Young Europeans more likely to quit driving and have fewer children to save planet : futurology

[-] greenteadrinker@midwest.social 38 points 1 year ago

I’m not European nor am I that young, but I share the same sentiment. Commuting by car isn’t good in a lot of aspects and kids are too expensive. Also having kids in this climate seems extremely stressful. Not only do you have to worry about extremely invasive tech, but you also have to worry about the changing climate and the (what seems like) global cost of living crisis

[-] rglullis@communick.news 4 points 1 year ago

1990: "wow, the ozone layer is getting destroyed. Who knows if we might have a planet. Might be better to not have kids"
1970: "wow, life is more expensive than ever and the world might end in a nuclear war. Might be better to not have kids"
1950: "wow, we just got out of the war and will need to rebuild the whole continent. Might be better to not have kids"
1800: "wow, I spend 15 hours a day working in a factory and I can barely sustain myself. Might be better to not have kids".
1400: "wow, I have back-breaking work in a farm and all of it goes to some king and I will never see. What is the point of this? Might be better to not have kids."

[-] inlandempire@jlai.lu 38 points 1 year ago

Indeed, anyone can make up quotes about anything, without providing any substance to a discussion.

[-] rglullis@communick.news 4 points 1 year ago

If you need it spelled out for you, I'll help: life was never easy, but it never stopped people from stepping up to it and taking the responsibility for it. That includes having kids. Being "afraid of having kids" because of some external issue seems like a bad excuse from people who just don't want to accept the responsibility.

[-] vmaziman@lemm.ee 42 points 1 year ago

Saying it’s our responsibility to have kids it’s implying it’s our responsibility to endlessly expand and multiply. That is the domain of viruses and creatures that exceed the environmental carrying capacity of their species

[-] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 year ago

it’s our responsibility to endlessly expand and multiply.

Not necessarily. We can still encourage people to have kids but keep it close to replacement rate (2.3 kids per woman)

[-] vmaziman@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

But isn’t it the fact that we have so many people coming into the middle class with middle class resource usage that causes planetary resource overruse? Either we need less people in the middle class, or 7 billion ppl have got to go back to pre industrial levels of consumption

[-] rglullis@communick.news 4 points 1 year ago

Either we need less people in the middle class, or 7 billion ppl have got to go back to pre industrial levels of consumption

No, we need less people living with the north american standard of consumption. This is not the same as "middle class".

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

There are already way, way too many people on the planet.

[-] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 year ago

And most of them are in Asia, old and about to die in 25 years or so.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The population on China and India is still growing. Have birth rates dropped below replacement levels?

[-] rglullis@communick.news 3 points 1 year ago

population on China and India is still growing.

China is already declining.

Have birth rates dropped below replacement levels?

Yes, India is already below replacement levels and dropping further.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the sources. Interesting to see that "The number of new births a year has nearly halved since 2016" in China.

[-] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 year ago

That's what demographic collapse looks like. Birth rate drops a cliff because the population finds itself suddenly without people in fertile age.

[-] RIPandTERROR 5 points 1 year ago

What a fucking stupid argument. How is it anyone's "responsibility" to have a kid? Please spell it out.

Here's my argument: it sounds hard and I don't wanna. Explain to me how I'm irresponsible. JFC 😂

[-] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 year ago

What is your plan when you get to old age?

[-] force@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Use the hundreds of thousands I would have otherwise spent on kids to live my best life until I die? duh

[-] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Understand that we are talking here about a scenario where the global fertility rate drops significantly (less than one child per woman), like what is happening now in South Korea, Spain, Italy, ok?

Given that scenario and the economic collapse that would be coming with it, what would you be spending on, exactly?

Has it occurred to you that all that money that you have been saving and putting in some pension fund will likely not be there if there are no younger people to keep the economy going?

Also: what is stopping you from "living your best life" now that you are young?

Lastly

Use the hundreds of thousands I would have otherwise spent on kids

Yeah, that is not a thing in Germany. Decent public schools, decent health care system, government gives you 250 euro per kid per month, no car dependency, which means that kids are a lot more independent a lot earlier in life... having kids does not cost that much.

[-] PolishAndrew@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Lol 1950 was a great time to have kids, ever heard of baby boomers? The war boosted the economy, lots of people owned houses and started families. Same after world war 1, there were the "roaring 20s" before the great depression hit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers

[-] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 1 year ago

1950 was a great time to have kids, ever heard of baby boomers?

