don't have babies

I didn't like the way I expressed my thoughts previously (pompous?), so I have edited for clarity and niceness:
   
    I am walking my path.  Others are walking their own; they do not need to be the same.  I love the concept of a community with core values but with respect or tolerance for others' choices.  I find it stunningly beautiful that we all have different needs and purposes in this world, based on both nature and nurture (or lack of it.). My background is that of a mostly feral child who, as an adult, had 2 children that I fiercely bonded with as soon as I knew they were conceived.  There is no force on earth like a sane, loving mother who fears for her child.
    From my window, one-size-fits-all solutions tend to crush more spirits than they help, so when I read "I-know-what's-right-for-the-world" posts I get a feeling of foreboding (except for Paul Wheaton. . . Holla of respect for our leader).
     I don't ponder what the human race as a whole "should" do about procreation.  For me, this is a hard "MYOB" topic; some things are personal decisions and not for the community or (especially) the government to decide.  
    Whatever my opinions are, I like to hear what other people have to say.  

paul wheaton wrote:About 12 years ago I went to an eco event and I thought it would be fun to record the regional experts responding to my question "what is the best thing a person can do for the environment?"  A few of the answers were "don't have kids" but for every one of those there were five answers of "die" or the variation "dig a giant hole in the ground, get in, and then die."
Answers about not having babies, and dying, added up to about 95% of all the answers.  So dark.

The focus on blame leads to darkness. A focus on possibility is the opposite of nihilism. What can we do? -is a much more interesting question than- Who made this mess? And really, killing yourself sells yourself short. You're smarter/wiser/more joyful than that. If you're not *living* the example of a small footprint, who will be that example?

I also disagree with the assessment that the biggest problems are due to overpopulation. Blaming and negativity, greed and ignorance, these are the big problems that lead to environmental degradation. It's how we live, not that there are so many of us. Quit with the excuses and garden/compost/make friends/build responsibly/reduce/reuse/do what you love. Yes, it's going to take hundreds of years. Get on with it.

As a mother of 5, I am grateful to have had each one and wouldn't take it back. My children have grown up or are growing up in pemraculture. They understand and follow the ethics and principles. If I didn't birth them at home, raise them to be regenerative, or support them emotionally to be self confident, then maybe they would part of the problem. To me its far more important to have children that are raised in the culture of permaculture than to not have children. I have dedicate my life to Regenerative Parenting. To me that is the answer. Otherwise we could end up either in a distopian dictatorship where our reproductive rights are oppressed or we have Idiocracy, where the smart people stop having children and those who don't care or are dumb keep having lots and lots of children.

I have 5 kids. I think the thing that gets people riled about on this issue isn't so much that some people choose not to have kids, or even when people advocate for others to not reproduce. At least for me personally, I couldn't care less if someone else has kids, and I don't care what their opinion is on my own reproductive decisions.

The thing that tends to really get people, or at least me, riled up, is when people start talking about governmental policy regarding having kids (such as a one-child policy). It's one thing for someone to express their thoughts about my decision to have 5 kids, it's a completely different thing when someone starts talking about taking my money away (through taxes, for example) or forcing sterilization (like China did with their one-child policy).

The average american carbon footprint is 30 tons.

First, I think that if every american read my book ( https://permies.com/bwb ) then we would probably be carbon negative.  I think the level zero people would shift things down to 15 tons, the level one people would shift things down to 5 tons, and the rest would be carbon zero or carbon negative (possibly to the point of covering the footprint for several dozen people).

Of course, that will never happen.   Oh well.

The sentiment about "don't have babies" is rooted in the idea that each person just has an awful footprint.  And even the people with the best intentions, willing to make sacrifices, still has a pretty awful footprint.  With the way things are and math, the sentiment is rock solid.

And then we put out there, the many things here on permies.com.  Which is what the better world book sorta summarizes.  Recipes for a lower carbon footprint, but without sacrifice.  It changes the math.


