Thanks for this! Lots of my peers are going on and on about how we're all doomed. I belisve in climate change, and that it's bad and we must act. But I don't think we're gonna be living in Waterworld, which is what my friends are describing.

[shawnb576]

There is a pretty major flaw in this write up, which is the assumption that the changes we may see will be linear, be it sea level rise, temps, etc.

There are at least 4 tipping points that could upend this. If the Gulf Stream fails, Europe will be much colder than it is now, for example. Rapid breakdown of ice shelfs could quickly raise sea levels.

“It won’t be bad because it has not yet” is thin.

The middle latitudes are set to be in large part unlivable. Just imagine the geopolitical and humanitarian impacts of hundreds of millions of refugees. Just imagine when a country that is the source of a water source decides they need it and more than others downstream and reroute it.

These are massively destabilizing types of things. And not far fetched.

Sea level rise is the least of it tbh.

[boppo1]

> And not far fetched.

Can you point me in the direction of some stuff that supports the likelihood of these scenarios? The middle latitudes being unlivable does seem extreme and unlikely to me, especially given the explanation in the article about how 85F was used as a threshold for unlivable by some studies.

[shawnb576]

The threshold is typically 106F "wet bulb", above which much exposure will kill people, literally begin to cook them. Many parts of the world are hitting this.

Examples:

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/rising-temperatures-dying-...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/23/magazine/clim...

"Today 1% of the world is an unlivable hot zone, by 2070 it may be 19%"

[cosmic_shame]

I totally agree, he definitely downplays or under-appreciates the possible severity of climate change.

[native_samples]

You should consider the possibility that the climate skeptics are right, also. Imagine how you'd feel if you gave up your chance to have a family, and then one day realized that the scientists weren't being completely honest (as is now widely accepted to have been the case with virology/lab leaks).

Claims about world records in temperature can be extremely confusing. Many times, newly announced "record breaking temperatures" are actually lower than they have been recorded in the past. Here is one recent example:

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest...

"As anyone who follows the climate news is aware, July 2021 was the hottest month on record for our torrid little orb, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with a combined temperature 1.67 degrees F higher than the 20th century average of 60.4 F. NOAA noted in a Friday press release that the previous record was set in July 2016, and tied in 2019 and 2020. But as Bill Frezza, a sharp-eyed reader of Retraction Watch noticed, the agency’s website tells a different story. This press release, dated Aug. 15, 2019, and still live on noaa.gov, proclaims July 2019 to be the hottest month on record for the planet."

The reason this occurs is that temperatures reported by governments are no longer actual recorded temperatures, but rather the output of models. These models significantly change the historical record, both absolute values and trends, in fact they continuously recalculate old temperature values. Climatology doesn't believe you can answer a question like "what was the temperature at weather station X, Y days in the past" because the answer depends on when you ask it. This isn't really a secret but it's also not well known. NOAA explained it like this:

"NOAAGlobalTempv5 is a reconstructed dataset, meaning that the entire period of record is recalculated each month with new data. Based on those new calculations, the new historical data can bring about updates to previously reported values."

Another example is here:

USA Today Jan 2022 https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/the-past-seven-... "Europe sweltered through its hottest summer ever recorded in 2021 and set an all-time temperature record in Sicily of nearly 120 degrees Fahrenheit."

Record = 120 degrees Farenheit.

New York Times 1925 https://www.nytimes.com/1935/06/23/archives/127degree-heat-i... "127 degree heat in Zarazoga, Spain"

So 120 degrees is not an "all time temperature record" and 2021 was not the "hottest summer ever recorded".

Try to remember, claims about the end of the world come and go. Our parents were being told the world would end due to mass starvation when population growth exhausted food supplies, a new ice age (global cooling) and of course the ever-present possibility of nuclear war. Humanity survived and if they'd taken the attitude you're talking about now, you wouldn't exist.

[lotsofpulp]

I think it is reasonable to not have kids if you think the probability of an acceptable quality of life for them is too low.