It is always a great time to have kids.

That's the joke .

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Ever heard of global carrying capacity?

[-] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 year ago

Ever heard of demographic collapse?

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, and I'd rather go through demographic collapse instead of global resource shortages that lead to massive amounts of death and suffering.

[-] Konlanx@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

So what you're saying is this all could have been avoided if people had less children in the 1400s?

[-] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 year ago

"This all", good and bad, could/would happen anyway...

[-] kambusha@feddit.ch 15 points 1 year ago

People who are empathetic, climate conscious, and can think critically SHOULD have kids. You'll make the future a better place. Imagine if only the people that don't give a shit have kids.

[-] uphillbothways@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Imagine having kids because of the things they should do to fix this place instead of because the world is wonderful and full of opportunity.

I wouldn't wish the future humanity has created on a stranger let alone my own flesh and blood. No thanks.

If we couldn't fix it, why make more people and lay that burden on them.

[-] andyMFK@reddthat.com 17 points 1 year ago

I can't imagine how much you'd have to hate your kids to place that burden on them

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Right? If you're an empathetic, climate conscious, critical thinker, you'd see having a kid as one of the most heinous acts of cruelty within your ability.

Just gonna drop the poor bastard into the global dumpster fire and tell them it's their responsibility to sort out? Some top-tier parenting right there.

[-] riesendulli@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Doesn’t matter if you can’t afford live. Adopt a puppy.

[-] kambusha@feddit.ch 6 points 1 year ago

Puppies can't vote, organise protests, develop technologies, or really do anything to help humans & the planet survive in the long-term. I love puppies but I don't get your statement in the context of this article and the survey.

[-] riesendulli@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago

I didn’t comment the article. It’s in the same vein as saying somebody should have kids because they are empathetic. It’s not about votes or evolution but rather paying taxes, taking care of the old and so on. Since we are all getting older we need somebody to pay the bill. It’s depressing, but truth is I don’t need a car because I can’t afford it. I arranged my lifestyle to take public transports or a bike, because I can’t afford it. If I can’t afford a car, I probably can’t afford a bigger space for a family, and then the cost of raising a human, when i barely scrape by by myself. Get a better paying job - doesn’t work for everybody. Moving somewhere for another job - doesn’t work for everybody.

You can adopt children, which should be done if possible - there’s enough lost souls in the world.

See how climate change isn’t a factor for getting children? It’s all about them Benjamin’s

[-] kambusha@feddit.ch 1 points 1 year ago

You're not wrong. If one can't afford, then it's just not an option, and I agree it's probably not going to be good for anyone to have a kid in that scenario (whether making a baby or adopting).

That's not what the article is about though. Yes, technically it's not about empathetic people either, but in that case I've assumed that people who want to save the planet are likely to be empathetic (they think & care about their surroundings). I don't think that's too far-fetched.

If you were in a situation where things were affordable, would you get a car?

[-] Siddhartha-Aurelius@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

It’s Idiocracy.

[-] kambusha@feddit.ch 2 points 1 year ago

It's what plants crave.

[-] chowdertailz@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

I am an USA resident. Two years ago got rid of my car. Walk to work. My wife and I agreed when we first got together 8 years ago no children. Even if I wanted a car or a kid I wouldn't be able to afford it. If I ever was able and wanted I'd adopt. I know too many people who were in and how shitty the foster system is. My aunt was a Saint and did it and actually adopted some of her fosters but the horror stories I hear.

[-] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 year ago

I've recently started an apprenticeship in Germany, and it's quite interesting to see how many people are super into getting children sometime down the line. I'm like, dude, we can't guarantee a proper future for ourselves - what future is there to be had for children lol

[-] Couplqnd@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Every one in this thread should read this article, https://web.archive.org/web/20230603214937/https://bigthink.com/progress/pessimism-is-a-barrier-to-progress/

End doomerism! It helps no one

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

We are already having fewer children. This may cause more issues as the average age of a population will skyrocket

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Better to have those issues than massive resource shortages that cause migration and war.

[-] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I mean, those are coming regardless. We were fucked twenty years ago and it has only gotten worse.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, they've already started, like in Syria, but we can and should mitigate and adapt instead of sticking our heads in the sand.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

More people also means more hands to get more resources.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

We're already past sustainable limits globally for many key resources.

[-] Taringano@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

In fact the Europeans not having kids will increase migratiom quite a lot.

Futurology