Right now there are lots of wildfires.  Wildfires are part of the natural carbon cycle.  Wildfire prevention includes burning most of that wood in the winter - in a very smoky way.  And wildfires are smoky. If 100 million people installed rocket mass heaters and used some of the wildfire prevention wood (most people would probably be content with the branches and twigs that naturally fall of the trees in their yard) then there would be less smoke and less carbon being pulled out of the ground.  And carbon released would be about 2% of that which is being released now (for heat).  Adding great comfort and massive expense reductions for humans.  Cleaner air is good for regulators, safer solutions is good for insurance companies.  

And this is just one bit.  


This "better recipe" breaks the math behind "don't have babies."  

paul wheaton wrote:The average american carbon footprint is 30 tons.The sentiment about "don't have babies" is rooted in the idea that each person just has an awful footprint. [...] This "better recipe" breaks the math behind "don't have babies."  

I think your book (and in general the desire and ability to reduce one's carbon footprint) is a strong palliative to many who struggle with the idea of making kids. However, I think there are several other reasons for not having babies beyond attempting to reduce the carbon footprint of the average USA-ian. For example, personally I decided fairly early on in life that I wouldn't help bring more kids into the world. Environmental impact wasn't my primary motivation for this, and I doubt I'm the only one who felt that way before making that choice permanent.

I'd suggest that the better recipe you describe here would have little to no effect on a significant portion of those who decide to remain child-free and/or not make any more kids. And like your story of the Monsignor and the Rabbi, constantly asserting that it's all right to make more people so long as you maintain that low carbon footprint will not be a persuasive argument towards that segment, as it doesn't resonate strongly enough with their value set. Does that mean the pursuit of a reduced and/or negative carbon footprint is a worthless thing to do? Of course not (I mean, coming to Wheaton Labs was one of the best decisions I've made in decades). I certainly feel like it's the "right" thing to do. But that doesn't mean that I'm convinced that I ought to reverse my vasectomy once I hit that magic carbon footprint number.

paul wheaton wrote:
First, I think that if every american read my book ( https://permies.com/bwb ) then we would probably be carbon negative.  I think the level zero people would shift things down to 15 tons, the level one people would shift things down to 5 tons, and the rest would be carbon zero or carbon negative (possibly to the point of covering the footprint for several dozen people).
 

Why would you think that?

Most humans don't make decisions based on rational information processes. Even you have said something about things working out better when you just do what feels right for you, instead of what your brain tells you would theoretically work best.

Most people follow "successful" people, not by judging whether their actions made sense, but because "successful" people seem happier and more fulfilled. What catches someone's attention is not how well researched your book is, it's how happy and fulfilled you become by doing those things you wrote about.

Does this make sense?

Most humans don't make decisions based on rational information processes.

I think that they do it because they want goodies and luxury and monies.  It just happens to also be good for the environment.

paul wheaton wrote:

Most humans don't make decisions based on rational information processes.

I think that they do it because they want goodies and luxury and monies.  It just happens to also be good for the environment.

Well, maybe I didn't say it the right way, but what I meant was, many people (and I actually mean people I know personally) never decide "I will do this because I expect that as a result". They make the kind of choices that feel less like a choice, and more like doing what they think is expected of them, usually subconsciously. Free will is scary, because it comes with responsibility.

Also, many people do their level best to avoid having to deal with themselves, leading to bad family arrangements, leading to an overwhelming need to be constantly busy doing nothing in particular, preferably out of the house. This makes Gertdom, and happiness, and even simple relaxation, a very scary prospect.

I would say, many people I know would be happy to get one or two of your permaculture bricks working in their lives, but if I even mention too soon the possibility that there may be dozens of other bricks, they get frightened and avoid any more bricks. If they suspect that what I'm doing with my bricks is an actual, livable permaculture life, I usually lose contact with them pretty quickly. (How dare I take so much freedom into my own hands! That's dangerous!) But, I've learned to respect these fears. They have a reason to exist.

