Raising children sustainably is sometimes the NORM for financially underprivileged families. Me and my little brother were raised by a single mom, and our loving grandparents. It was cheaper for my mom to make a giant pot of soup for the week from our CSA box, feed us local vegetables, buy all of our clothing second hand or from the thrift shop. My grandmother even went out of her way to take me new clothes school shopping and I had to confess to her that I didn’t like all the new clothing in stores/they didn’t fit me right, or I hated the style. I was extremely cost conscious about how much these items cost new. My bff growing up was raised in a privileged family, and I never hesitated to ask if I could look through her donation bag and snag items I knew I could use. (She had wicked style too!) Our activities for entertainment were bike riding, going to the community pool, visiting the library with our grandmother, walking the dog after dinner, renting DVDs from the library, garage sale shopping (my fav in the summer!), helping Grandpa with fixing the house, I learned to crochet/knit, and my grandmother taught me to bake. Vacations were camping trips to the local Wilderness parks, free camping with extended family, and mini cook outs! I had a cell phone at age 8 and had it until I was about 12 (due to my moms busy work schedule it was crucial I was able to contact an adult at all times). I personally feel that as our society has amassed more wealth, has gained access to more resources, and has become more connected by peoples social medias, people who have not shared in that access feel that they are unable to raise a child because of the cost and impact. When children are given iPads at age three, all new clothing, plastic bottles, disposable diapers, and things that four generations back didn’t have and raised children just fine sustainably forget that. This is why I really don’t knock the crunchy moms. They’re obnoxious but they also have put in the hard work and dedication to raise their children in this way. My mom wasn’t a crunchy mom by todays standards, but she was a stellar example of raising sustainable children, sustainably. It really blows my mind that we have forgotten sustainability is the baseline of human existence.
Blah blah IRRELEVANT WTF the "norm" is in your decision making. BREEDING IS A CHOICE! Except in SHITHOLE cuntservaturd states/countries that FORCE it onto women and the born by outlawing abortion. NOBODY FORCED you to choose to breed, otherwise.
I also like to point out that the folks telling/being told not to have kids are the people who care about sustainability. People who don’t consider sustainability are happily reproducing and teaching their kids the same mindsets we are working so hard to move away from. We need radical, forward thinking people to have kids and teach them to carry on the work we’re doing! I want kids and I’m excited to have a hand in raising a future generation of radical sustainability advocates, instead of letting my efforts end when my life is over.
@Merle Ginsberg Official Unfortunately, adoption is completely out of reach for so many people. It's not as easy as "just adopt a child". It's a huge privilege to be able to adopt.
its not the environmental impact of a human that has made me decide to be childfree, but that it feels unethical to bring a child into a fucked up world where they are guaranteed to suffer to at least some extent. the political landscape in the u.s. leaves me with very little hope and the extreme weather all around the world is terrifying and i couldn't put someone i love through this existence
Yes. Also. There’s nothing *that* vital about me or my partner that warrants us to make a combined version of us. There are so many kids out there already who are begging for a home- don’t think I could look myself in the mirror if I chose sperm and egg over a homeless kid. In the end, we are the adults who, hopefully, have some autonomy. It seems only right to look out for those more vulnerable, and that to me includes at risk kids.
That is because you are ETHICAL and THINK and CARE about ALL THE DETERMINISTIC PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES of forcing a NONCONSENTING PERSON into existence. COMPLETELY the opposite of conservatives.
Two of my adult kids ( in their late 30s ) and their partners have decided not to have kids .A third ( aged 35 ) has just had the first grandchild for both sets of grandparents . They thought long and hard about this decision and are very conscious in all of their consumption .Most of the things they use for baby are thrifted ( 90% ) and she is also using a moses basket that was hers as a baby as well as the handmade wooden rattles she had as a baby too . etc . The youngest ( 26 ) is still weighing up whether eventually she might want to have a child . Thank you for your video , it was well thought out and sensitively presented . Xx big hug
@@amandaholmes1244 in a truly free world, we do not take it upon ourselves to tell each other what it is or isn't okay to ask. We let people ask what they genuinely wish to know, and we say when we're not comfortable responding and on what grounds, e.g. "No offense to you, but it isn't any of your business and I don't feel like telling you that." We also teach our own children what we would consider good manners and leave grown adults who have already been raised to do what they sincerely think is inoffensive. Free expression as a catalyst of overall freedom should not be underestimated.
Really glad you made this video and are keeping it real despite how controversial your opinion might seem in the environmentalist community. Thank you! I completely agree and love that you brought in a huge social justice issue. Crazy what you said about getting the most hate when criticizing the 1%. I think people just aren't ready to face the reality of how unjust it is that there a millions of people across the world struggling to meet their basic needs (which is a human right) and then 1% of the population own and control pretty much all the resources on earth. It is a very difficult pill to swallow and can almost make you sick to think of the gap.
Also, when you look further into it, many of the richest 1% and their families have ties to a long history of Eugenic societies. It works in their favour to propagate this myth that the cause of environmental degradation is overpopulation because it redirects attention, shifts the blame and also slowly allows them to achieve what they have always wanted which is to own the world for themselves and get rid of who they consider to be the "undesirables". Just start researching these Eugenic Societies, their shift to policy on crypto-eugenics and who has been involved with them and it will start to make sense. I am aware to some I will sound like a "conspiracy theorist" but some basic research will reveal the truth. I studied Philosophy at University and many of the "greatest" philosophers of all time were huge Eugenicists, it's not really new information.
Amazing video! Thank you AGAIN for looking deeper into sources (than most of us do) and taking one step further in thinking about a controversial topic. I love your videos because you are never done too quickly with a question/problem. I am grateful that you've decided to make this video after all.
I totally understand the critique towards the 1%, powerful people with huge enterprises that harm the environment in large scales, but isn't being a part of incredibly rich industry nations equivalent to being part of the very few percent that mostly contribute to the crisis? When I think about whether or not it's right for me to get children, I don't think about the elite, people's minds that I cannot change directly, I think about the responsibility that I hold as a member of the society that I live in, namely my country, and making sure that me having a child/children doesn't harm other people + other ecosystems. When overpopulation isn't one cause of global warming, but rather largely an issue of the lifestyle habits of a few, a very privileged part of the human population, is it ethical to get children in such a society & culture (if you don't live a completely sustainable life)? Even though there is a shift in awareness regarding our behavior, global warming and its effects worldwide, behavioral, mindset and systemic changes are hard and always take time. It doesn't seem like as if we have that much time left. That's why I think it's important to ask ourselves how we can slow down as a collective - on all fronts. And different people come up with different solutions. So I think it's still valid to say that there are "too many of us harming the planet (and consequently the human species)".
But that too many are people who have been raised by consumer parents, and are now raising consumer children. It’s not a number of people problem, it’s a cultural lifestyle problem. And we know culture generally is influenced by the masses and how/what they consume. I don’t see how raising zero waste children adds to the impact. And with more people subscribing to the consumerist lifestyle, they often feel that children are unobtainable to keep up with the cost of raising them in accordance with their lifestyle. Not to get controversial, but, like lots of movements out there, passing the tenants, attitudes, and philosophies onto our children 1) grows the movement from grass roots up, 2) it’s easier to create a sustainable lifestyle from day one than to convert or reverse course as a grown adult, and 3) creates a tangible culture that is held together throughout the next generation. This is essentially what let’s religion live so dang long, because children are raised in it. Now, some of them leave the religion, but a majority stay otherwise why are these religions still around and practiced and followed? That’s just how I feel about the matter, but I totally respect peoples personal reasons for not having children whether it is financial concerns, mental health concerns, and a long list of 100% valid reasons. I just think there is a lot of guilt that is put on people in this community for having children because they assume this is adding to the problem. A lot of the problem is out of our hands, and the problem is definitely not in children’s hands, yet.
I eventually formed my opinion on this that simply put, constant growth (of economy, population, everything really) is unsustainable. I think we should aim to maintain the population, not keep growing. So for a while I had the thought that perhaps a worldwide 2 children per family thing (Like the past 1 child per family in China) even just for like 50 years, would be a good solution. But then there's also people who don't want children, and people who want big families so it could easily balance out but who knows how anyone could regulate that to maintain the population. Anyway, I just think now, education is important. If all schools teach all children about sustainability, they're more likely to make better choices than their parents and grandparents. And I also think that accessibility to adoption is huge, if someone (like myself) wants to raise children and have a family, but have that thought of 'but what about the environmental impact', being able to adopt is a huge win. Not to mention the millions of children who are growing up in foster homes etc, who want a loving family. Adoption seems like a win win, for me at least.
I don’t agree with restricting children in families, and given the US replacement rate is nowhere near replacement levels, I think we are effectively slowing down at least in the USA. Also adoption should be much much easier. Just like how clothing gets donated and then used to a loving home when someone passes, or no longer can care for it, so too should children be. I really respect families who have adopted!
Would you do a video comparing the impact of diffusers, scented candles and fragrance sticks? I don’t know which is better when it comes to sustainability
As a mom of 1, I can definitely relate to the comments about having a child and not being eco-conscious because I would like to have another child, while my girl of now almost 7 is vegan, ecominded, cares about the planet and takes the climate into account. We cloth diapered, I breastfed until she was 3, we don't buy new toys or clothes and in general, we try to live as zero/minimal waste as possible. I believe your actions and all the ways you spend your money matter, not how many/little kids you have. so, yup, you nailed it def. 100% 💚💚💚💚✅
@@omowhanre yup, exactly this. I feel like women can't ever do things good enough and we will always be criticized...no matter what we do. If we are just in line with our inner souls, it should be enough to feel ok but it's easier said than done...
When a person is born, this specific person will generate C02. But as you said, if that person is eco-friendly it can change other people's minds. If, for instance, Gittemary didn't exist I'm sure that it would impact the world negatively
So inspiring. I am surprised, that she didn't mention it in the video: parents have such a huge impact on their children, they can teach them how to be sustainable and how to care for environment, like you did. And what world will be the future, when there are no new and younger environmentalists? In my opinion, you did everything right 💪🥳 congrats!
what a brilliant video. so important to raise awareness about the eco fascist / eugenicist side of this "debate". love the conclusion too💯 power to you! ♥️
I think the reason people defend the 1% so much is because unfortunately it’s something most people still aspire to be, and if they hear the reality that the 1% is causing most of the issues it makes them feel guilty about aspiring to be that.
You know what? All the workers of the world should coordinate and force the 1% to redistribute wealth. We will have to find a way to appropriate wealth, food habits and consumption habits. Like we should make a comity. A comity of the people. A democratic peoples comity.
You do realise how many people you are talking about when 1percent is uaedbin this manner? It's like most of North America. So oike 4 times the uk population?
I appreciate the perspective and the focus on environmental racism as the origins of a lot of overpopulation related rhetoric. However, I have some disagreements. I'm skeptical of the idea that we can sustainability feed 10 billion people, even after reading that report. It didn't address the fact that industrial agriculture is inherently unsustainable. With intensive and industrial agriculture we deplete soils faster than they can regenerate, requiring inputs of fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers to prop up the soil. If we shifted to a plant based food system and had a lot more land to play with, so long as we extract nutrients from the soil faster than they regenerate, that food system is not sustainable. It would require a total shift to regenerative forms of agriculture like permaculture, which is possible, but I'm not sure whether that could be able to feed 10 billion people, given the incredible productive gains we've made with intensive technologies since the green revolution. I don't think your criticism of the one fewer child research was very good. Sure, if we get the right policy changes, the impact of having one fewer child decreases. You could say this about any other act, for example, switching to electric cars makes driving more sustainable relative to combustion cars. But that doesn't make it sustainable relative to baseline. And why should we assume that the best case scenario for policy changes occurs, when genuine progress towards a sustainable society is so slow? Why would we make the decision to have a kid based on hypothetical, optimistic policy changes rather than what's actually true right now? Also, that figure was linked to CO2 emissions, which is far from the only relevant sustainability indicator, and a lot of the policy changes being proposed (like electric cars) reduce emissions while increasing resource extraction, land use, and toxicity. The fact remains that creating another human being is creating an entirely new consumer who will consume resources for the rest of their life and thus is far more impactful than most other personal consumption reduction. As much as we would like to we can't guarantee that our children will lead an eco-conscious lives as us, and we shouldn't be comfortable with the assumption they will be as eco friendly as we are. Some of the papers you linked mentioned the decoupling of GDP from emissions, which is a neoliberal fantasy trying to save the idea of eternal economic growth. We can't grow forever and are already way past our sustainable limits. "Green growth" is a myth, de-growth is the only path to sustainability without the collapse of civilization. On both sides of the overpopulation debate there are people who focus solely on population and don't address lifestyles, and people who focus solely on lifestyles and don't think population is a problem. In reality both are important. Every single one of our sustainability issues becomes easier the less people there are to worry about. We need to radically change lifestyle consumption as well as, at the least, cut down on population growth, and push for controlled, humane de-growth as well. I think there's a lot of room for discussion on how we can de-grow populations AND lifestyles to sustainable levels without authoritarian measures. Finally, the most powerful reason to not have children is that you can't do so in the interests of the child, knowing they will suffer due to having been brought into existence. The climate crisis will not be pretty, but even if we were on a positive trajectory, it will never be beneficial to them to suffer the consequences of being brought into this world when they do not already exist. Most of the reasons people have kids are selfish, because what's actually best for a child who does not yet exist is to stay not existing.
I could not have said it better.Especially the antinatalist stance at the end- how selfish is it, just for the puropse of the idea of "my very own biological family", to force a person to endure 80+ years of problems that our systems and behaviour ourselves have created. Bonkers.