I only agreed to have kids because I have a spouse who earns above average and I feel secure that we will be able procure resources and equip the kids well, but I think would have been just as happy if I had not had kids.

[adamrezich]

if you are posting on HN and you have children today, their baseline quality of life is better than 99.999% of that of recorded human history.

[lotsofpulp]

No doubt about that, and I make no judgment about other people's criteria or even lack thereof for having or not having children.

[adamrezich]

me neither, because there's no point in trying to convince someone to change their mind about whether or not to act upon their own primary biological instinct that they've been taught to suppress—it's a self-correcting problem, and one that most certainly doesn't concern me.

[Axien]

I would say it is better than 100%. When was that .001%

[anonporridge]

Of much greater concern to me is the stability of my income potential in a world that's increasingly automated and career stability is gone.

I feel like my default is no children, and that will only change if and only if I reach a level of wealth that I can feel very comfortable committing to the ~18 years of directly raising a new human, the 4+ years thereafter for continuing education, and all the costs associated with raising a well experienced and skilled human so they can have a chance at generating their own wealth.

However, I also think inheritance is mostly a curse on people who receive it, so if I had children, I would raise them with the explicit expectation that I will pay for their education, but will likely have a hard cutoff of financial help after a certain milestone or age. And they can expect 0 inheritance.

[14]

The opportunities for our children is dwindling. I am a full time health care worker who works lots of overtime and I can not even come close to affording a house that fits me and my kids. I am desperately trying to save up but would need $100k to even get my foot in the door at today’s market. To hear you say you would want to cut your child off seems so foreign to me. I want to get ahead enough in life that I can leave my kids with something. That is why in fact I just 2 weeks ago saw a financial advisor and am working on getting life insurance. I want to make my kids life a little easier then mine and with the way things are every cent I can leave them will help a lot. Hard work is not enough to do well in life anymore. Trust me my next check has 157 hours of pay coming. I still am not financially well off.

[anonporridge]

Part of the reason opportunities are dwindling is because generational wealth is accumulating more and more resources and rent seeking from the plebs who toil to survive. If you're not born into that club, it's very unlikely you'll enter it.

[manmal]

Can you inherit zero? Where I live, there is a mandatory minimum inheritance for children - I think it’s 1/6 of the total?

Cutting off financial help might result in them feeling stuck with their past choices, resulting in depression etc - I wouldn’t do that. Many successful entrepreneurs come from supportive households.

[anonporridge]

I've never heard of a law like that.

Where I live, a person has full discretion on who inherits their estate if they explicitly write their will. Your offspring and next of kin are the default inheritors, but can be excluded if you explicitly say so in your will.

[manmal]

> Under Austrian law children (including adopted children) and the spouse are entitled to a "reserved portion". The children´s and the spouse´s "reserved portion" has to cover at least half of the portion they would get in the case of intestacy.

https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Austria/Inheritan...

So I wasn’t right about the fixed part, it very much depends on whether there is a spouse to inherit it to.

[boppo1]

I'm 30 and lived with my parents until I was 26. Not gonna lie, it made me soft.

When my kids turn 18, we'll fight to the death in the backyard. If they win, they get my stuff. If they lose, I'll have some more & repeat the process. Don't think I'll be around long enough for a third go.

[KerryJones]

There's a word for this: "antinatalism".

-------

The idea that it could be morally or ethically better to not have children feels like further in-depth thought out examining the specifics in attempt for a rational and non-emotional answer would yield a pretty strong "no". It is a vastly personal decision and I would encourage you to answer this for yourself personally and to try to look for the arguments of those who are saying the opposite of your close social friends (if they are saying "no", then look for people saying "yes", if they are saying "yes", look for people who are saying "no").

The arguments that come to my mind:

1. The world has always been filled with an amount of danger to offspring, this is not more existential than it has been in the past (though it's often hyperbolized to be).