Sorry for the rant... I  just don't see a very large amount of logical thinking in most people, and I think those of us who are used to logical thinking sometimes have trouble understanding those who aren't. They live differently, but they do have the right to live like that, and we can learn to live with them in harmony... if we are humble enough to learn from them about feelings and fears and vulnerabilities and stuff like that, which is as uncomfortable to me as responsibility and logic is to them.

Embracing diversity within...

Shifting to one child families would get the human population down to a sustainable level in a couple of generations -- especially if less consumptive lifestyles are also pursued. So that children can experience having 'siblings', families can band together in communities so that kids have 'soul siblings' to play and grow with.

My heroes are the men who have chosen to have vasectomies after producing that one child, and the men and women who adopt war orphans and others in need of a family.

Dead babies are mostly caused by an over-exploited earth -- and the resulting wars, climate change, water shortages, pollution, etc. People choosing smaller families and adoption is what saves babies.

Mamalana Bliss wrote:As a mother of 5, I am grateful to have had each one and wouldn't take it back. My children have grown up or are growing up in pemraculture. They understand and follow the ethics and principles. If I didn't birth them at home, raise them to be regenerative, or support them emotionally to be self confident, then maybe they would part of the problem. To me it’s far more important to have children that are raised in the culture of permaculture than to not have children. I have dedicate my life to Regenerative Parenting. To me that is the answer. Otherwise we could end up either in a distopian dictatorship where our reproductive rights are oppressed or we have Idiocracy, where the smart people stop having children and those who don't care or are dumb keep having lots and lots of children.

Exactly! Children learn what they live.
Two of my children are earth conscious, living a healthy, permaculture lifestyle. They are rarely sick and happy with their progress.
The other, raised by the man that left us for fame and fortune, is another story. The last time that I saw him is the last time I will ever. He chases the almighty dollar and thinks his status elevates him to immortality. Poor guy.
Being a good steward of the earth, having compassion for all creatures, and building a harmonious relationship with nature instills a sense of pride and accomplishment that can never be matched by greed and self serving.

As a mother of two, I can attest that my daily decisions, big and small, are all tainted by the thoughts of "is this aligned with the earth I want to leave to my kids?". I've cut my carbon by more than half to make room for my kids in this world.

That said, I fully support people who want to be child-free, or to limit the size of their family.

Both are part of the solution, as long as the childfree don't act like "we're doomed anyway, let's party while we can and then go extinct." (An argument I've heard in barely more subtle form from so many otherwise nicer people ) I still struggle with how my 3 out of four of my children's grandparents are not doing more for the grandchildren they adore. We nudge them gently, but they don't feel it as urgently as I do. (Except my "chain myself to the trees" mom )

I *know* that at some point I will have to answer personally to my kids to the question "you knew things were going to hell: what did you do?" and I want to be able to give an answer I can live with when that day comes. That feels a lot more personal than abstractly being responsible for earth's stewardship.

If one can muster the strength to make semi-difficult big impact choices without doing it for *their* child, then I applaud them. But for me, the biological imperative to reproduce was key to climb a couple of levels on Paul's chart

And I see my daughters' generation and quite frankly, it makes me hopeful that if one generation can be the next "great generation", it's them.

The U.S. fertility rate dropped to its lowest level in U.S. history, according to new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics said in a new report that the final data from 2023 showed the fertility rate declining by 3 percent from the year prior, to 54.5 births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 44.

That’s the lowest rate on record.

I'm dismayed by the idea that someone who truly cares about the future would consider their duty to avoid having children. There will be a next generation, and they will carry the values imparted to them, and if everyone who cares about the future were to avoid having children, I expect the next generation will carry different values, ones from the people who did choose to have children. If you don't intend to speak for everybody, and wish to address the problem of overpopulation by deleting your genetic lineage, I would argue that you are not really addressing the problem.

