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.”
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.
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.
I was referring to the general female population not having kids for any reason.
A quick search resulted in articles indicating that the average for the 21st century is somewhere between 1/6 - 1/9 around the developed world. One would expect the people most aware of how fucked the future will be would be dramatically less likely to expose their own children to that — not 20-80% less likely.
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.
COVID lockdowns demonstrated that we could kick climate change with enough will power. Id start by mandating work from home where possible.
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.
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):
- It assumes that we have to reduce our standard of living in order to reduce our fossil fuels consumption, instead of innovating
- 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.
