A fifth of female climate scientists who responded to Guardian survey said they had opted to have no or fewer children

Ihad the hormonal urges,” said Prof Camille Parmesan, a leading climate scientist based in France. “Oh my gosh, it was very strong. But it was: ‘Do I really want to bring a child into this world that we’re creating?’ Even 30 years ago, it was very clear the world was going to hell in a handbasket. I’m 62 now and I’m actually really glad I did not have children.”

Parmesan is not alone. An exclusive Guardian survey has found that almost a fifth of the female climate experts who responded have chosen to have no children, or fewer children, due to the environmental crises afflicting the world.

An Indian scientist who chose to be anonymous decided to adopt rather than have children of her own. “There are too many children in India who do not get a fair chance and we can offer that to someone who is already born,” she said. “We are not so special that our genes need to be transmitted: values matter more.

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      At least the president in Idocracy had the humility and self awareness let the smartest guy in the room advise him on policy.

  • octatron@lmy.drundo.com.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The population is actually tipped to massively reduce on the next 100 years due to a large portion of people not have babies simply due to crappy economic conditions, inflation, war the lying flat movement in china and the ever increasing destruction of the middle class into the homeless poor. Aside from rich people destroying peoples ability to have happy lives, there’s also the plastic problem that’s quite literally made every male living thing have a reduced sperm count and it continues to drop as plastic is in the air, our clothes carpet and oceans. Endocrine disruptors in our bodies are being effected by chemicals found in vinyl products, thermal receipts and Tupperware releasing chemicals when heated in microwaves. These things are so small they enter the bloodstream and pass through the blood brain barrier… Fuuuck

    So if you want to save the future start by sniping off rich oligarchs and ban plastic completely

    • kinsnik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      i agree with your general idea, but not with all the reasons. war, crappy economic conditions and inflation have all happened multiple times before (and much worse that the current situation), but I’ve never heard that there were large portion of people choosing not to have kids before (please, correct me if I am wrong)

      i think that the current mental health crisis (which is caused by all those problems + the housing crisis, destruction of middle class, climate change concerns + social media) makes it different this time

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        war, crappy economic conditions and inflation have all happened multiple times before

        And they’ve all been paired with downturns in new births. The Thirty Years War, the Bengali Famine, and the Great Depression all resulted in sharp declines in birth rates.

        i think that the current mental health crisis (which is caused by all those problems + the housing crisis, destruction of middle class, climate change concerns + social media) makes it different this time

        I don’t think its limited to mental health. Two big changes from historical periods have been the sharp decline in dying kids and introduction of effective contraception. Historically, the only thing that countered a human’s innate horniness was malnutrition, massacre, and high rates of infant mortality. With vaccines and contraception, the idea of family planning isn’t “Have five kids and hope two live” but “Have two kids and hope you can pay for their college”.

        A big contribution to the 40s-era Baby Boom was the fertilizer revolution, which dramatically boosted crop yields. This, combined with early vaccine technology, saw a drop in maternal deaths and infant deaths, leading to parents with enormous family sizes who all lived to adulthood. These adults arrived just in time to start taking The Pill. Consequently, the Millennial second-tier Boom was much smaller than the first. And now Millennials are having even fewer kids, because contraception is trivial to obtain and large families are stigmatized against.

        But as to mental health? I think that’s tangential and hardly unique to the modern moment. If we didn’t have fertilizer and contraception and vaccination, we’d have just as many mentally ill people running around and making babies who died before they turned three years old. And the population downturn would look the same as any other 18th or 19th century trend line.

      • niartenyaw@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        i think another factor is that we are reaching or have maybe surpassed the earth’s carrying capacity for humans, which is only going to get worse with climate change. in the past, more kids also meant more labor and there was still lots of land to colonize and spread into with those extra people. but we already have more than enough people and no realistic places left to expand.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          but we already have more than enough people and no realistic places left to expand.

          …in the current economic model. Currently we have enough built housing and grow enough food globally and produce enough consumer goods that ever single person can be fed, clothed and shelter. But the wealthiest few would rather crops rot in fields, hoard houses to extract rent and burn unsold clothing instead of slightly lowering ther profit margins.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’ll start to level off around 10 billion, in 35 years.

      The thing about a growing population is that fewer people having babies has a diminished effect when there are so many more people. Each new pair having a slightly smaller chance of reproducing doesn’t matter when there are twice as many new pairs.

