this post was submitted on 10 May 2024

681 points (96.8% liked)

World News

38262 readers

2389 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

681

‘I am starting to panic about my child’s future’: climate scientists wary of starting families (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

124 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.”

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 101 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (6 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 67 points 3 months ago (30 children)

I decided that I personally felt unethical bringing people into this world nearly a decade ago

load more comments (30 replies)

[–] [email protected] 58 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Something something literally Idiocracy (2006)

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I donno, you really think that guy was that smart? He wanted to give plants water. Like, you know, what is in the toilet.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

+ Don't look up

[–] [email protected] 49 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

A friend of mine had the same issue at 22. She even had already had a child at 16 but multiple doctors refused, claiming "she might want more". One doctor would do it but wanted a signed permission slip from her husband first.

All women deserve bodily autonomy.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I also needed my husband to approve for some reason. So demeaning.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Evil_Shrubbery 5 points 3 months ago

Wow, wtf, that's crazy.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Starting

Lol

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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

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

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Title could have said majority of millennials

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

As an adoptive parent of two kids from foster care, I know this is biased. And actually now that I’ve got a few years of parenting kids with trauma under my belt I actually think most people shouldn't take on this challenge, because they actually wouldn’t be able to handle it. That said, I think that’s the only real way to counter the idiocracy effect. Adopt kids of the least responsible people to those who are most responsible. It’s mostly an opt-in, self selecting process that generally only moves things in the right direction. It’s also not really enough to actually offset the problem as a whole.

Still a good thing for folks to pursue though.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

no or fewer children

So… they killed other people’s children?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Gotta fight climate change somehow

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

im surprised its a fifth have no or fewer and not the other way around.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Getting snipped this week!

load more comments