For me it boils down to game theory. I want to support humanity, support the values I think are best for us as a whole. Classic game theory says that you make the play that maximizes the chance of victory, and based on my available influence and my skill set, my contribution to the future is to raise good humans. As with every parent, it's my privilege to use my own valuation for what constitutes 'good', and I stand by my core values. My kids will grow up and enter the world as a reflection of my values. I love this part because you don't even have to overthink it, it's in our nature. Just be there.

There are plenty of permies who share the same core values I'm talking about. I love that about this community. Some of them may choose not to have children, and that's fine. We each make our own life with the choices we make. I know some people choose to influence the world in a different way, hosting seminars, forming a community. If that's where your skills lie, please, use them.

What I fear is that people with pro-social values are so uncomfortable by the problems facing our species that they choose not to raise a family. Humanity has gotten through many tough times. Could they be so tough that you would choose not to contribute to the next generation? Would you suggest everyone do the same?  I believe anything short of total nuclear annihilation and humanity will continue on, generation after generation, finding joy, forming relationships, having children, continuing on as we always have. It's going to happen whether or not you have children.

There's also a self-indulgent piece to becoming a parent. It's pretty cool to have a little toddler that looks like me and wants to be like me. It's practical to have a helper happily following me with a basket while I pick green beans. It's gratifying to build a climbing structure or a sandbox and watch my kids have fun with it. We each get one shot in life, and becoming a parent is a pretty classic part of the human experience.

To anyone who would want to influence the next generation with their values, but is discouraged because of their personal contribution to overpopulation, please consider becoming a foster parent.

Alan Burnett wrote:I'm dismayed by the idea that someone who truly cares about the future would consider their duty to avoid having children.

While I don't actually disagree entirely with you, I would like to challenge a few assumptions, if you don't mind. Please don't take this as a personal "rebuttal", my intention is to contribute to the conversation, and your words helped me clarify my thoughts.

Alan Burnett wrote:There will be a next generation, and they will carry the values imparted to them,

How many of your own values have been imparted to you by your own parents? In my case, maybe quite a few, but very far from all of them. And judging by the adults I know well enough to know their relationship with their parents, it's a very hit-and-miss situation. Curiously (and this might not be statistically significant), the people I know who have strong nature values and also have grown up children are less successful than average in imparting their values on to those children. Don't know why, it's just a recurrent pattern I've seen.

Alan Burnett wrote:Classic game theory says that you make the play that maximizes the chance of victory,

In my mind, the word "victory" pressuposes an adversary. If you're placing your set of values in a situation where victory or loss are the expected outcomes, your expectations will push the situation into a conflict/competition between your values and the adversary values, where one side wins and the remaining side(s) loose. I see this as a natural consequence of the choice of perspective.

But if there is no "other" to play a game against, game theory does not apply. My perspective, when I can reach it (which is not always), is to try to hold the "other" set of values to be just as valid and justifiable as my own. People are not evil. We humans sometimes make really lousy choices, but aside from serious mental illness contexts, we have reasons to make those choices. Each of us, at any given time, may be mistaken. And then find the mistake, fix it, and become a better person.

Alan Burnett wrote:My kids will grow up and enter the world as a reflection of my values.

This seems to me a risky assumption, for two reasons:
One, while your kids will grow up with you, there is no guarantee that they will still agree with your values when they grow up. Yes, you do your best for them, but not only can you (and your kids) make mistakes which upend entire worldviews for each other, but also there is more than one "right" set of values, and they are not always compatible with each other.
Two, this attitude has a lot of potential for encouraging "moral laziness", if you take my meaning. While values should be upheld when challenged by difficult situations, they should also be thoroughly questioned internally, preferably in a time and place of Peace. This is what keeps them sharp, and also what allows us to find subtle but crucial mistakes. If you don't question your values, sooner or later your kids will!

Alan Burnett wrote:What I fear is that people with pro-social values are so uncomfortable by the problems facing our species that they choose not to raise a family.