👏👏👏 thank you!! Overpopulation is not a myth. Every species have a carrying capacity. We've expanded our carrying capacity through industrial agriculture at the cost of destroying our environment faster. Humans have a carrying capacity just like any other species we are not exempt. Yes racist group do use overpopulation to spout hateful nonsense missing the real problem which is themselves, sucking up massive amounts of resources and overconsumming goods often made in lower income developing nations by corporations destroying the environment and exploiting working who are not white. Racist overpopulation isea pushers don't want to off entire countries of people because that would effect their gross lifestyles, they just don't what the people from those countries coming to where they live cough*America*cough and adding to the non-white population in their "own" country. This leads to my thinking that people with the means to choose not to have children that live in wealthy countries should decide not to have children on top of living as sustainability as they can manage. Indigenous and non-white societies have been the teachers of sustainable living for forever, white people have stolen their ideas and now blame those groups for issues that wealthy nations have created, unfortunately this doesn't make overpopulation a myth. It's real and the best solution is decide not to have kids, adopt a child from your own community. Don't take children from other countries and strip they of their culture and language, often these children are taken from desperate families who are exploited and not fully explained to them they their child will be gone for good. Small rant but so important! "White savior" complex people have when adopting non-white children from poor countries is also racist (just as it is to go on "missionary trips" and blast pictures of "the poor starving godless non-white children they spent so much time and money helping while on vacation in a foreign country all over their social media" then vote for conservative political candidates that impose stricter immigration laws and other racially motivated policies disgusting)
You my friend are making way too much sense. "New consumer who will consume more resources" is the crux of this entire issue. The irony is that she doesn't realize that her argument benefits only the 1% . the only argument for increasing the population is economics and capitalism. The rich gets new consumers and a labor force as more money pours into their pockets and it helps them stave off the uncomfortable effects of climate change while creating more of it... And round and round we go. There is zero other reason for humans to be concerned about a declining population. This youtuber is delusional if she thinks the camera she is using and the stuff in her comfortable home is not contributing to climate change, even as eco-conscious as she claims she is being. But let us make more consumers.
I truly admire how much effort and research you put into these types of informational videos- it shows just how much you care about the topics you discuss and your wish to bring the truth forward so that we are all better educated. Keep up the great work Gittemary! Love you and your channel!!
I think there are other things to consider, like "do you really want to put another human on earth in the middle of a climatic crisis?", Considering the well being of this human, not the impact on earth. And about overpopulation: i do think we have too many people, and i worry for the resourses people need to have a good life. And a lot of people dont have, but should. Like access to water, food, sports, culture, nature, transport, etc. Could we provide all that to 10 billion people without hurting the planet? But most people already want to have only one or two kids, or none. I think what we have to do is help people who already dont want kids, or more kids, to not have them, with sex education and the disponibilization of contraceptives, and fighting mandatory motherhoood, wich is when women are considered incomplete if they dont have kids.
I agree completely. The question I ask myself is “Can I guarantee any potential children a better life than mine?” Honestly, with living in the US, especially now more than ever I don’t think the answer could ever be yes. I don’t think others should be shamed for deciding to have children in a general sense, but I will point out that there are people who have as many children as they can to control them and influence future voting (I.e. Quiverfull). They scare me even more than the environmental crisis - we could theoretically get rid of fossil fuels and “fix” global warming, but there’s no way to stop people religiously indoctrinating their children and having 10+ kids in order to make the future they want (threatening LGBTQIA2S+ right to life, interracial marriage, womens suffrage, etc) without potentially taking away rights from others.
I agree with you and I feel uncomfortable, but still, after watching this video, my opinion stayed the same. It's not just about the carbon footprint. It's about access to water, food, etc. Some time ago I read or heard that in developing countries the reason for having so many children is that among that many siblings one will stand out, make success and care for the rest of the family. I think it is just as unsustainable thinking as living the lifestyle of the upper 1 per cent. I think we are just too much for the world to handle and I don't believe in people getting "better" or change. Ancient cultures deforested Lebanese cedar to build ships to an almost extinction for example. This wood has also been used to create a basis for buildings in Venice, Italy. So no thanks, I don't believe in vast people suddenly turning into conscious and environmentally friendly individuals.
@@dbeata1 as someone living in an undeveloped country... ofc people are nota gonna be environmentally friendly overnight, BUT the 'too many children problem' comes mostly from terrible or inexistence sex ed, misinformation, the lack of reproductive rights (abortion being illegal in most cases), child labor still being a thing. Giving universal acess to basic human rights could solve this problem, when the quality of life goes up people tend to have less kids, there are studies on this (i can add refs if you want). However many powerful people dont want that to hapen, because if somene is poor and have to feed a large familly, they are way more willing to work in bad conditions, and if they won't someone else will.
I'm about to lecture on this topic this week and your perspective articulates things that haven't sat well with me for a long time. I might show my students this video for a different perspective from the textbook 💛
As someone who lives in a developing country, it seems that sustainable living (renewable energy, vast public transport, electric cars, plant-based diet, etc) will only be common in the far future. Living sustainably is hard here without the infrastructure and that’s my reason for not wanting kids
The things you list are the problem, the people in most developing nations live the way their ancestors did. In underdeveloped countries most people share transport, not everyone has a phone, people do not have cupboards of cheap shoes and clothing, a lot of people have their own gardens and do not rely on huge supermarket chains. Look around, it's the excess of the 1% and their unsustainable lifestyle that create the disaster, and the fact that people are buying into this lifestyle.
@@jeanninerossouw5921 in Trinidad and Tobago there is a LOT of waste, cheap clothes, big supermarkets, and traffic is totally horrendous at certain hours (mainly bc public transport policy and practice has not been properly updated in more than 40 years). It's awful considering inflation is also on the rise and the culture and diet do not speak to sustainability en masse. The truly eco friendly are definitely in the minority here, esp because we tend to mimic the 1%. Some are going back to home gardening though myself and my mom included, and we do patronise farmer's markets more and more. It's just a mess though.
Go get ‘em! Way to get the truth out there. Love that you clear away all the false crap and get right down to truth, history, and actual facts. Thanks for being you and inherently being awesome!!
Hmm I’m not sure how I feel about this but I will say that you’ve opened my eyes a bit in regards to how we point fingers. We have the power as consumers to make the right choices within our limits and in-still green values/ educate others.
I think my issue is that every person I know who has children is the antithesis of eco friendly in their own lives. So that's why I've always personally felt like people who have kids typically do not care about the planet.
Thanks you so much for making this video and giving some context and acknowledging the complexity of the situation. I had seen that one study referenced so much and have also been so confused recently with economists in the uk warning that people aren't having enough children, and making some awful suggestions to get people to have more children which made m angry. Overall I think it needs to be up to the individuals what feels right for them to have children or not (although obviously there are so many other factors that can take the choice out of peoples hands anyway) and for those who do chose to have children to think about what they can do to live sustainably and teach their children good habits. It just isnt helpful to guilt and pressure people either way. Xx
Thank you for making this video! I think it’s a topic that needs more nuanced discussion, and I think your perspective was great to share. It opened my eyes to many possibilities.
If you want to adopt, please be careful as she said. There is so much demand for non disabled non traumatised children under the age of 3 that there has been countless stories of parents from 3rd countries having their children be kidnapped for Europeans/Americans to adopt. I care about the planet, but unless I was in a non-heterosexual relationship or I had fertility issues I wouldn't add to the demand. The conventional waiting routes are so saturated the wait time is huge, and the other routes as I have said can be very unethical without you even having a clue (fake orphanages where the kids have parents who don't know they're up for adoption etc...). Of course if you need to adopt because that's one of your only choices adoption is really designed for people like you so don't feel guilty for adding to the demand. If you want children without adding to the population issue, consider fostering, or adopting a child either over the age of 3, or with a disability, or a trauma, or behavioural issues. These children really need homes and don't have huge waiting lists of people ready to adopt them. Children who grew up in foster care are a lot more likely to be homeless in young adulthood. A BBC investigation uncovered abuse in children's homes in the UK. These children need help.
Hi, also avoid private infant adoption whatever the reason! the whole industry is very unethical, manipulating birth mothers to give up the children they want, charging loads of money to adoptive parents and not funding the birth parents support to allow them to raise their own children that they want - (im gay) being gay or infertile doesnt mean that participating is now suddenly ethical. Any adoption is traumatic (even if someone has good adoptive parents and the trauma is mitigated) and should only happen in an absolute crisis where someone cannot cannot safely raise their child
@@MADZYISTHEQUEEN what I meant is not feeling guilty for adding more demand for public adoption if needed. But I think if there is a huge influx of "environmentally minded" individuals flooding the conventional routes (for non disabled non traumatised children under the age of 3) it might push others with no other choice towards the private route and the unethical side of it
@@amelie3012 I see where you’re coming from, but even “adding to demand” while an accurate view of the system is showing how messed up it is. There shouldn’t be anyone being adopted who isn’t traumatised to be frank. Where private infant adoption is illegal, very few adoptions happen and this is nearly always in cases of severe abuse. The whole idea of birth mothers who don’t want their children so give them up for adoption is kind of a myth, there are obviously some but this is a very minuscule number. They should be supported to raise their children. It should always be child centred and focusing on helping a child in crisis rather than “the only option to grow my family”. For non-traumatised infants, if we want to help them, we should financially support their families not adopt them as the route to this is likely unethical. Do you see what I mean?
i'm far from telling anyone to have or not to have children. by all means do as you please. i just wish all the kids out there had at least decent parents. at the same time i don't think the ever growing population of humans, as any other speacies, is sustainable since the planet and its resources do not grow along and there's only so much efficiency to be achieved. and while it's a fact that a person from a less developed country has far less impact on climate change now (and putting much bigger onus on those people could have racist reasons), assuming that it will continue to be the case is to assume that those people will never get more affluent and won't increase their consumption - which is a false assumption considering developing countries are, well, developing, and people generally aspire to a more comfortable lifestyle which include more consumption. there is however some self regulation there, as improving life conditions usually means less children
First time mom who just had their baby in July. We are gearing towards 100% cloth diapering, 90% of our baby items are used, we even got used items at our baby shower and we're happy. We garden, so some of our veggies are from the back yard. I agree, not everyone will have the same impact. My husband is actually proud and brags about how much I got for free or used off of FB market place, his from a cost perspective, mine from a we don't need new when he will put grow it soon, especially larger items like his bassinet and crib. My mom came from a larger family and my husband's parents did too, but we always knew we wanted 2 biological children and possibly more adopted. As a side note, it was definitely bizarre being 8 months pregnant when roe v Wade was overturned living in the US.......
By DEFINITION, a planet or system (in the most general abstract terms) is overpopulated by a species if it is unsustainable in any variable. e.g. a system can hypothetically have infinite amounts of food but if it is going through its finite supply of water without regenerating it, that system is overpopulated. Or, a system can have infinite resources, but produces pollution that increases without bound. By definition, overpopulated. So, by several measures, or even just by AGW alone, earth is overpopulated with humans.
And that's fine, totally your choice. I think the message here is that we shouldn't shame those who do decide to have kids. Ppl should do what they feel is best either way, but that shouldn't be choosen based on faulty studies. It's also the same problem of focusing on the individual instead of systematic changes. Industry creates around 70% of pollution. Even if one person lived "perfectly" they would never counteract that! Stop guilting people and go for the bigger issues.
@@mrslvw where am I guilt tripping anyone for wanting children though? I was talking about my own feelings about having children, not yours not anyone else's. Where do you get that idea?
@@mrslvw I didn't get that from your message, so thanks for clearing that up! I re-read my comment multiple times and didn't get it, that's why I asked. Thanks for replying. For me personally I have a lot of physical and mental health problems, I also have a lot of issues with the world (well, with people...). That's why I made this decision. Most of my friends and family have children, most of my young neighbors as well. It's their decision. I love children, I think they are wonderful, bright and innocent and they make the world a better place. The issue lies in the future and when they grow up. I can't face that. I find it already difficult enough for myself, I can't imagine having your kids to worry about. But each their own, like you said.
@@mrslvw yes, we should. What one person does affects everyone else. If people have kids, they kids will pollute, and everyone else will have to pay the price.
Having just completed a degree in environmental sciences, I'm surprised this topic didn't pop up even once during any of our lectures! This is something I've thought about for a while and have been slowly looking into (now that I have more time) and although it is a hard topic to talk about I appreciate your time and effort put towards this topic!
That statement is based on old eugenic theories that centers the wealthy and those who lack melanin. “There’s too much of the wrong type of people and not enough of the right type of people.”
I totally agree. But I still hope the population will stagnate. So we can concentrate in certain (still large) areas and rewild the rest of the planet.
Ironically, living too far apart can also increase pollution. If I lived in a small, tight-knit community, I would have no use for a car. I would be able to go to school, work, the store, etc. by foot. Instead, I am fully reliant on a car because NOTHING is within walking distance where I live. If I had to walk or even bike to and from work, I wouldn't physically be able to do it.
I think it’s the opposite, when I moved to a more populated area it was much easier for me to live sustainably cause everyone I wanted to see and everything I wanted to do was walking distance.
It’s simple the more people the more resources are used no report will tell me otherwise. We need to have less people on this planet period. Something you are not going to like but must be done if you want humanity to continue. Otherwise the earth will go on without us.
I have always respected people having kids and being an environmentalist. For me it just scares me to have a kid with America being a major capitalist country and taking advantage of people that it scares me that they would be stuck in being a capitalist/rich person’s cog.
Ive just finished reading most of these comments and theres not really much i could add. Except to say, for those of you preaching against children because of the state of the world, there is little more if anything as powerful a conduit for change as wanting to leave your children in a better world.
I wish this were true! So many of the people with the most children just trust that some deity will ensure their survival and do nothing to improve the life of the planet and its residents.
@@Gittemary En Chile, el 4 de septiembre votaremos y cambiaremos la antigua constitución de la dictadura cívico militar, por la nueva propuesta que le otorga derechos a la naturaleza y que es vista como una constitución ecológica, somos muchos chilenos que creemos en mejorar nuestra relación con el planeta.
@@Gittemary im not sure if you were replying to me or pamela, gittemary? Im only speaking for myself, i have one child and the preservation of all the amazing things we get to experience in the natural world has always been important to me. So much more so now that i have a daughter, who i want to be able to experience them as well.
I completely agree with you and also many of the comments here. We are too many and I am unsure whether this planet can sustain our numbers. But I am sincerely afraid of the overpopulation narrative and where it might lead us. At its best it is leading us away from the true drivers of climate change and environmental degradation. At it’s worse, to ecofascism. Whenever the overpopulation argument is brought up my question always is: who will control the reproductive rights of whom? While the argument: “we should not bring children in such a messed up world” can take a very dark turn if we consider that we the WEIRD (and may I add residents of countries benefitted by colonialism) are only now starting to feel the effects of climate change, but people around the tropics have been dealing with them for decades. Should they have stopped reproducing? Is this what we are saying? It really doesn’t sound good.
What I'm afraid about having childrens in the near future is not about the impact that they will have, but more about what kind of world they will live in. I'm afraid that they will experience some awful things due to climate change.
Thank you for your very interesting video ! I think lot of people don't want children in this word not to try to reduce their impact but because they doesn't want their children to live in a world like this. They are scared to let a not viable planet to their kids... BUT, yes, eveyone should do what they want, that's it
Too many people competing for limited resources in a world full people who will never ever have the depth of consciousness OR MONEY needed to make changes required to create a significant positive transformation in our world that is beneficial to all off humanity or the planet.