2. There are vast amounts of anecdotal stories about children who were "almost not born" (failed abortion, doctors or parents said it would be too hard, etc.) because of a parents decision who ended up having a hugely beneficial and/or great life.

3. There is a stronger effort now than ever before on correcting climate change. There are more opportunities than there ever have to make a difference. Your child could be one of these people.

4. I have seen no science that an additional child or children is going to inherently negatively increase climate change, which means having a motivated parent to better the world has a huge potential upside for the climate and low downside.

----

An additional side, I would use any of amount of logic of "should have a child" either. If you don't want a child, I do not think you should have a child. A child needs love and compassion from its parents.

[thriftwy]

"bringing a child into a world where they could potentially suffer real physical danger"

People seem to think that "night is dark and full of terror" is a joke. Get used to it.

[jmrm]

As an European under 30 living in a country whose our society isn't so worried (and we should) about climate change, and I don't personally feel it like a crucial factor in order to have or not a child. Most important factors for us are economic stability and having a couple who also want descendants.

I personally want to have child, and probably would do when I met those two requirement, and probably the most problematic of them are one you also have: Finding a woman who wants that.

Having a child in a modern European country isn't the same as our parents or grandparents had. We have paid parental leave, decent health, nursery, and education services, a society where both parts of the couple can go to work, share home tasks, and care of their childs (independently of being a man or a woman) without having to give up on other things, and so on.

I find it very sad having 40 or more, wanting to have kids, but having conception problems due to your age. I don't if there are statistics about this, and I don't want to influence anyone with this, but from personal experiences, most of the people who decided to not have kids regret that decision, and not too much of those who had them does.

[vibrio_bobtail]

I've never really understood this. If I had the choice today to be born today or never,I would definitely choose to be born. Why would my unborn children decide differently. Honestly curious how you would answer this question.

[agensaequivocum]

Not in the slightest. I just turned 28 and have 4 with, hopefully, more to come!

[analog31]

Well, we can't give them back. ;-) But it's something that I've thought about even though the die is already cast. I'm also not sure what country I'd want to bring kids into today.

[King-Aaron]

I had this thought in the back of my mind, but we had a kid anyway. I just plan to train him to be an excellent archer and swordsman so he can take control of the coming wastelands

[Axien]

If you want children, you should have children. They will be fine. If you deny yourself you will regret it later in life.

[rad_gruchalski]

> Is anyone on HN reconsidering having children because of climate change?

Yes. One of the reasons. A major one.

[sebow]

No(even though i fit in your description aswell), I used to think that way about many issues of the world(of which by the way climate change is not really that impactful towards the individual against kids, compared to economic issues, political,etc) until i was ~22, then i quickly realized that actually that's one argument in favor of having children.I'm not saying you cannot be selfish from having kids(just as much if not more from not having kids), i'm saying that pragmatically human life is the most efficient and important way to solve any problem.There are other more personal reasons(such as happiness, duty/fulfillment,etc) you should consider before putting priority on such issues.

This might be an unpopular opinion, yet i dare anyone to show me a point in history when having less kids was a good idea and showed better results than letting people do as they fit (because forcing people to have kids is not something i endorse, yet it sadly happened, and also is a bad idea: Look at China: more kids through a boom, then they forced people to 1-2 kids, which created a massive vacuum and nowadays China is facing not-so-bright future due to this fact , their middle class also increased massively, and we know that this results in less natality).

Sadly the socio-economic structure we have today(i'm not talking capitalism vs communism, they're both the same in this aspect) kind of forces us to have more kids but for the wrong reasons.We decay as a society when we view human life as a resource for work force for corporations or getting X/Y done, when in the past the booms of increasing populations(think post 89', or 18th century, 2500BC, roman era,etc) were mostly done because the prospects of the future were bright, thus leading adults to having more kids.

[hffftz]

They possibly could also save the world from climate change?

[refurb]

Is the world any more scary that before?