The way I see it, a person who has real, deep pro-social values, and lives truly by them, can probably influence everyone around them, regardless of being part of their family or not. These kinds of values have a tendency to be contagious

Alan Burnett wrote:Humanity has gotten through many tough times. Could they be so tough that you would choose not to contribute to the next generation?

The next couple of centuries might well be a lot tougher than what you seem to imagine. Then again, they might not. In any case, the choice of not having biological kids of your own does not seem (to my eyes) the same as not contributing to the happiness and well-being of the next generation. If a person sees an excessive number of human beings in the region where they live, not making more seems a sensible choice. Just as, if you live in a large farm in a sparsely populated region, having a few more humans around makes sense, I think.

Alan Burnett wrote:Would you suggest everyone do the same?

No, I wouldn't. I personally would like that every human being would, and could, do what seems best to them, according to their own hearts, brains and spirits, regardless of what anyone else chooses. Diversity is key!

Alan Burnett wrote:I believe anything short of total nuclear annihilation and humanity will continue on, generation after generation, finding joy, forming relationships, having children, continuing on as we always have. It's going to happen whether or not you have children.

For a while, until we become something else or go extinct, I believe the same. But this apparently seems to contradict what you said earlier, that it would be important for people with pro-social values to have kids. Have I missed something?

Alan Burnett wrote:There's also a self-indulgent piece to becoming a parent. It's pretty cool to have a little toddler that looks like me and wants to be like me. It's practical to have a helper happily following me with a basket while I pick green beans. It's gratifying to build a climbing structure or a sandbox and watch my kids have fun with it. We each get one shot in life, and becoming a parent is a pretty classic part of the human experience.

I take it that you haven't yet had the experience of having a teenaged kid

A Garfield Cat quote: "life is like mashed potatoes, you have to eat the lumps together with the good part". War is also a pretty classic part of the human experience. That's another reason why it's important to keep questioning your assumptions.

Alan Burnett wrote:To anyone who would want to influence the next generation with their values, but is discouraged because of their personal contribution to overpopulation, please consider becoming a foster parent.

Wholeheartedly agree. And there are even more equally good options aside from these two (having children or adopting) .

Please forgive me if I sounded too harsh at times. Again, I thank you for your words, because they helped me to write as well.

Tiago Simões wrote:How many of your own values have been imparted to you by your own parents? In my case, maybe quite a few, but very far from all of them. And judging by the adults I know well enough to know their relationship with their parents, it's a very hit-and-miss situation. Curiously (and this might not be statistically significant), the people I know who have strong nature values and also have grown up children are less successful than average in imparting their values on to those children. Don't know why, it's just a recurrent pattern I've seen.

I think if the parents are present and involved, their kids will grow up with a great deal of their influence. I certainly see far more of my parents in myself than I did in my 20s. I don't think of imparting my values as a 'success' and them getting different values as a failure. They will have many influences as they grow up, including me, and they will unfold into their own people.

When we're outside, playing in grass, climbing trees, thinning sunflowers, harvesting berries, playing hide and seek among the shrubs, I'm having a great time and so are they. I believe they'll grow up into people that like being active and outdoors. Kids will adapt to the world around them, and right now I'm a big part of their world, so I'm trying to be the best version of myself.

Tiago Simões wrote:In my mind, the word "victory" pressuposes an adversary. If you're placing your set of values in a situation where victory or loss are the expected outcomes, your expectations will push the situation into a conflict/competition between your values and the adversary values, where one side wins and the remaining side(s) loose. I see this as a natural consequence of the choice of perspective.

Well, I apply game theory to a lot of life, and it's easy to imagine this idea as a competitive victory. If you're ahead by 10 points or behind by 10 points, the best shot at winning is still to play your best. But this idea isn't specific to a competitor or a zero-sum situation. It could be a cooperative environment, or it could be just you and the blind deaf stone, and the same plan holds up. Decide on the best option, commit to it, learn and adapt as you go.