I think some of the comments on this video demonstrate why it was necessary. Thank you for putting it out there. In my experience also, it seems a lot of people who cite “overpopulation” as their primary reason for not having kids use it as an excuse to continue over consuming. Such as “it’s okay that I have multiple vehicles, fly around the world frequently, and buy useless shit constantly, as long as I don’t produce another human.”
This is so right! People love to use the “it’s our fault” “too many humans/humans are bad for the planet” lines so much whenever people rightfully bring up that it isn’t fair to blame individuals with little to no power in society, yet they themselves are still overconsuming
Me and my partner thought long and hard about having children. When we dicided to try for one and raise it sustainably, my niece said she was so happy for us, because the world needs more sustainable people. Now I am 14 weeks pregnant with twins... felt guilty for a while, because dubble the footprint, but also so blessed. We will try to do our best with what we are given!!
Congratulations. No need to feel guilty. I wholeheartedly agree with your niece. And personally I am leading a more sustainable life since having kids. We used to travel more before, now it's holiday destinations that we can drive to in our electric car or even go with public transport. Also, we cook more at hone and ear out less. As for clothes and toys we do second hand. You wouldn't believe how much stuff gets discarded that was barely used, so we have very little impact there too. As for activities, walks in the woods, playgrounds, picnics, museums etc. We're not creating any new carbon on that end. So overall I don't think it's quite as bad as some will have you believe. And no, we don't have ipads for our kids, because it's not necessary.
All well said, thank you for pushing back against this absurdity. Re. Adoption industry, I highly recommend the second season of the podcast “This Land” for a perspective from the US
Resources are limited. Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. We're already seeing wars over food and land, and mass starvation. Not to mention climate change and desertification.
I don't fully agree with this. It's not simply about current and potential CO2 emissions. We can't live sustainably with our population levels as is, we aren't living sustainably as a species. So more humans cannot help that because realistically not every single one of those children will be living as sustainably as possible. Furthermore sustainability is also about human rights. We can't support the people on this planet as is- there are 400,000 in the foster care system in the US alone, there are millions without homes, people can't afford food, water, basic healthcare. If we can't support who are already here, sustainably or not, then growth will not help that. I hope my points make sense-- just because emissions are the cause of climate change on not *necessarily* population growth, population growth certainly isn't helping with overloading our shoddy foundations.
But the small local family with 5 kids who are all vegan and eco-conscious and zero waste etc, they cannot be blamed for the shit happening in our global world. It's not their responsibility.. ever. And just like you say that you can never be sure how eco-conscious someone will eventually be, it goes both ways. I was never raised vegan, ever. The exact opposite is true. And at 27, I turned vegan, my girl's father turned vegan and she is raised vegan from birth. And because of our choices, inevitably, our parents also consume less animal produce and are more eco-conscious because we talk about it so no, one can never be sure that someone will be eco-conscious or not... But again, you can never be sure of a lot. Maybe my girl someday murders a human being for murdering an innocent pig. Who knows?
@@TheUltimateThrill89 I think the main point is that not every child will have the opportunity or initiative to live a sustainable life, eg being vegan like you did. From personal experience, I can’t go anywhere without my motorbike bc there’s no public transport here. I’m still not vegan because many western ingredients (like as simple as basil) I can only buy in plastic. In my case, and many others who aren’t even into sustainability, having kids will do more harm than good
@@jasminatf buying basil, even in plastic, is vegan though... Tofu in plastic is much better for the environment than meat plastic free... But I get your point, of .
@@theyoftheravens no, a 5 kid family here is a big large family, definitely. But most of the large families are not living in modern western society and yet their footprint is way smaller than ours, even when they're not vegan or even in the capability to be plastic free and I believe this was one of the things Gittemary tried to make clear. It's not their fault. Overpopulation is not the true cause of climate problems and a dying planet and it's putting the responsibility on a different level and that's just wrong.
Thank you so much for creating this video. I for so long blamed overpopulation and cringed at the idea of bringing a child into this world. You helped me realize that’s not the root of the problem, and I can still decide to have a child one day without drowning in guilt. Thank you, I love your account and feel like I can trust the information you give us. There’s so much out there it’s hard to know what to trust sometimes.
Thank you for this measured and humane lecture Gittemary. I remember more than forty years ago my then boyfriend remarking - as if it was a given - that there were far too many people in the world. He went on to say that more countries should adopt China's one child policy which had recently been made official. This was a man who had two cars including a sports car and was planning to buy a Harley Davidson. He had numerous electric gadgets and had recently scrapped an excellent hifi system because he wanted the most up-to-date one. (I might add that he sulked once because I bought a dress from a charity shop and insisted that I didn't wear it when with him) I pointed out to him that he probably used up more of the earth's resources than the inhabitants of a village in India. In a way what I said was a revelation to myself, because up until then, I had probably gone along unthinkingly with the myths about overpopulation but as he spoke, I suddenly realised that overconsumption was at least as significant a factor.
Natural resources will deplete. It's not forever. I remember the book Inferno of Dan Brown. It says there people are so afraid of hell, but we are creating the living hell we're so afraid of.
Great video! Thank you for educating me and other people♡. Basically the decision to have biological children or not depends on some other factors like : - Personal choice - Physical capability - Mental capability - Finances - Your lifestyle - or simply a decision to want to adopt. (These are some factors that came to my mind, while there might be many more factors which I don't realise right now or might not be aware about.) Moreover, I think taking a decision regarding children is much more emotional and personal rather than environmental. While one may wonder for a while about environment and what kind of world we are bringing the child into, but mainly it should much more be about parenting, what kind of lifestyle will you be able to give to your kids, what values will you pass on, and how would you make their life better rather than worse. To sum up, the decision of having kids or not needs to be conscious rather than ignorant/selfish.
My grandma has 5 children , they have 8 children and their children have 5 at the moment but they are young, some of them underanged so they have plenty of time to get that number higher especially since one them wants 7 and only has 2 now. Take what you want from what I wrote but I will not bring a child into this world , I might adopt. In my opinion even if 1 person uses as little resources as he can during his lifetime if he was never born he would use nothing, I am not saying people should stop having children but maybe we can stop giving people that do not want children a hard time.
In general, I do feel it would be good to maintain current population numbers or lower them. But with the policies currently in place, including education for girls globally and family planning etc, the UN predicts we’ll reach a peak in population and then see a decline. In many European countries, birth rates have gone down to under the average of 2.1/woman, which is the replacement number to keep the population healthy and able to look after children, elderly, and people with various (dis)abilities both now and in the future. Without leaving those who need care alone and without putting the ‘working force’ into burn-out. Hopefully as a whole, we’ll find some sort of fair donut economy equilibrium. If you still feel population growth needs to be addressed, you could opt for no kids, one or two kids, adopting, foster care, teach and educate people to lower their impact, donate to organizations that promote longer education for girls (and boys) or family planning. But whatever choice you make, it is perfectly fine.
most european nations are still experiencing population growth cos they import so many from the rest of the world. Much of the world is still not experincing fertility declines.
Thank you for this video! I was very anti having kids and kind of judgemental of people who wanted them, before I learned that the whole overpopulation discussion has a lot to do with eco fascism. I am not going to go into it deeper, but that really opened my eyes and I realized that even though we should be really sure about our intentions when having kids and about whether we really want them, the true issue is capitalism, not people wanting to have a family ( a family is not just two people and a biological child of course).
6:48 - “Global resource use is driven primarily by increase in affluence, not population…”. This one sentence says it all. There’s so much I could, would, should say here in my comment, but there is no need for me to blather on because this one sentence above (that I have quoted from your video) says it all so succinctly and accurately. This is a great video Gittemary. As per ushe, I learned a lot… thank-you for this. 💦🌎Ⓜary💕
I found your channel by accident on IG since someone shared few very good points you've made about overpopulation myth and I just knew I had to subscribe ❤
The main issue, in term of sustainability, is that people think in black and white. "X is best, it's the one solution, and Z is not good". People don't take alot of factors into account. 🍃
While you make many legitimate points, you greatly underestimate the ability of individuals and governments to halt the impact of overpopulation not only on climate change but on pollution and biodiversity. You also greatly overestimate the willingness of future generations to do as you do. The facts are clear, the Earth as a whole has surpassed a sustainable carrying capacity, and no amount of individual effort will change that. The studies looked at India and Africa because they had population explosions after World War II. In many areas, the population is ten times what it was prior to that, and the environmental impact, not just climate change, has been devastating. Deforestation, ground water contamination, chemical fertilized farming to meet growing needs, industrialization, transportation pollution, human waste and refuse, plastics, air pollution, and other factor all come into play. Climate change is not the only problem, and all of these problems are getting worse ... some much worse. The populations in Asia, South America, and Africa want what the West has, and they believe they have a right to it. That is not to say that the populations of North America and Europe cannot do much better in this regard, and they must do better if humanity is to survive, but the Capitalism growth model relies on ever expanding markets with more people wanting more goods requiring greater resources causing greater environment impact. That is unsustainable. One must also consider that the Earth is not just here for humans. The amount of arable land is finite, and we have to ask what right we have to take that land from other species on this planet. History has shown that an increase in population leads to a decrease in indigenous wildlife flora and fauna. We are in an era of man made mass extinction. Not a single human would give up their child for the cub of a lion, a fawn of a deer, or the tadpoles of a rare species of frog. Once that child is born, all bets are off. This is a matter of economics. All choices and all actions have opportunity costs. Human overpopulation is the root cause of these problems, and the environmental costs are immense. War, famine, pollution, plastic in our food, dying oceans, ground water contamination, and even political strife are end products of human population expansion. To say that you are unwilling to consider the consequences of children is no different that another person saying they are unwilling to consider the consequences of their use of plastic containers, driving big trucks, eating steaks, using air conditioning, eating unsustainable fish, and buying GMO products. To many of them, climate change, overconsumption, ecology, overpopulation, and even science itself are all myths.
Not only do we need huge reduction in waste, consumption etc. we need to do it at the same time as reducing the population size. It's not one or the other, like this woman is suggesting. It's a simple matter of physics, each individual has a set of basic needs that can't be worked around, and on top of that people want a comfortable living, with that comes roads, rail tracks, schools, hospitals, etc etc. How do you get around that? You can't unless you accept living in poverty.
@@Ashitaka255 Correct. The oceans and seas are dying, and when they go, it will be hard to even come close to feeding the humans we already have. The aquifers are running out of water, and we are fracking through ground water. Rivers are drying up. Biodiversity is becoming GMO monoculture. Humans are destroying the Earth, and more humans will just do it more quickly. That is no myth.
I am 27 and decided at 25 that I will not have children. Our planet is shite, there are too many ppl anyway and I don't want to be a mother. I don't want to be pregnant and give birth. I rather be the cool aunt to my friends kids and help them raising them. I just want to enjoy life to it's fullest, travel, go out on the weekends and sleep in.
At 29 this is a topic that I am becoming very interested in and I really appreciate your views. I wouldn't say I'm maternal or wanting kids but the old fashioned expectation that I will have them really clouds my judgement.
Don’t listen to societal expectations- especially if they don’t really resonate with you! It’s your life, and you don’t have to feel bad about not bringing anyone new into it.
Thank you for putting your words to this topic. It is certainly the antinatalist ideas that have been the most difficult to describe how this is intertwined with fossil fuels and who is directly effected by the antinatalism which is DEFINITELY not the 1%.
Do you believe this is a good world to bring in another human into? That the earth and the humans will survive the disasters that might befall us..? I have really bad climate anxiety and is one of the reasons I am not yet ready to have a child 😔
@Merle Ginsberg Official considering adoption isn’t even an option for most people considering the expense. Fostering to adopt might be, but that’s almost never the goal of fostering.
I didn’t “ignore” adoption, I recognise and vocalised that I don’t now enough about the system of adoption to properly guide people through it… perhaps don’t assume that everything you disagree with is done out of malice 😅
@Merle Ginsberg Official adoption is in a lot of countries a business just like any other business. In belgium, you would need 25.000 € or more just to start the procedure and you have to pay it in once. Why? For what? To adopt a child? It's nonsense and a capitalist dick move to get money out of those who can't create a family of their own... I don't ever wish to be a part of that system. Ever.
@Merle Ginsberg Official No I don't think it's harmful, she just was honest with us, when she said she might not be the the person with the most experience and knowledge in this field. I understood it that way, that all people interested in adoption should better inform themselves about the issues that brings. She didn't endorse or reject it in general.
Thanks for this video. To be honest I get to be upset when hearing about people wanting children who aren't even vegetarian or trying to reduce their carbon footprint, because I feel like it's just entirely selfish. I'm afraid they aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions which their CHILDREN will have to live through. While I think overpopulation is a big issue, I just don't think it's okay to have 5 children if they are plenty to adopt... I understand some people want a child of their own, but like I said before, when they are not even trying, I just get upset. I have eco-anxiety and am in my 20s and I'm extremely worried about my future, so I wouldn't want to live the life of someone 20+ years younger. I'm just afraid they may be harming their child more than anything. Then again, if all of us/ the majority of humans were really trying to change the way we live and are, it could be different. Then maybe our future wouldn't look as doomed. The inaction of other humans and their ignorance just drives me crazy, so seeing them pretend we have a planet B and C and D just makes me feel uncomfortable. + as I said overpopulation feels like an issue to me but mostly because there are way too many people who do not care or do not want to understand. I am afraid of the future and the consequences of climate change, I got depressions because of it and of course not every child is going to be like me, but honestly if I could reverse my birth, I would. So I'm not trying to shame anyone who plans to have children or has young children, I just worry about the environment they grow up in and hope they will be okay. I just want to make sure everyone thinks about this, before they say "hey I want a mini-me".
Vegan you mean, because even a vegetarian has a huge carbon footprint, just by consuming dairy... For all the rest, huge hugs. I can definitely relate to the eco anxiety.
Being in my twenties too, I wholeheartedly agree. Seeing how my parents disregard me and mock me for being conscious about the planet makes me don't want to have a child (although it would be pretty difficult to begin with).
@@TheUltimateThrill89 not really... I know vegetarians still have huge footprints and mostly don't know but I get to meet people who won't even reduce their meat consumption and tell me they want children and can't understand I don't want any... 😢 Thanks for your comment, it's comforting to know some people can relate 💚
@@sugarcandy304 yes, I have some friends who have kids and they blame the generation before us (so, our parents in general) for raising us in a selfish way... Just yesterday, a friend of mine's husband commented that it was his parents' fault that our climate and our earth is fucked up. I told him that there's always a choice and if you choose to deliberately close your eyes to everything that's bad, you don't have the right to wave fingers at others. But yeah, it's not something they really like hearing 🙂. While my girl is a vegan eco-conscious climate loving and caring 7 year old. Raised vegan, conscious and she is very sure about the fact that she will never consume anything from an animal and plastic etc, well, we reduce it to a bare minimum here but unfortunately not everything comes without plastic but like last week we went to the beach for a short holiday (just in our own country, Belgium), just the two of us and we had a great time together just collecting plastic from the shore... 🙂 When we are doing nature walks, we are always picking up trash and I believe our eco footprint is much smaller than a lot of people who have no kids at all so I completely agree with what Gittemary said.. but I also can relate to the feelings, when I tell people I would like to have another child but I have doubts, they tell me people are the root cause of climate change so it's not very eco-friendly while they are still consuming animal produce and my child is absolutely not.