      The population won’t decrease dramatically, save for some catastrophic event.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The population very well might drop suddenly. Clearly that 10B is too many, but what happens after that. Some projections have a very steep decline, looking at developed countries approach an average closer to one child instead of closer to replacement value. What happens when most of those 10B age then pass, but there are only 5B to replace them? In the time of one generation, we could see a very serious depopulation in places

  • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    1/5th is low, and doesn’t appear very different to the general female population.

    This really just highlights the underlying problem and why our “efforts” are destined to amount to little more than shuffling deck chairs on the titanic — humans are selfish, and most of us are not willing to make major sacrifices to avert disaster; hell, most struggle to accept minor inconveniences.

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      most struggle to accept minor inconveniences.

      This is the really jaw dropping thing whenever I see it. I just have no idea what to say and don’t get how people don’t have an instinct for when there might be a bigger picture.

      Some are really cruising through life just trying to maximise convenience and comfort.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        COVID lockdowns demonstrated that we could kick climate change with enough will power. Id start by mandating work from home where possible.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          COVID lockdowns weren’t sustainable and while they reduced pollution to some extent they didn’t come close to eliminating it. Like in my country we turned off coal, but only because we don’t have much coal to begin with. We were still using plenty of gas power, as that’s our second largest energy source. Here in the UK our largest energy source is Wind, and we aren’t even doing that well compared to France or Spain on the energy front.

          Things also still got manufactured and sold, and that’s where a lot of pollution comes from. Food and goods production. Eliminating transport pollution would help for sure, but it’s like 14% of the problem. Electricity generation, heating, and agriculture are the things we need to fix the most. Fixing electricity generation would also help with transport emissions as we could use more electric vehicles and trains.

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      due to the environmental crises afflicting the world

      You’re removing the context behind the reasoning. Unless you’re claiming 1/5th of the general female population does not want to have kids due to climate change as well.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      humans are selfish, and most of us are not willing to make major sacrifices to avert disaster

      I am sick and tired of this cynical bullshit argument. It’s wrong in two ways (and neither are the way you think):

      1. It assumes that we have to reduce our standard of living in order to reduce our fossil fuels consumption, instead of innovating
      2. It presumes that the lifestyle changes that we do have to make (e.g. higher density zoning and walkablity) represent some kind of deprivation, rather than the improvement they would actually be.
  • olicvb@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    lmao ‘starting’ ?? I believe starting should have been done years ago.

    Reminds me of this South Park clip XD (youtube link)

    • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      1/5th want no or fewer kids… so 4/5 were pushing forward like normal.

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Ohe of the 4/5. I have 3 kids under 13. You gotta.be optimistic that they’re the generation to finally fix the mess we made.

        If everyone stops having kids then hope disappears.

        When we have exhausted all other options, we will do the right thing.

        Edit - I love that having hope and optimism for a future is downvotes lol

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Ninety-seven female scientists responded, with 17, including women from Brazil, Chile, Germany, India and Kenya, saying they had chosen to have fewer children.

    Most of the female scientists interviewed had made their decisions about children in past decades, when they were younger and the grave danger of global heating was less apparent.

    They said they had not wanted to add to the global human population that is exacting a heavy environmental toll on the planet, and some also expressed fears about the climate chaos through which a child might now have to live.

    Compulsory population control is not part of today’s population-environment debate, with better educational opportunities for girls and access to contraception for women who want it seen as effective and humane policies.

    Prof Regina Rodrigues, an oceanographer at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil, who also chose not to have children, was influenced by the environmental destruction she saw in the fast-expanding coastal town near São Paulo where she grew up.

    A study of Americans aged 27 to 45 – younger than the IPCC scientists surveyed – found concern about the wellbeing of children in a climate-changed world was a much bigger factor than worries over the carbon footprint of their offspring.


    The original article contains 1,186 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Kedly@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    How do you have fewer than no children? (=P tongue in cheek purposeful misunderstanding, not true pedantry)

    Edit: (Damn, even being clear I was being cheeky I still managed to piss someone off xD)

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I always thought my children, if I’d have them, might die a horrible death due to climate change.

    Now, knowing that humanity with climate change in mind, only increased spewing CO2 in to the atmosphere, I think I actually eillmdie a horrible death due to climate change.

    The no children thing for the climate is multiple generations too late already.

    Also, keep the idiocracy effect in mind. Only the good and caring people decide not to have children, the idiots and selfish assholes will have ten for them.

  • Asclepiaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I knew when I was 12 I never wanted children. I got married at 20. I got fixed at 24. I am almost 40 and have no regrets other than not getting fixed sooner, but finding a doc to fix a lady at 18 is damn near impossible.

  • Renegade_roosteR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    my own house insanity is not the ONLY reason I didn’t have kids… it’s also the duality of my own selfishness against the collapse of the planet!