Tiago Simões wrote:
One, while your kids will grow up with you, there is no guarantee that they will still agree with your values when they grow up. Yes, you do your best for them, but not only can you (and your kids) make mistakes which upend entire worldviews for each other, but also there is more than one "right" set of values, and they are not always compatible with each other.
Two, this attitude has a lot of potential for encouraging "moral laziness", if you take my meaning. While values should be upheld when challenged by difficult situations, they should also be thoroughly questioned internally, preferably in a time and place of Peace. This is what keeps them sharp, and also what allows us to find subtle but crucial mistakes. If you don't question your values, sooner or later your kids will!

My values are all subjective. I formed them in the unique experience that is my life, and I feel pretty good about them. But I don't hold any illusion that my values are more right than your values, and I don't regret mistakes. I think the moral laziness you describe is related to self-righteousness. If I was ready to stand by my core values as a universally supreme set of values, superior to anyone who would argue, then I might resist questioning them, and you're right that my kids would see the cracks and grow up with cynicism about what I believe and what I'm doing. Every self-righteous person who believes with certainty that they are correct is still just a flawed person with a subjective opinion.
I understand my core values pretty well, I try to live by them, and I have changed my outlook as the years go on and the world makes new requests of me. I'm really just a guy doing my best to be a good person and raise good kids!

Tiago Simões wrote:The way I see it, a person who has real, deep pro-social values, and lives truly by them, can probably influence everyone around them, regardless of being part of their family or not. These kinds of values have a tendency to be contagious

I disagree. You may have a really healthy, contagious, pro-social set of values that you believe the world should adapt. If you move off the grid and work hard alone until you die, and unsympathetic folks clear out your possessions and life work, you flat-out missed the opportunity to influence people. You had a beautiful candle that burned in a small room nobody could see until it was extinguished.

I'm not the type of person who would start a blog or forum to collect like-minded people and share ideas. I don't think I'd make a very good community leader. But I was pretty sure I would make a good dad before having kids, and I still think I do.

So when permies who share my values - values that I hope propagate through the world - worry so much about overpopulation that they choose not to have children, I fear they will choose a path through life that leaves a lot less influence on the future of mankind. These people might believe they'd make good parents, they might want kids, but it's outweighed by their role in contributing to overpopulation. Simply reducing the number of offspring in this generation will not address the systemic problems that overpopulation represents.

Tiago Simões wrote:The next couple of centuries might well be a lot tougher than what you seem to imagine.

So what? It's not my job to foresee the future. The human race will press on no matter how tough it is. Or it won't, and nothing I do really matters in the way I'm thinking. If we do make it,  then I'd like to be a part of it in some way.

Tiago Simões wrote:Then again, they might not. In any case, the choice of not having biological kids of your own does not seem (to my eyes) the same as not contributing to the happiness and well-being of the next generation. If a person sees an excessive number of human beings in the region where they live, not making more seems a sensible choice. Just as, if you live in a large farm in a sparsely populated region, having a few more humans around makes sense, I think.

I think that sort of decision making is a strategic mistake if your goal is the same as mine. There are a lot more factors that will affect the next generation than the population density of the area you grew up.

Tiago Simões wrote:For a while, until we become something else or go extinct, I believe the same. But this apparently seems to contradict what you said earlier, that it would be important for people with pro-social values to have kids. Have I missed something?

The difference is that I WANT those pro-social values. I'm going to work hard to give those values to the next generation. It's important to me. At the same time, I accept that I really have no control over the future, or what other people do. Maybe my efforts will amount to nothing. Maybe they'll work opposite to my goals. Who knows? There's 8 billion people engaged in a giant game of tug of war over the fate of the human race, and I'm going to pull as hard as I can in the direction I want.

Tiago Simões wrote:Please forgive me if I sounded too harsh at times. Again, I thank you for your words, because they helped me to write as well.

Your words did not sound harsh to me. I enjoy the philosophical discussion. Thank you for the reply.