Hi Gittemary! Thanks for adressing this issue, great! You obviously did your homework and I love how you go into sooo many different aspects of (over)population and environmentalism :) Small thing though: reading out the first article citation, I felt like you sped up your voice and it made it really hard to follow..... So, for my part, please don't do that anymore 😬 I really love that you show the text and read it out though, that really helps me with concentrating on what you want to bring across to the listener/reader :) Also: for me personally the point about rascism being the reason for wanting people to have less children is completely new, could you expand on this at some point? Thank so much :) Great video, once again 💚
Obviously I’m not Gittemary, but historically, there has been more than 1 occasion in which the leading ethnic group in a country has forcibly sterilized or otherwise made it very difficult for a minority ethnic group to reproduce. For a current example, in China, Han is the major ethnic group which runs most of their politics currently. There is a minority ethnic group called the Uighurs. The government stations agents in Uighur homes to literally watch married couples and make sure they don’t have sex and therefore can’t reproduce. This is just one example, but there are a lot of other instances throughout history where this type of thing has been done.
Hi @@coralovesnature thanks for your explanation! I Know of the examples you speak of. I guess in my mind this is not linked to the environmental story, which is why it might not have connected for me in this specific video. Do you know anything about the connection of these issues to environmentalism maybe? :)
@@merel8915 Ahh, I see what you mean. As it relates to this video, which is about overpopulation, people will cite overpopulation as a reason to have fewer babies, but then point to certain population/ racial groups as the cause of this, using birth rates as their backing data. For example, in the Western world, people might point to places like Africa, India, and SE Asia as the primary cause of overpopulation since these places tend to have quite high birth rates compared to the West (i.e. US, Canada, Western Europe), which tend to have a rate roughly around the replacement rate of 2 (which would be 1 kid to replace each parent). However, this isn’t quite a fair comparison for several reasons: 1. The people living in the high birth rate areas are often living in impoverished conditions and thus use far, far less resources compared to the average Westerner. I don’t know the actual stats, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a family of, say, 10, in rural India consumed the same amount of resources as a family of, say, 3, in the US. So such a family having 1 kid has much, much less of an impact than a Western family having 1 kid. 2. In the high birth rate areas, typically the life expectancy is much lower, and the childhood mortality rate is much higher. However, the birth rate only measures live births, it does not measure how long people live. So for example, maybe the birth rate is 10 children per person, but on average, only 8 actually make it past the age of 5, and maybe only 5 make it past the age of 50. With each year of life, a person continues to draw resources, so with people potentially dying at a much younger age compared to most people in the West, that’s also far less resources used over the course of the lifetime. 3. The main reason these places even have a high birth is typically due to impoverished conditions, no access to birth control/ family planning, etc. As these places become more developed and stable and have access to resources like birth control, the birth rate will naturally decline over time. This has happened on its own in virtually every instance that I’m aware of, unless there was some weird extenuating circumstance that made it necessary for people to keep having a lot of kids (for example, if there was a war that killed off a large portion of the population maybe). Circling back to the original point, the people who are claiming that these impoverished, high birth rate areas are the primary cause of overpopulation/ environmental destruction don’t even stop to think critically for 2 seconds about the items I mentioned above. I was able to think of these counterpoints pretty easily off the top of my head, so the fact they didn’t would lead me to believe that their true motive is that the people affected are poor Brown & Black people, so they simply do not care about them whatsoever. They are just an easy scapegoat rather than us actually having to deal with our own problems. I.e. a Black life in some rural village in Africa is worth less value to them than say, a White middle class life in the US. This scenario could also be played out within the same country against an Indigenous population, say. Perhaps the government uses overpopulation as the excuse/ scapegoat to implement targeted birth prevention measures against only the Indigenous population, but the real reason is that they don’t give a crap about them and also racism.
@@merel8915 Also, as a separate example of environmentalism being racist, in the late 1800’s in the US there was a big push to create National Parks and other nature reserve areas that were “pristine” and “untouched by man”. While I am a big enjoyer of nature preserve areas myself, the original motivation at the time was mostly to create get aways for White people and especially White men to live out some weird frontiersman fantasy. Originally POC weren’t allowed to use these spaces at all and even now, some POC say they encounter racism from other hikers and such when they are just out there trying to enjoy nature. But what’s even worse I think is that often Indigenous people who had already been living there for a long time were forcibly removed from these areas so they would remain “pristine” and were also not allowed any part in the land management/ caretaking. Sorry for the long paragraphs! Hopefully the info helps!
I was a young man in the 70s. Overpopulation was my topic of choice. I made it a point to get on any broadcast opportunity in which I felt the topic of OPOP could be raised. At that time the United States progressive movement was endeavoring to improve relations with the Soviet Union. In furtherance on behalf of that objective, an early, for that time high tech satelite link was established on public radio between US and USSR top scientists was linked up so that we could ask one another questions and thus “come to understand one another better” on behalf of furthering peace between the two nuclear powers. Of course I called the designated phone line. The screener asked what I wanted to discuss, I responded succinctly “overpopulation”. I surmise that the screener must have been sympathetic to the subject, because I was able to get in on the broadcast expeditiously. My question was simple, “Is overpopulation a problem on our planet today?” The narrator appeared aghast, protesting that the purpose of the broadcast was to promote mutual understanding. Apparently assuming that my question was not serving that purpose. Meanwhile voices with thick Russian accents could be heard shouting in the background: “No! Is no overpopulation problem! Only problem of distribution!” At that point I realized the obvious. I had ruffled feathers in the dogma of Marxist political/economic philosophy. Cut to the present. Planet population has since doubled from what it was the day of that broadcast. Technology has advanced apace. I have since concluded that the OPOP question is multidetermined. OPOP is psychological! It is also anthropological. And also economic. I believe our species is on the verge of another important economic tipping point, originated in the high technology optimism of Elon Musk and the Tesla company. The company has pioneered previously unheard of methods of manufacturing efficiency. These are too involved to be considered here. But one deserves mention. Tesla is on the path to building humanoid shaped robots. In fact it is surmised that Tesla is already employing these robots in their own EV automobile manufacturing factories [“the machine that builds the machine”] We haven’t had a lot of time to consider the implications of such developments. Elon Musk has speculated that there will come a time when robots will outnumber humans. And this, he speculates further, will forever change economics. After all, robots don’t have anywhere near the quantity of needs that humans do. Robots do not require food, sleep, coffee or bathroom breaks.. etc etc etc All of us human beings are now challenged to adjust and accomodate this new reality. Like it or not.
I for one plan to have a child. but I believe it is how a person or persons go about providing for said child. most want to buy brand new items therefore creating.a demand for those items. while it is a personal choice for all, I for one love the idea of buying most items second hand saving money and only buy certain items new. there are second hand stores that except items of a vast variety that you can sell and get cash back. so while the child goes from baby to kid, I would say till they are out of sixth grade these stores have clothes that will fit them. I love this as it keeps clothes that are in great condition and other items out of the landfill and in circulation for others that are in need of them.
Thank you so much for this video. This topic has been on my mind a lot lately and this has helped to educate myself, organize my thoughts, and explore my own wants and values around family planning. ❤
Just the facts. Thank you. You should teach a class on all this stuff , you are such a great speaker.🙌🏽♥️ lots of great info that I personally didn’t know. Oh btw, I finally saw your TED talk and it was amazing! 🥹
"Arahat Athersata and the Plejaren repeatedly advise us in particular about our out-of-control overpopulation problem and, as of 1975, recommended a strict, humane plan of world-wide birth control (which we arrogantly and self-destructively ignored, and continue to ignore. Countries like Australia even promote the growth of our population for economic reasons even as our water and other resources are increasingly reduced and contaminated!). Arahat Athersata says, that one of the most important tasks of the realm of material life of the Earthly humanity is to pay attention to the fact that the population must be very severely restricted and the number of human beings must not exceed 500 million. (According to the Plejaren we had 7.5 billion at the end of 2004, which is one billion more that was acknowledged at the same time by the USAmerican Census Bureau!) According to the Creational laws and directives the correct formula for maintaining the human species is not one of simply increasing, as is wrongly proclaimed by Earthly religions, but is based in the adherence to the natural laws so that there is order, meaning that population growth is overseen and supervised. Through the irrationality and false religious teaching of the Earth human the mass of humanity is driven into boundlessness, whereby problems, which are containable and can be restricted for a small humanity, spread and become uncontrollable to an unspeakable extent. With the breaking and abuse of the law of maintenance of the species humanity has been driven to a mass of overpopulation in only a few hundred years, and with that all problems, need and degeneration climb (and because of this millions are forced to die a degenerate death.) (Please refer to the FIGU overpopulation pamphlets for more on this.) To follow Creational laws and directives also means the correct raising of children, in which, by adulthood, they are entirely equipped for self-reliance and independence from their parents. Other laws concern respect for all life forms, not killing in degeneration, (which includes not committing suicide), learning from mistakes rather than condemning them, taking responsibility for one's own thoughts, words and deeds, not judging falsely but instead making judgments according to logic, respecting one's spiritual and physical needs, the requirement for leadership in each family, community and population, etc., the obligation of a leader to guide, teach and protect the people, the implementation of correctional measures for wrong behavior instead of torture or the death penalty, which entirely go against the Creational laws and directives, and so on."
Thank you for making this. I have a lot of thoughts on this subject, but if I wrote them down it would be such a huge essay that nobody could read it, so I won't. Just my thoughts on how to help reduce the population that eryone is worried about: open the borders of the world, make safe abortion available to those who need it, make education available to all people, especially women, give every person on the planet a living wage. As for reducing carbon, this is a very different matter. But banning the hedonistic practices of the 1% is a good start. Yachts, jets, consumerism, excessive travel etc. And if anyone should morally not have kids it's these people, not someone in Bangladesh who's walking everywhere and eating a bowl of rice for dinner with 1 light bulb in their home.
In summary: It's not that we have too many babies, it's that we have too many rich ppl acting like babies and feeling like they're entitled to ruin our planet and get no consequences for it 🤔
I think there is absolutely an argument to be made…. Obviously with nuance, but if you are working towards a sustainable lifestyle and teaching the next generation to do so…. It only provides growth and growing education to the continuing of sustainable practices in future generations
As a family of 5, African American, sustainable, and vegan, I appreciate this video. I love that you mentioned body autonomy, especially due to minorities being sterilized in America.
👏👏👏 I've been told by eco conscious friends that my choice to have children is selfish and against my environmental values. This video has given me the talking points I needed to argue against this claim! I love the point about how culture at home influences the impact of one's children. Parenting consciously when it comes to sustainability is so important ✌
my favorite part about this argument is that don't hve kids its always directed at europeans while there are whole areas that can't feed themselves with birth rates of 5+ kids per woman...
My primary issue with this is even though your right is that it calls for the AVERAGE American, European, Canadian, etc people of postmodern societies with high consumption to eat less meat or no meat, drive electric cars or take a bike or moped everywhere if they can manage to work remote or close to home, live in modest high energy efficiency housing, and generally reduce their consumption by 3x or better. I simply have no faith. This could be incorrect but I read less than 2 in a 100 people in the US are willing to be plant based or even mostly plant based and I have not personally been able to convince a single person in 4 years of being mostly plant based to even reduce their meat consumption or cut out beef as an example. It's the least expensive step with the most dramatic effect but they don't care. I know some people have certain medical situations or other legitimate reasons but the average person has no excuse to not simply eat less steak and stop drinking dairy milk. We are a selfish people who know what is happening and are unwilling to cut back on our destructive consumption even though we know it is literally ending the world. It is a good thing we (US) are opting to have less children at large, because those children would most likely not live sustainably.
Thank you! I was hoping you'd make a video about this. There is no real scientific data at all to support the idea of overpopulation and I wish this myth didn't keep showing up everywhere. There certainly currently are issues with feeding the world population but that's not because there's too many people to sustain, but because of inequality and policies that are designed to make rich people richer and poor people poorer. Insisting that people stop having kids is just another way to put the responsibility on poor people (often PoC and disabled people) instead of the people who are actually responsible for climate change. The idea of overpopulation is nothing more than plain old eugenics.
As long as there is even ONE child in the foster care system, I can't justify bringing another life into the world. Intentionally having children does not make you a bad person, but it does make you selfish. Our species is not endangered.
It’s a matter of how you raise your children, not how many you have. If you raise your children sustainably ie.reusable diapers, thrifted non-fast fashion clothes then you shouldn’t worry about their carbon footprint because if you live waste free they can too. Contrary to somebody who raised their children unsustainably ie.un reusable diapers, fast fashion, fast food consumption you are not helping. I hope this helped you have an understanding.
Wouldn’t hurt to plug up all the underwater volcanoes venting heat into the oceans. Some of the people in our world seem to have government as their god. And either think outside the box or didn’t know there was a box. Thinking outside the box is good as long as you can still have relevant thoughts based on fact instead of feeling
When working out cost of children nowadays they spoil the child with unnecessary items and everything is new only used a few mths. This is bollocks! It’s not that expensive. And can be reused with multiple children although it does pay to get shorts new because the way they are sewn nowadays doesn’t allow to change the elastic bands which isn’t sustainable. If you do use cloth nappies and have child care outside the home they will make you use disposables for WHS & hep A risk. The majority of child’s needs you can make sustainable though.
I think if your really worried about environment then adoption. You are raising someone with eco friendly lifestyle that otherwise might not get raised in that environment.
Raising children sustainably is sometimes the NORM for financially underprivileged families. Me and my little brother were raised by a single mom, and our loving grandparents. It was cheaper for my mom to make a giant pot of soup for the week from our CSA box, feed us local vegetables, buy all of our clothing second hand or from the thrift shop. My grandmother even went out of her way to take me new clothes school shopping and I had to confess to her that I didn’t like all the new clothing in stores/they didn’t fit me right, or I hated the style. I was extremely cost conscious about how much these items cost new. My bff growing up was raised in a privileged family, and I never hesitated to ask if I could look through her donation bag and snag items I knew I could use. (She had wicked style too!) Our activities for entertainment were bike riding, going to the community pool, visiting the library with our grandmother, walking the dog after dinner, renting DVDs from the library, garage sale shopping (my fav in the summer!), helping Grandpa with fixing the house, I learned to crochet/knit, and my grandmother taught me to bake. Vacations were camping trips to the local Wilderness parks, free camping with extended family, and mini cook outs! I had a cell phone at age 8 and had it until I was about 12 (due to my moms busy work schedule it was crucial I was able to contact an adult at all times). I personally feel that as our society has amassed more wealth, has gained access to more resources, and has become more connected by peoples social medias, people who have not shared in that access feel that they are unable to raise a child because of the cost and impact. When children are given iPads at age three, all new clothing, plastic bottles, disposable diapers, and things that four generations back didn’t have and raised children just fine sustainably forget that. This is why I really don’t knock the crunchy moms. They’re obnoxious but they also have put in the hard work and dedication to raise their children in this way. My mom wasn’t a crunchy mom by todays standards, but she was a stellar example of raising sustainable children, sustainably. It really blows my mind that we have forgotten sustainability is the baseline of human existence.
Blah blah IRRELEVANT WTF the "norm" is in your decision making. BREEDING IS A CHOICE! Except in SHITHOLE cuntservaturd states/countries that FORCE it onto women and the born by outlawing abortion. NOBODY FORCED you to choose to breed, otherwise.
Queen of being one of the only UA-camrs I watch consistently dropping their sources 🙏 Wish this was the norm!
I also like to point out that the folks telling/being told not to have kids are the people who care about sustainability. People who don’t consider sustainability are happily reproducing and teaching their kids the same mindsets we are working so hard to move away from. We need radical, forward thinking people to have kids and teach them to carry on the work we’re doing!
I want kids and I’m excited to have a hand in raising a future generation of radical sustainability advocates, instead of letting my efforts end when my life is over.
Absolutely agreeing with you! 💪
@Merle Ginsberg Official Unfortunately, adoption is completely out of reach for so many people. It's not as easy as "just adopt a child". It's a huge privilege to be able to adopt.
Fostering also exists, so does foster to adopt. I cannot see the logic in creating a whole new human where there's already so many kids in the system.
its not the environmental impact of a human that has made me decide to be childfree, but that it feels unethical to bring a child into a fucked up world where they are guaranteed to suffer to at least some extent. the political landscape in the u.s. leaves me with very little hope and the extreme weather all around the world is terrifying and i couldn't put someone i love through this existence
Yes. Also. There’s nothing *that* vital about me or my partner that warrants us to make a combined version of us. There are so many kids out there already who are begging for a home- don’t think I could look myself in the mirror if I chose sperm and egg over a homeless kid. In the end, we are the adults who, hopefully, have some autonomy. It seems only right to look out for those more vulnerable, and that to me includes at risk kids.
That is because you are ETHICAL and THINK and CARE about ALL THE DETERMINISTIC PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES of forcing a NONCONSENTING PERSON into existence. COMPLETELY the opposite of conservatives.
Two of my adult kids ( in their late 30s ) and their partners have decided not to have kids .A third ( aged 35 ) has just had the first grandchild for both sets of grandparents . They thought long and hard about this decision and are very conscious in all of their consumption .Most of the things they use for baby are thrifted ( 90% ) and she is also using a moses basket that was hers as a baby as well as the handmade wooden rattles she had as a baby too . etc .
The youngest ( 26 ) is still weighing up whether eventually she might want to have a child .
Thank you for your video , it was well thought out and sensitively presented . Xx big hug
Thanks for sharing about your kids! Please remember, it's never ok to ask someone if they're pregnant. Even when you mean well, please don't ask.
I love my parents for being openminded. When I told them I didn't want kids, they said as long as I am happy, they are happy.
@@amandaholmes1244 …but she didn’t ask…?
@@mayachaoui814 she edited her comment, probably to be respectful 🥰
@@amandaholmes1244 in a truly free world, we do not take it upon ourselves to tell each other what it is or isn't okay to ask. We let people ask what they genuinely wish to know, and we say when we're not comfortable responding and on what grounds, e.g. "No offense to you, but it isn't any of your business and I don't feel like telling you that."
We also teach our own children what we would consider good manners and leave grown adults who have already been raised to do what they sincerely think is inoffensive. Free expression as a catalyst of overall freedom should not be underestimated.
Really glad you made this video and are keeping it real despite how controversial your opinion might seem in the environmentalist community. Thank you! I completely agree and love that you brought in a huge social justice issue.
Crazy what you said about getting the most hate when criticizing the 1%. I think people just aren't ready to face the reality of how unjust it is that there a millions of people across the world struggling to meet their basic needs (which is a human right) and then 1% of the population own and control pretty much all the resources on earth. It is a very difficult pill to swallow and can almost make you sick to think of the gap.
Also, when you look further into it, many of the richest 1% and their families have ties to a long history of Eugenic societies. It works in their favour to propagate this myth that the cause of environmental degradation is overpopulation because it redirects attention, shifts the blame and also slowly allows them to achieve what they have always wanted which is to own the world for themselves and get rid of who they consider to be the "undesirables". Just start researching these Eugenic Societies, their shift to policy on crypto-eugenics and who has been involved with them and it will start to make sense.
I am aware to some I will sound like a "conspiracy theorist" but some basic research will reveal the truth. I studied Philosophy at University and many of the "greatest" philosophers of all time were huge Eugenicists, it's not really new information.
Amazing video! Thank you AGAIN for looking deeper into sources (than most of us do) and taking one step further in thinking about a controversial topic. I love your videos because you are never done too quickly with a question/problem. I am grateful that you've decided to make this video after all.
I totally understand the critique towards the 1%, powerful people with huge enterprises that harm the environment in large scales, but isn't being a part of incredibly rich industry nations equivalent to being part of the very few percent that mostly contribute to the crisis? When I think about whether or not it's right for me to get children, I don't think about the elite, people's minds that I cannot change directly, I think about the responsibility that I hold as a member of the society that I live in, namely my country, and making sure that me having a child/children doesn't harm other people + other ecosystems.
When overpopulation isn't one cause of global warming, but rather largely an issue of the lifestyle habits of a few, a very privileged part of the human population, is it ethical to get children in such a society & culture (if you don't live a completely sustainable life)?
Even though there is a shift in awareness regarding our behavior, global warming and its effects worldwide, behavioral, mindset and systemic changes are hard and always take time. It doesn't seem like as if we have that much time left. That's why I think it's important to ask ourselves how we can slow down as a collective - on all fronts. And different people come up with different solutions. So I think it's still valid to say that there are "too many of us harming the planet (and consequently the human species)".
But that too many are people who have been raised by consumer parents, and are now raising consumer children. It’s not a number of people problem, it’s a cultural lifestyle problem. And we know culture generally is influenced by the masses and how/what they consume. I don’t see how raising zero waste children adds to the impact. And with more people subscribing to the consumerist lifestyle, they often feel that children are unobtainable to keep up with the cost of raising them in accordance with their lifestyle. Not to get controversial, but, like lots of movements out there, passing the tenants, attitudes, and philosophies onto our children 1) grows the movement from grass roots up, 2) it’s easier to create a sustainable lifestyle from day one than to convert or reverse course as a grown adult, and 3) creates a tangible culture that is held together throughout the next generation. This is essentially what let’s religion live so dang long, because children are raised in it. Now, some of them leave the religion, but a majority stay otherwise why are these religions still around and practiced and followed? That’s just how I feel about the matter, but I totally respect peoples personal reasons for not having children whether it is financial concerns, mental health concerns, and a long list of 100% valid reasons. I just think there is a lot of guilt that is put on people in this community for having children because they assume this is adding to the problem. A lot of the problem is out of our hands, and the problem is definitely not in children’s hands, yet.
I eventually formed my opinion on this that simply put, constant growth (of economy, population, everything really) is unsustainable. I think we should aim to maintain the population, not keep growing. So for a while I had the thought that perhaps a worldwide 2 children per family thing (Like the past 1 child per family in China) even just for like 50 years, would be a good solution. But then there's also people who don't want children, and people who want big families so it could easily balance out but who knows how anyone could regulate that to maintain the population.
Anyway, I just think now, education is important. If all schools teach all children about sustainability, they're more likely to make better choices than their parents and grandparents. And I also think that accessibility to adoption is huge, if someone (like myself) wants to raise children and have a family, but have that thought of 'but what about the environmental impact', being able to adopt is a huge win. Not to mention the millions of children who are growing up in foster homes etc, who want a loving family. Adoption seems like a win win, for me at least.
Elitist snob
@@theresaalexander4142 I don't think this is the place for the sort of comment. I'm just sharing my opinion.
@@zy9423
Sorry.
The philosophy you express here makes my skin crawl.
I reread it to be sure.
Yep. Absolutely inhumane. Barbaric. Disgusting.
I don’t agree with restricting children in families, and given the US replacement rate is nowhere near replacement levels, I think we are effectively slowing down at least in the USA. Also adoption should be much much easier. Just like how clothing gets donated and then used to a loving home when someone passes, or no longer can care for it, so too should children be. I really respect families who have adopted!
Would you do a video comparing the impact of diffusers, scented candles and fragrance sticks? I don’t know which is better when it comes to sustainability
Oh good idea!!
As a mom of 1, I can definitely relate to the comments about having a child and not being eco-conscious because I would like to have another child, while my girl of now almost 7 is vegan, ecominded, cares about the planet and takes the climate into account. We cloth diapered, I breastfed until she was 3, we don't buy new toys or clothes and in general, we try to live as zero/minimal waste as possible. I believe your actions and all the ways you spend your money matter, not how many/little kids you have. so, yup, you nailed it def. 100% 💚💚💚💚✅
You’re also a woman and a mother in general so everything you do will be criticized, questioned and used for public fodder.
@@omowhanre yup, exactly this. I feel like women can't ever do things good enough and we will always be criticized...no matter what we do. If we are just in line with our inner souls, it should be enough to feel ok but it's easier said than done...
@@TheUltimateThrill89 true. WAAAY easier said than done.
When a person is born, this specific person will generate C02. But as you said, if that person is eco-friendly it can change other people's minds. If, for instance, Gittemary didn't exist I'm sure that it would impact the world negatively
So inspiring. I am surprised, that she didn't mention it in the video: parents have such a huge impact on their children, they can teach them how to be sustainable and how to care for environment, like you did. And what world will be the future, when there are no new and younger environmentalists? In my opinion, you did everything right 💪🥳 congrats!
what a brilliant video. so important to raise awareness about the eco fascist / eugenicist side of this "debate". love the conclusion too💯 power to you! ♥️
Thank you so much 😍❤️
Very very very good, one of your most interesting and best explained. Congratulations on your research and work.
I think the reason people defend the 1% so much is because unfortunately it’s something most people still aspire to be, and if they hear the reality that the 1% is causing most of the issues it makes them feel guilty about aspiring to be that.
Also they might still carry the myth that capitalism is a meritocracy- they think the richest worked the hardest/are the smartest.
You know what? All the workers of the world should coordinate and force the 1% to redistribute wealth. We will have to find a way to appropriate wealth, food habits and consumption habits. Like we should make a comity. A comity of the people. A democratic peoples comity.
Not everyone has problems staying sober like you
You do realise how many people you are talking about when 1percent is uaedbin this manner? It's like most of North America. So oike 4 times the uk population?
I appreciate the perspective and the focus on environmental racism as the origins of a lot of overpopulation related rhetoric. However, I have some disagreements.
I'm skeptical of the idea that we can sustainability feed 10 billion people, even after reading that report. It didn't address the fact that industrial agriculture is inherently unsustainable. With intensive and industrial agriculture we deplete soils faster than they can regenerate, requiring inputs of fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers to prop up the soil. If we shifted to a plant based food system and had a lot more land to play with, so long as we extract nutrients from the soil faster than they regenerate, that food system is not sustainable. It would require a total shift to regenerative forms of agriculture like permaculture, which is possible, but I'm not sure whether that could be able to feed 10 billion people, given the incredible productive gains we've made with intensive technologies since the green revolution.
I don't think your criticism of the one fewer child research was very good. Sure, if we get the right policy changes, the impact of having one fewer child decreases. You could say this about any other act, for example, switching to electric cars makes driving more sustainable relative to combustion cars. But that doesn't make it sustainable relative to baseline. And why should we assume that the best case scenario for policy changes occurs, when genuine progress towards a sustainable society is so slow? Why would we make the decision to have a kid based on hypothetical, optimistic policy changes rather than what's actually true right now? Also, that figure was linked to CO2 emissions, which is far from the only relevant sustainability indicator, and a lot of the policy changes being proposed (like electric cars) reduce emissions while increasing resource extraction, land use, and toxicity. The fact remains that creating another human being is creating an entirely new consumer who will consume resources for the rest of their life and thus is far more impactful than most other personal consumption reduction. As much as we would like to we can't guarantee that our children will lead an eco-conscious lives as us, and we shouldn't be comfortable with the assumption they will be as eco friendly as we are.
Some of the papers you linked mentioned the decoupling of GDP from emissions, which is a neoliberal fantasy trying to save the idea of eternal economic growth. We can't grow forever and are already way past our sustainable limits. "Green growth" is a myth, de-growth is the only path to sustainability without the collapse of civilization.
On both sides of the overpopulation debate there are people who focus solely on population and don't address lifestyles, and people who focus solely on lifestyles and don't think population is a problem. In reality both are important. Every single one of our sustainability issues becomes easier the less people there are to worry about. We need to radically change lifestyle consumption as well as, at the least, cut down on population growth, and push for controlled, humane de-growth as well. I think there's a lot of room for discussion on how we can de-grow populations AND lifestyles to sustainable levels without authoritarian measures.
Finally, the most powerful reason to not have children is that you can't do so in the interests of the child, knowing they will suffer due to having been brought into existence. The climate crisis will not be pretty, but even if we were on a positive trajectory, it will never be beneficial to them to suffer the consequences of being brought into this world when they do not already exist. Most of the reasons people have kids are selfish, because what's actually best for a child who does not yet exist is to stay not existing.
I could not have said it better.Especially the antinatalist stance at the end- how selfish is it, just for the puropse of the idea of "my very own biological family", to force a person to endure 80+ years of problems that our systems and behaviour ourselves have created. Bonkers.
👏👏👏 thank you!! Overpopulation is not a myth. Every species have a carrying capacity. We've expanded our carrying capacity through industrial agriculture at the cost of destroying our environment faster. Humans have a carrying capacity just like any other species we are not exempt. Yes racist group do use overpopulation to spout hateful nonsense missing the real problem which is themselves, sucking up massive amounts of resources and overconsumming goods often made in lower income developing nations by corporations destroying the environment and exploiting working who are not white. Racist overpopulation isea pushers don't want to off entire countries of people because that would effect their gross lifestyles, they just don't what the people from those countries coming to where they live cough*America*cough and adding to the non-white population in their "own" country. This leads to my thinking that people with the means to choose not to have children that live in wealthy countries should decide not to have children on top of living as sustainability as they can manage. Indigenous and non-white societies have been the teachers of sustainable living for forever, white people have stolen their ideas and now blame those groups for issues that wealthy nations have created, unfortunately this doesn't make overpopulation a myth. It's real and the best solution is decide not to have kids, adopt a child from your own community. Don't take children from other countries and strip they of their culture and language, often these children are taken from desperate families who are exploited and not fully explained to them they their child will be gone for good. Small rant but so important! "White savior" complex people have when adopting non-white children from poor countries is also racist (just as it is to go on "missionary trips" and blast pictures of "the poor starving godless non-white children they spent so much time and money helping while on vacation in a foreign country all over their social media" then vote for conservative political candidates that impose stricter immigration laws and other racially motivated policies disgusting)
Thank you for such a wonderful reply. I think Gittermary is way off track here.
You my friend are making way too much sense. "New consumer who will consume more resources" is the crux of this entire issue. The irony is that she doesn't realize that her argument benefits only the 1% . the only argument for increasing the population is economics and capitalism. The rich gets new consumers and a labor force as more money pours into their pockets and it helps them stave off the uncomfortable effects of climate change while creating more of it... And round and round we go. There is zero other reason for humans to be concerned about a declining population. This youtuber is delusional if she thinks the camera she is using and the stuff in her comfortable home is not contributing to climate change, even as eco-conscious as she claims she is being. But let us make more consumers.
Do you have some recommendation on papers on the subject ? I really liked your arguments, and would apreciate to know more about it
I truly admire how much effort and research you put into these types of informational videos- it shows just how much you care about the topics you discuss and your wish to bring the truth forward so that we are all better educated. Keep up the great work Gittemary! Love you and your channel!!
I think there are other things to consider, like "do you really want to put another human on earth in the middle of a climatic crisis?", Considering the well being of this human, not the impact on earth.
And about overpopulation: i do think we have too many people, and i worry for the resourses people need to have a good life. And a lot of people dont have, but should. Like access to water, food, sports, culture, nature, transport, etc. Could we provide all that to 10 billion people without hurting the planet?
But most people already want to have only one or two kids, or none. I think what we have to do is help people who already dont want kids, or more kids, to not have them, with sex education and the disponibilization of contraceptives, and fighting mandatory motherhoood, wich is when women are considered incomplete if they dont have kids.
Yes. Our planet is shite, social media is destroying our kids minds and it's getting more difficult to have children or buy a house.
I agree completely. The question I ask myself is “Can I guarantee any potential children a better life than mine?” Honestly, with living in the US, especially now more than ever I don’t think the answer could ever be yes.
I don’t think others should be shamed for deciding to have children in a general sense, but I will point out that there are people who have as many children as they can to control them and influence future voting (I.e. Quiverfull). They scare me even more than the environmental crisis - we could theoretically get rid of fossil fuels and “fix” global warming, but there’s no way to stop people religiously indoctrinating their children and having 10+ kids in order to make the future they want (threatening LGBTQIA2S+ right to life, interracial marriage, womens suffrage, etc) without potentially taking away rights from others.
Strongly agree
I agree with you and I feel uncomfortable, but still, after watching this video, my opinion stayed the same. It's not just about the carbon footprint. It's about access to water, food, etc. Some time ago I read or heard that in developing countries the reason for having so many children is that among that many siblings one will stand out, make success and care for the rest of the family. I think it is just as unsustainable thinking as living the lifestyle of the upper 1 per cent. I think we are just too much for the world to handle and I don't believe in people getting "better" or change. Ancient cultures deforested Lebanese cedar to build ships to an almost extinction for example. This wood has also been used to create a basis for buildings in Venice, Italy. So no thanks, I don't believe in vast people suddenly turning into conscious and environmentally friendly individuals.
@@dbeata1 as someone living in an undeveloped country... ofc people are nota gonna be environmentally friendly overnight, BUT the 'too many children problem' comes mostly from terrible or inexistence sex ed, misinformation, the lack of reproductive rights (abortion being illegal in most cases), child labor still being a thing. Giving universal acess to basic human rights could solve this problem, when the quality of life goes up people tend to have less kids, there are studies on this (i can add refs if you want). However many powerful people dont want that to hapen, because if somene is poor and have to feed a large familly, they are way more willing to work in bad conditions, and if they won't someone else will.
I'm about to lecture on this topic this week and your perspective articulates things that haven't sat well with me for a long time. I might show my students this video for a different perspective from the textbook 💛
As someone who lives in a developing country, it seems that sustainable living (renewable energy, vast public transport, electric cars, plant-based diet, etc) will only be common in the far future. Living sustainably is hard here without the infrastructure and that’s my reason for not wanting kids
Living sustanably in the west is a myth. Don't feel too bad. Even "low consumption" individuals consume far more than they do in the poorer countries.
The things you list are the problem, the people in most developing nations live the way their ancestors did. In underdeveloped countries most people share transport, not everyone has a phone, people do not have cupboards of cheap shoes and clothing, a lot of people have their own gardens and do not rely on huge supermarket chains. Look around, it's the excess of the 1% and their unsustainable lifestyle that create the disaster, and the fact that people are buying into this lifestyle.
@@jeanninerossouw5921 in Trinidad and Tobago there is a LOT of waste, cheap clothes, big supermarkets, and traffic is totally horrendous at certain hours (mainly bc public transport policy and practice has not been properly updated in more than 40 years). It's awful considering inflation is also on the rise and the culture and diet do not speak to sustainability en masse. The truly eco friendly are definitely in the minority here, esp because we tend to mimic the 1%. Some are going back to home gardening though myself and my mom included, and we do patronise farmer's markets more and more. It's just a mess though.
Go get ‘em! Way to get the truth out there. Love that you clear away all the false crap and get right down to truth, history, and actual facts.
Thanks for being you and inherently being awesome!!
Hmm I’m not sure how I feel about this but I will say that you’ve opened my eyes a bit in regards to how we point fingers.
We have the power as consumers to make the right choices within our limits and in-still green values/ educate others.
I think my issue is that every person I know who has children is the antithesis of eco friendly in their own lives. So that's why I've always personally felt like people who have kids typically do not care about the planet.
Thanks you so much for making this video and giving some context and acknowledging the complexity of the situation. I had seen that one study referenced so much and have also been so confused recently with economists in the uk warning that people aren't having enough children, and making some awful suggestions to get people to have more children which made m angry. Overall I think it needs to be up to the individuals what feels right for them to have children or not (although obviously there are so many other factors that can take the choice out of peoples hands anyway) and for those who do chose to have children to think about what they can do to live sustainably and teach their children good habits. It just isnt helpful to guilt and pressure people either way. Xx
Thank you for making this video! I think it’s a topic that needs more nuanced discussion, and I think your perspective was great to share. It opened my eyes to many possibilities.
If you want to adopt, please be careful as she said. There is so much demand for non disabled non traumatised children under the age of 3 that there has been countless stories of parents from 3rd countries having their children be kidnapped for Europeans/Americans to adopt. I care about the planet, but unless I was in a non-heterosexual relationship or I had fertility issues I wouldn't add to the demand. The conventional waiting routes are so saturated the wait time is huge, and the other routes as I have said can be very unethical without you even having a clue (fake orphanages where the kids have parents who don't know they're up for adoption etc...). Of course if you need to adopt because that's one of your only choices adoption is really designed for people like you so don't feel guilty for adding to the demand.
If you want children without adding to the population issue, consider fostering, or adopting a child either over the age of 3, or with a disability, or a trauma, or behavioural issues. These children really need homes and don't have huge waiting lists of people ready to adopt them. Children who grew up in foster care are a lot more likely to be homeless in young adulthood. A BBC investigation uncovered abuse in children's homes in the UK. These children need help.
Hi, also avoid private infant adoption whatever the reason! the whole industry is very unethical, manipulating birth mothers to give up the children they want, charging loads of money to adoptive parents and not funding the birth parents support to allow them to raise their own children that they want - (im gay) being gay or infertile doesnt mean that participating is now suddenly ethical. Any adoption is traumatic (even if someone has good adoptive parents and the trauma is mitigated) and should only happen in an absolute crisis where someone cannot cannot safely raise their child
@@MADZYISTHEQUEEN what I meant is not feeling guilty for adding more demand for public adoption if needed. But I think if there is a huge influx of "environmentally minded" individuals flooding the conventional routes (for non disabled non traumatised children under the age of 3) it might push others with no other choice towards the private route and the unethical side of it
@@amelie3012 I see where you’re coming from, but even “adding to demand” while an accurate view of the system is showing how messed up it is. There shouldn’t be anyone being adopted who isn’t traumatised to be frank. Where private infant adoption is illegal, very few adoptions happen and this is nearly always in cases of severe abuse. The whole idea of birth mothers who don’t want their children so give them up for adoption is kind of a myth, there are obviously some but this is a very minuscule number. They should be supported to raise their children. It should always be child centred and focusing on helping a child in crisis rather than “the only option to grow my family”. For non-traumatised infants, if we want to help them, we should financially support their families not adopt them as the route to this is likely unethical. Do you see what I mean?
@@MADZYISTHEQUEEN I see what you mean indeed.
As someone who lives in a 3rd world country were abortion is illegal, the reality it's kind of different here...
i'm far from telling anyone to have or not to have children. by all means do as you please. i just wish all the kids out there had at least decent parents. at the same time i don't think the ever growing population of humans, as any other speacies, is sustainable since the planet and its resources do not grow along and there's only so much efficiency to be achieved. and while it's a fact that a person from a less developed country has far less impact on climate change now (and putting much bigger onus on those people could have racist reasons), assuming that it will continue to be the case is to assume that those people will never get more affluent and won't increase their consumption - which is a false assumption considering developing countries are, well, developing, and people generally aspire to a more comfortable lifestyle which include more consumption. there is however some self regulation there, as improving life conditions usually means less children
First time mom who just had their baby in July. We are gearing towards 100% cloth diapering, 90% of our baby items are used, we even got used items at our baby shower and we're happy. We garden, so some of our veggies are from the back yard. I agree, not everyone will have the same impact.
My husband is actually proud and brags about how much I got for free or used off of FB market place, his from a cost perspective, mine from a we don't need new when he will put grow it soon, especially larger items like his bassinet and crib.
My mom came from a larger family and my husband's parents did too, but we always knew we wanted 2 biological children and possibly more adopted.
As a side note, it was definitely bizarre being 8 months pregnant when roe v Wade was overturned living in the US.......
Congrats! I had my first in April! I started cloth diapering around 1 1/2 months and I haven't looked back! I love it
By DEFINITION, a planet or system (in the most general abstract terms) is overpopulated by a species if it is unsustainable in any variable. e.g. a system can hypothetically have infinite amounts of food but if it is going through its finite supply of water without regenerating it, that system is overpopulated. Or, a system can have infinite resources, but produces pollution that increases without bound. By definition, overpopulated. So, by several measures, or even just by AGW alone, earth is overpopulated with humans.
I made the consious decision not to have any children, I just don't want to put kids onto this world for many reasons
And that's fine, totally your choice. I think the message here is that we shouldn't shame those who do decide to have kids. Ppl should do what they feel is best either way, but that shouldn't be choosen based on faulty studies. It's also the same problem of focusing on the individual instead of systematic changes. Industry creates around 70% of pollution. Even if one person lived "perfectly" they would never counteract that! Stop guilting people and go for the bigger issues.
@@mrslvw where am I guilt tripping anyone for wanting children though? I was talking about my own feelings about having children, not yours not anyone else's. Where do you get that idea?
@@Kx____ you're not. I meant overall everyone's choices should be theirs. Sorry if generalities were taken personally.
@@mrslvw I didn't get that from your message, so thanks for clearing that up! I re-read my comment multiple times and didn't get it, that's why I asked. Thanks for replying. For me personally I have a lot of physical and mental health problems, I also have a lot of issues with the world (well, with people...). That's why I made this decision. Most of my friends and family have children, most of my young neighbors as well. It's their decision. I love children, I think they are wonderful, bright and innocent and they make the world a better place. The issue lies in the future and when they grow up. I can't face that. I find it already difficult enough for myself, I can't imagine having your kids to worry about. But each their own, like you said.
@@mrslvw yes, we should. What one person does affects everyone else. If people have kids, they kids will pollute, and everyone else will have to pay the price.
Having just completed a degree in environmental sciences, I'm surprised this topic didn't pop up even once during any of our lectures! This is something I've thought about for a while and have been slowly looking into (now that I have more time) and although it is a hard topic to talk about I appreciate your time and effort put towards this topic!
Part of the population issue is people arnt distributed evenly over the planet. Its not the amount,but the concentration in a small area.
That statement is based on old eugenic theories that centers the wealthy and those who lack melanin. “There’s too much of the wrong type of people and not enough of the right type of people.”
I totally agree. But I still hope the population will stagnate. So we can concentrate in certain (still large) areas and rewild the rest of the planet.
Ironically, living too far apart can also increase pollution. If I lived in a small, tight-knit community, I would have no use for a car. I would be able to go to school, work, the store, etc. by foot. Instead, I am fully reliant on a car because NOTHING is within walking distance where I live. If I had to walk or even bike to and from work, I wouldn't physically be able to do it.
City living is vastly less polluting for the same lifestyle than country living.
I think it’s the opposite, when I moved to a more populated area it was much easier for me to live sustainably cause everyone I wanted to see and everything I wanted to do was walking distance.
It’s simple the more people the more resources are used no report will tell me otherwise. We need to have less people on this planet period. Something you are not going to like but must be done if you want humanity to continue. Otherwise the earth will go on without us.
That's happening already. Most countries have aging populations but new generations can make changes just as previous and our ones can
Super thoughtful video here with so many great points. Thank you for raising your voice about this important topic!
I have always respected people having kids and being an environmentalist. For me it just scares me to have a kid with America being a major capitalist country and taking advantage of people that it scares me that they would be stuck in being a capitalist/rich person’s cog.
Ive just finished reading most of these comments and theres not really much i could add. Except to say, for those of you preaching against children because of the state of the world, there is little more if anything as powerful a conduit for change as wanting to leave your children in a better world.
I wish this were true! So many of the people with the most children just trust that some deity will ensure their survival and do nothing to improve the life of the planet and its residents.
seems like a rough generalisation
I somewhat agree with you
@@Gittemary En Chile, el 4 de septiembre votaremos y cambiaremos la antigua constitución de la dictadura cívico militar, por la nueva propuesta que le otorga derechos a la naturaleza y que es vista como una constitución ecológica, somos muchos chilenos que creemos en mejorar nuestra relación con el planeta.
@@Gittemary im not sure if you were replying to me or pamela, gittemary? Im only speaking for myself, i have one child and the preservation of all the amazing things we get to experience in the natural world has always been important to me. So much more so now that i have a daughter, who i want to be able to experience them as well.
Why isn’t THIS and zero waste taught in school?
Well lots of the most important matters are not taught just simply because the autorities pretend that non of them exist
The most needed video of all in the world that we are live in....
YES PLEASE!!!!!!
THANK YOU 🙏🙌❤️
I completely agree with you and also many of the comments here. We are too many and I am unsure whether this planet can sustain our numbers. But I am sincerely afraid of the overpopulation narrative and where it might lead us. At its best it is leading us away from the true drivers of climate change and environmental degradation. At it’s worse, to ecofascism. Whenever the overpopulation argument is brought up my question always is: who will control the reproductive rights of whom? While the argument: “we should not bring children in such a messed up world” can take a very dark turn if we consider that we the WEIRD (and may I add residents of countries benefitted by colonialism) are only now starting to feel the effects of climate change, but people around the tropics have been dealing with them for decades. Should they have stopped reproducing? Is this what we are saying? It really doesn’t sound good.
What I'm afraid about having childrens in the near future is not about the impact that they will have, but more about what kind of world they will live in. I'm afraid that they will experience some awful things due to climate change.
I would not bring a child into a world that I personally don't feel safe in.
Thank you for your very interesting video ! I think lot of people don't want children in this word not to try to reduce their impact but because they doesn't want their children to live in a world like this. They are scared to let a not viable planet to their kids... BUT, yes, eveyone should do what they want, that's it
I love my children more than anything and I did have a lot of anxiety when I first had them thank you so much
Too many people competing for limited resources in a world full people who will never ever have the depth of consciousness OR MONEY needed to make changes required to create a significant positive transformation in our world that is beneficial to all off humanity or the planet.
I think some of the comments on this video demonstrate why it was necessary. Thank you for putting it out there. In my experience also, it seems a lot of people who cite “overpopulation” as their primary reason for not having kids use it as an excuse to continue over consuming. Such as “it’s okay that I have multiple vehicles, fly around the world frequently, and buy useless shit constantly, as long as I don’t produce another human.”
This is so right! People love to use the “it’s our fault” “too many humans/humans are bad for the planet” lines so much whenever people rightfully bring up that it isn’t fair to blame individuals with little to no power in society, yet they themselves are still overconsuming
Very valuable and interesting informations. Thank you for your research and effort.
Me and my partner thought long and hard about having children. When we dicided to try for one and raise it sustainably, my niece said she was so happy for us, because the world needs more sustainable people. Now I am 14 weeks pregnant with twins... felt guilty for a while, because dubble the footprint, but also so blessed. We will try to do our best with what we are given!!
Congratulations. No need to feel guilty. I wholeheartedly agree with your niece.
And personally I am leading a more sustainable life since having kids. We used to travel more before, now it's holiday destinations that we can drive to in our electric car or even go with public transport.
Also, we cook more at hone and ear out less. As for clothes and toys we do second hand. You wouldn't believe how much stuff gets discarded that was barely used, so we have very little impact there too.
As for activities, walks in the woods, playgrounds, picnics, museums etc. We're not creating any new carbon on that end. So overall I don't think it's quite as bad as some will have you believe.
And no, we don't have ipads for our kids, because it's not necessary.
All well said, thank you for pushing back against this absurdity. Re. Adoption industry, I highly recommend the second season of the podcast “This Land” for a perspective from the US
Resources are limited. Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. We're already seeing wars over food and land, and mass starvation.
Not to mention climate change and desertification.
I don't fully agree with this.
It's not simply about current and potential CO2 emissions.
We can't live sustainably with our population levels as is, we aren't living sustainably as a species. So more humans cannot help that because realistically not every single one of those children will be living as sustainably as possible.
Furthermore sustainability is also about human rights. We can't support the people on this planet as is- there are 400,000 in the foster care system in the US alone, there are millions without homes, people can't afford food, water, basic healthcare. If we can't support who are already here, sustainably or not, then growth will not help that.
I hope my points make sense-- just because emissions are the cause of climate change on not *necessarily* population growth, population growth certainly isn't helping with overloading our shoddy foundations.
But the small local family with 5 kids who are all vegan and eco-conscious and zero waste etc, they cannot be blamed for the shit happening in our global world. It's not their responsibility.. ever. And just like you say that you can never be sure how eco-conscious someone will eventually be, it goes both ways. I was never raised vegan, ever. The exact opposite is true. And at 27, I turned vegan, my girl's father turned vegan and she is raised vegan from birth. And because of our choices, inevitably, our parents also consume less animal produce and are more eco-conscious because we talk about it so no, one can never be sure that someone will be eco-conscious or not... But again, you can never be sure of a lot. Maybe my girl someday murders a human being for murdering an innocent pig. Who knows?
@@TheUltimateThrill89 I think the main point is that not every child will have the opportunity or initiative to live a sustainable life, eg being vegan like you did.
From personal experience, I can’t go anywhere without my motorbike bc there’s no public transport here. I’m still not vegan because many western ingredients (like as simple as basil) I can only buy in plastic. In my case, and many others who aren’t even into sustainability, having kids will do more harm than good
@@jasminatf buying basil, even in plastic, is vegan though... Tofu in plastic is much better for the environment than meat plastic free... But I get your point, of .
@@TheUltimateThrill89 if 5 kids is your idea of a "small" family I'm not sure if I'd want to know how many it'd take to be a large family. o-o
@@theyoftheravens no, a 5 kid family here is a big large family, definitely. But most of the large families are not living in modern western society and yet their footprint is way smaller than ours, even when they're not vegan or even in the capability to be plastic free and I believe this was one of the things Gittemary tried to make clear. It's not their fault. Overpopulation is not the true cause of climate problems and a dying planet and it's putting the responsibility on a different level and that's just wrong.
Thank you so much for creating this video. I for so long blamed overpopulation and cringed at the idea of bringing a child into this world. You helped me realize that’s not the root of the problem, and I can still decide to have a child one day without drowning in guilt. Thank you, I love your account and feel like I can trust the information you give us. There’s so much out there it’s hard to know what to trust sometimes.
Don’t forget- you can use your wonderful heart and efforts to contribute positively to the life of a child who already exists and needs help.
Thank you for this measured and humane lecture Gittemary. I remember more than forty years ago my then boyfriend remarking - as if it was a given - that there were far too many people in the world. He went on to say that more countries should adopt China's one child policy which had recently been made official. This was a man who had two cars including a sports car and was planning to buy a Harley Davidson. He had numerous electric gadgets and had recently scrapped an excellent hifi system because he wanted the most up-to-date one. (I might add that he sulked once because I bought a dress from a charity shop and insisted that I didn't wear it when with him) I pointed out to him that he probably used up more of the earth's resources than the inhabitants of a village in India. In a way what I said was a revelation to myself, because up until then, I had probably gone along unthinkingly with the myths about overpopulation but as he spoke, I suddenly realised that overconsumption was at least as significant a factor.
He IS right that more countries SHOULD adopt China's One Child Law. Or, better: Zero Child Law.
Regardless of how hypocritical he is in other regards.
There are a lot of rich people who talk about the climate and they fly their private jets or planes a lot.
Whilst I don't agree with you I do apprichiate you doing this video. I was hoping you'd speak about this.
This is the best and maybe most important of your impact videos! Thank you for putting it out here
Natural resources will deplete. It's not forever. I remember the book Inferno of Dan Brown. It says there people are so afraid of hell, but we are creating the living hell we're so afraid of.
Great video! Thank you for educating me and other people♡.
Basically the decision to have biological children or not depends on some other factors like :
- Personal choice
- Physical capability
- Mental capability
- Finances
- Your lifestyle
- or simply a decision to want to adopt.
(These are some factors that came to my mind, while there might be many more factors which I don't realise right now or might not be aware about.)
Moreover, I think taking a decision regarding children is much more emotional and personal rather than environmental. While one may wonder for a while about environment and what kind of world we are bringing the child into, but mainly it should much more be about parenting, what kind of lifestyle will you be able to give to your kids, what values will you pass on, and how would you make their life better rather than worse. To sum up, the decision of having kids or not needs to be conscious rather than ignorant/selfish.
My grandma has 5 children , they have 8 children and their children have 5 at the moment but they are young, some of them underanged so they have plenty of time to get that number higher especially since one them wants 7 and only has 2 now. Take what you want from what I wrote but I will not bring a child into this world , I might adopt. In my opinion even if 1 person uses as little resources as he can during his lifetime if he was never born he would use nothing, I am not saying people should stop having children but maybe we can stop giving people that do not want children a hard time.
In general, I do feel it would be good to maintain current population numbers or lower them. But with the policies currently in place, including education for girls globally and family planning etc, the UN predicts we’ll reach a peak in population and then see a decline. In many European countries, birth rates have gone down to under the average of 2.1/woman, which is the replacement number to keep the population healthy and able to look after children, elderly, and people with various (dis)abilities both now and in the future. Without leaving those who need care alone and without putting the ‘working force’ into burn-out. Hopefully as a whole, we’ll find some sort of fair donut economy equilibrium.
If you still feel population growth needs to be addressed, you could opt for no kids, one or two kids, adopting, foster care, teach and educate people to lower their impact, donate to organizations that promote longer education for girls (and boys) or family planning. But whatever choice you make, it is perfectly fine.
most european nations are still experiencing population growth cos they import so many from the rest of the world. Much of the world is still not experincing fertility declines.
Thank you for this video! I was very anti having kids and kind of judgemental of people who wanted them, before I learned that the whole overpopulation discussion has a lot to do with eco fascism. I am not going to go into it deeper, but that really opened my eyes and I realized that even though we should be really sure about our intentions when having kids and about whether we really want them, the true issue is capitalism, not people wanting to have a family ( a family is not just two people and a biological child of course).
e x a c t l y t h i s
👏👏👏
6:48 - “Global resource use is driven primarily by increase in affluence, not population…”. This one sentence says it all. There’s so much I could, would, should say here in my comment, but there is no need for me to blather on because this one sentence above (that I have quoted from your video) says it all so succinctly and accurately. This is a great video Gittemary. As per ushe, I learned a lot… thank-you for this. 💦🌎Ⓜary💕
I found your channel by accident on IG since someone shared few very good points you've made about overpopulation myth and I just knew I had to subscribe ❤
I really appreciate your compassionate and intelligent discussion of this topic.
The main issue, in term of sustainability, is that people think in black and white. "X is best, it's the one solution, and Z is not good". People don't take alot of factors into account. 🍃
While you make many legitimate points, you greatly underestimate the ability of individuals and governments to halt the impact of overpopulation not only on climate change but on pollution and biodiversity. You also greatly overestimate the willingness of future generations to do as you do. The facts are clear, the Earth as a whole has surpassed a sustainable carrying capacity, and no amount of individual effort will change that.
The studies looked at India and Africa because they had population explosions after World War II. In many areas, the population is ten times what it was prior to that, and the environmental impact, not just climate change, has been devastating. Deforestation, ground water contamination, chemical fertilized farming to meet growing needs, industrialization, transportation pollution, human waste and refuse, plastics, air pollution, and other factor all come into play. Climate change is not the only problem, and all of these problems are getting worse ... some much worse. The populations in Asia, South America, and Africa want what the West has, and they believe they have a right to it.
That is not to say that the populations of North America and Europe cannot do much better in this regard, and they must do better if humanity is to survive, but the Capitalism growth model relies on ever expanding markets with more people wanting more goods requiring greater resources causing greater environment impact. That is unsustainable.
One must also consider that the Earth is not just here for humans. The amount of arable land is finite, and we have to ask what right we have to take that land from other species on this planet. History has shown that an increase in population leads to a decrease in indigenous wildlife flora and fauna. We are in an era of man made mass extinction. Not a single human would give up their child for the cub of a lion, a fawn of a deer, or the tadpoles of a rare species of frog. Once that child is born, all bets are off.
This is a matter of economics. All choices and all actions have opportunity costs. Human overpopulation is the root cause of these problems, and the environmental costs are immense. War, famine, pollution, plastic in our food, dying oceans, ground water contamination, and even political strife are end products of human population expansion. To say that you are unwilling to consider the consequences of children is no different that another person saying they are unwilling to consider the consequences of their use of plastic containers, driving big trucks, eating steaks, using air conditioning, eating unsustainable fish, and buying GMO products. To many of them, climate change, overconsumption, ecology, overpopulation, and even science itself are all myths.
Not only do we need huge reduction in waste, consumption etc. we need to do it at the same time as reducing the population size. It's not one or the other, like this woman is suggesting.
It's a simple matter of physics, each individual has a set of basic needs that can't be worked around, and on top of that people want a comfortable living, with that comes roads, rail tracks, schools, hospitals, etc etc.
How do you get around that? You can't unless you accept living in poverty.
@@Ashitaka255 Correct. The oceans and seas are dying, and when they go, it will be hard to even come close to feeding the humans we already have. The aquifers are running out of water, and we are fracking through ground water. Rivers are drying up. Biodiversity is becoming GMO monoculture. Humans are destroying the Earth, and more humans will just do it more quickly. That is no myth.
I am 27 and decided at 25 that I will not have children. Our planet is shite, there are too many ppl anyway and I don't want to be a mother. I don't want to be pregnant and give birth. I rather be the cool aunt to my friends kids and help them raising them. I just want to enjoy life to it's fullest, travel, go out on the weekends and sleep in.
Thank you so much for making this video!
At 29 this is a topic that I am becoming very interested in and I really appreciate your views. I wouldn't say I'm maternal or wanting kids but the old fashioned expectation that I will have them really clouds my judgement.
Don’t listen to societal expectations- especially if they don’t really resonate with you! It’s your life, and you don’t have to feel bad about not bringing anyone new into it.
Sidebar, you absolutely flawless in this video! And ofc, another fantastic video ❤️
Thank you for putting your words to this topic. It is certainly the antinatalist ideas that have been the most difficult to describe how this is intertwined with fossil fuels and who is directly effected by the antinatalism which is DEFINITELY not the 1%.
I appreciate you’re unwillingness to take these Uber scientific looking articles at face value & actually question the data.
Do you believe this is a good world to bring in another human into? That the earth and the humans will survive the disasters that might befall us..? I have really bad climate anxiety and is one of the reasons I am not yet ready to have a child 😔
@Merle Ginsberg Official considering adoption isn’t even an option for most people considering the expense. Fostering to adopt might be, but that’s almost never the goal of fostering.
I didn’t “ignore” adoption, I recognise and vocalised that I don’t now enough about the system of adoption to properly guide people through it… perhaps don’t assume that everything you disagree with is done out of malice 😅
@Merle Ginsberg Official adoption is in a lot of countries a business just like any other business. In belgium, you would need 25.000 € or more just to start the procedure and you have to pay it in once. Why? For what? To adopt a child? It's nonsense and a capitalist dick move to get money out of those who can't create a family of their own... I don't ever wish to be a part of that system. Ever.
@Merle Ginsberg Official No I don't think it's harmful, she just was honest with us, when she said she might not be the the person with the most experience and knowledge in this field. I understood it that way, that all people interested in adoption should better inform themselves about the issues that brings. She didn't endorse or reject it in general.
@Merle Ginsberg Official we thoroughly disagree 🥰
Thank you for the video, I actually never though of this this way, it's very interesting !
Thanks for this video. To be honest I get to be upset when hearing about people wanting children who aren't even vegetarian or trying to reduce their carbon footprint, because I feel like it's just entirely selfish. I'm afraid they aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions which their CHILDREN will have to live through. While I think overpopulation is a big issue, I just don't think it's okay to have 5 children if they are plenty to adopt...
I understand some people want a child of their own, but like I said before, when they are not even trying, I just get upset. I have eco-anxiety and am in my 20s and I'm extremely worried about my future, so I wouldn't want to live the life of someone 20+ years younger. I'm just afraid they may be harming their child more than anything.
Then again, if all of us/ the majority of humans were really trying to change the way we live and are, it could be different. Then maybe our future wouldn't look as doomed. The inaction of other humans and their ignorance just drives me crazy, so seeing them pretend we have a planet B and C and D just makes me feel uncomfortable. + as I said overpopulation feels like an issue to me but mostly because there are way too many people who do not care or do not want to understand.
I am afraid of the future and the consequences of climate change, I got depressions because of it and of course not every child is going to be like me, but honestly if I could reverse my birth, I would.
So I'm not trying to shame anyone who plans to have children or has young children, I just worry about the environment they grow up in and hope they will be okay. I just want to make sure everyone thinks about this, before they say "hey I want a mini-me".
Vegan you mean, because even a vegetarian has a huge carbon footprint, just by consuming dairy... For all the rest, huge hugs. I can definitely relate to the eco anxiety.
Being in my twenties too, I wholeheartedly agree. Seeing how my parents disregard me and mock me for being conscious about the planet makes me don't want to have a child (although it would be pretty difficult to begin with).
@@TheUltimateThrill89 not really... I know vegetarians still have huge footprints and mostly don't know but I get to meet people who won't even reduce their meat consumption and tell me they want children and can't understand I don't want any... 😢
Thanks for your comment, it's comforting to know some people can relate 💚
I can relate to this a lot as well, I hope you’re doing okay ❤️
@@sugarcandy304 yes, I have some friends who have kids and they blame the generation before us (so, our parents in general) for raising us in a selfish way... Just yesterday, a friend of mine's husband commented that it was his parents' fault that our climate and our earth is fucked up. I told him that there's always a choice and if you choose to deliberately close your eyes to everything that's bad, you don't have the right to wave fingers at others. But yeah, it's not something they really like hearing 🙂.
While my girl is a vegan eco-conscious climate loving and caring 7 year old. Raised vegan, conscious and she is very sure about the fact that she will never consume anything from an animal and plastic etc, well, we reduce it to a bare minimum here but unfortunately not everything comes without plastic but like last week we went to the beach for a short holiday (just in our own country, Belgium), just the two of us and we had a great time together just collecting plastic from the shore... 🙂 When we are doing nature walks, we are always picking up trash and I believe our eco footprint is much smaller than a lot of people who have no kids at all so I completely agree with what Gittemary said.. but I also can relate to the feelings, when I tell people I would like to have another child but I have doubts, they tell me people are the root cause of climate change so it's not very eco-friendly while they are still consuming animal produce and my child is absolutely not.
I love your content
Hi Gittemary! Thanks for adressing this issue, great! You obviously did your homework and I love how you go into sooo many different aspects of (over)population and environmentalism :)
Small thing though: reading out the first article citation, I felt like you sped up your voice and it made it really hard to follow..... So, for my part, please don't do that anymore 😬 I really love that you show the text and read it out though, that really helps me with concentrating on what you want to bring across to the listener/reader :)
Also: for me personally the point about rascism being the reason for wanting people to have less children is completely new, could you expand on this at some point? Thank so much :)
Great video, once again 💚
Obviously I’m not Gittemary, but historically, there has been more than 1 occasion in which the leading ethnic group in a country has forcibly sterilized or otherwise made it very difficult for a minority ethnic group to reproduce. For a current example, in China, Han is the major ethnic group which runs most of their politics currently. There is a minority ethnic group called the Uighurs. The government stations agents in Uighur homes to literally watch married couples and make sure they don’t have sex and therefore can’t reproduce. This is just one example, but there are a lot of other instances throughout history where this type of thing has been done.
Hi @@coralovesnature thanks for your explanation! I Know of the examples you speak of. I guess in my mind this is not linked to the environmental story, which is why it might not have connected for me in this specific video. Do you know anything about the connection of these issues to environmentalism maybe? :)
@@merel8915 Ahh, I see what you mean. As it relates to this video, which is about overpopulation, people will cite overpopulation as a reason to have fewer babies, but then point to certain population/ racial groups as the cause of this, using birth rates as their backing data. For example, in the Western world, people might point to places like Africa, India, and SE Asia as the primary cause of overpopulation since these places tend to have quite high birth rates compared to the West (i.e. US, Canada, Western Europe), which tend to have a rate roughly around the replacement rate of 2 (which would be 1 kid to replace each parent). However, this isn’t quite a fair comparison for several reasons:
1. The people living in the high birth rate areas are often living in impoverished conditions and thus use far, far less resources compared to the average Westerner. I don’t know the actual stats, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a family of, say, 10, in rural India consumed the same amount of resources as a family of, say, 3, in the US. So such a family having 1 kid has much, much less of an impact than a Western family having 1 kid.
2. In the high birth rate areas, typically the life expectancy is much lower, and the childhood mortality rate is much higher. However, the birth rate only measures live births, it does not measure how long people live. So for example, maybe the birth rate is 10 children per person, but on average, only 8 actually make it past the age of 5, and maybe only 5 make it past the age of 50. With each year of life, a person continues to draw resources, so with people potentially dying at a much younger age compared to most people in the West, that’s also far less resources used over the course of the lifetime.
3. The main reason these places even have a high birth is typically due to impoverished conditions, no access to birth control/ family planning, etc. As these places become more developed and stable and have access to resources like birth control, the birth rate will naturally decline over time. This has happened on its own in virtually every instance that I’m aware of, unless there was some weird extenuating circumstance that made it necessary for people to keep having a lot of kids (for example, if there was a war that killed off a large portion of the population maybe).
Circling back to the original point, the people who are claiming that these impoverished, high birth rate areas are the primary cause of overpopulation/ environmental destruction don’t even stop to think critically for 2 seconds about the items I mentioned above. I was able to think of these counterpoints pretty easily off the top of my head, so the fact they didn’t would lead me to believe that their true motive is that the people affected are poor Brown & Black people, so they simply do not care about them whatsoever. They are just an easy scapegoat rather than us actually having to deal with our own problems. I.e. a Black life in some rural village in Africa is worth less value to them than say, a White middle class life in the US.
This scenario could also be played out within the same country against an Indigenous population, say. Perhaps the government uses overpopulation as the excuse/ scapegoat to implement targeted birth prevention measures against only the Indigenous population, but the real reason is that they don’t give a crap about them and also racism.
@@merel8915 Also, as a separate example of environmentalism being racist, in the late 1800’s in the US there was a big push to create National Parks and other nature reserve areas that were “pristine” and “untouched by man”. While I am a big enjoyer of nature preserve areas myself, the original motivation at the time was mostly to create get aways for White people and especially White men to live out some weird frontiersman fantasy. Originally POC weren’t allowed to use these spaces at all and even now, some POC say they encounter racism from other hikers and such when they are just out there trying to enjoy nature. But what’s even worse I think is that often Indigenous people who had already been living there for a long time were forcibly removed from these areas so they would remain “pristine” and were also not allowed any part in the land management/ caretaking.
Sorry for the long paragraphs! Hopefully the info helps!
I was a young man in the 70s. Overpopulation was my topic of choice. I made it a point to get on any broadcast opportunity in which I felt the topic of OPOP could be raised.
At that time the United States progressive movement was endeavoring to improve relations with the Soviet Union. In furtherance on behalf of that objective, an early, for that time high tech satelite link was established on public radio between US and USSR top scientists was linked up so that we could ask one another questions and thus “come to understand one another better” on behalf of furthering peace between the two nuclear powers.
Of course I called the designated phone line. The screener asked what I wanted to discuss, I responded succinctly “overpopulation”.
I surmise that the screener must have been sympathetic to the subject, because I was able to get in on the broadcast expeditiously. My question was simple, “Is overpopulation a problem on our planet today?”
The narrator appeared aghast, protesting that the purpose of the broadcast was to promote mutual understanding. Apparently assuming that my question was not serving that purpose. Meanwhile voices with thick Russian accents could be heard shouting in the background:
“No! Is no overpopulation problem! Only problem of distribution!”
At that point I realized the obvious. I had ruffled feathers in the dogma of Marxist political/economic philosophy.
Cut to the present. Planet population has since doubled from what it was the day of that broadcast. Technology has advanced apace.
I have since concluded that the OPOP question is multidetermined. OPOP is psychological! It is also anthropological. And also economic.
I believe our species is on the verge of another important economic tipping point, originated in the high technology optimism of Elon Musk and the Tesla company. The company has pioneered previously unheard of methods of manufacturing efficiency. These are too involved to be considered here.
But one deserves mention. Tesla is on the path to building humanoid shaped robots. In fact it is surmised that Tesla is already employing these robots in their own EV automobile manufacturing factories [“the machine that builds the machine”]
We haven’t had a lot of time to consider the implications of such developments. Elon Musk has speculated that there will come a time when robots will outnumber humans. And this, he speculates further, will forever change economics.
After all, robots don’t have anywhere near the quantity of needs that humans do. Robots do not require food, sleep, coffee or bathroom breaks.. etc etc etc
All of us human beings are now challenged to adjust and accomodate this new reality. Like it or not.
I for one plan to have a child. but I believe it is how a person or persons go about providing for said child. most want to buy brand new items therefore creating.a demand for those items. while it is a personal choice for all, I for one love the idea of buying most items second hand saving money and only buy certain items new. there are second hand stores that except items of a vast variety that you can sell and get cash back. so while the child goes from baby to kid, I would say till they are out of sixth grade these stores have clothes that will fit them. I love this as it keeps clothes that are in great condition and other items out of the landfill and in circulation for others that are in need of them.
I have 2 son's and that's exactly how I bought them up
Thank you so much for this video. This topic has been on my mind a lot lately and this has helped to educate myself, organize my thoughts, and explore my own wants and values around family planning. ❤
Just the facts. Thank you. You should teach a class on all this stuff , you are such a great speaker.🙌🏽♥️ lots of great info that I personally didn’t know. Oh btw, I finally saw your TED talk and it was amazing! 🥹
"Arahat Athersata and the Plejaren repeatedly advise us in particular about our out-of-control overpopulation problem and, as of 1975, recommended a strict, humane plan of world-wide birth control (which we arrogantly and self-destructively ignored, and continue to ignore. Countries like Australia even promote the growth of our population for economic reasons even as our water and other resources are increasingly reduced and contaminated!). Arahat Athersata says, that one of the most important tasks of the realm of material life of the Earthly humanity is to pay attention to the fact that the population must be very severely restricted and the number of human beings must not exceed 500 million. (According to the Plejaren we had 7.5 billion at the end of 2004, which is one billion more that was acknowledged at the same time by the USAmerican Census Bureau!)
According to the Creational laws and directives the correct formula for maintaining the human species is not one of simply increasing, as is wrongly proclaimed by Earthly religions, but is based in the adherence to the natural laws so that there is order, meaning that population growth is overseen and supervised. Through the irrationality and false religious teaching of the Earth human the mass of humanity is driven into boundlessness, whereby problems, which are containable and can be restricted for a small humanity, spread and become uncontrollable to an unspeakable extent. With the breaking and abuse of the law of maintenance of the species humanity has been driven to a mass of overpopulation in only a few hundred years, and with that all problems, need and degeneration climb (and because of this millions are forced to die a degenerate death.) (Please refer to the FIGU overpopulation pamphlets for more on this.)
To follow Creational laws and directives also means the correct raising of children, in which, by adulthood, they are entirely equipped for self-reliance and independence from their parents. Other laws concern respect for all life forms, not killing in degeneration, (which includes not committing suicide), learning from mistakes rather than condemning them, taking responsibility for one's own thoughts, words and deeds, not judging falsely but instead making judgments according to logic, respecting one's spiritual and physical needs, the requirement for leadership in each family, community and population, etc., the obligation of a leader to guide, teach and protect the people, the implementation of correctional measures for wrong behavior instead of torture or the death penalty, which entirely go against the Creational laws and directives, and so on."
Thank you for making this. I have a lot of thoughts on this subject, but if I wrote them down it would be such a huge essay that nobody could read it, so I won't.
Just my thoughts on how to help reduce the population that eryone is worried about: open the borders of the world, make safe abortion available to those who need it, make education available to all people, especially women, give every person on the planet a living wage.
As for reducing carbon, this is a very different matter. But banning the hedonistic practices of the 1% is a good start. Yachts, jets, consumerism, excessive travel etc. And if anyone should morally not have kids it's these people, not someone in Bangladesh who's walking everywhere and eating a bowl of rice for dinner with 1 light bulb in their home.
In summary: It's not that we have too many babies, it's that we have too many rich ppl acting like babies and feeling like they're entitled to ruin our planet and get no consequences for it 🤔
I think there is absolutely an argument to be made…. Obviously with nuance, but if you are working towards a sustainable lifestyle and teaching the next generation to do so…. It only provides growth and growing education to the continuing of sustainable practices in future generations
Hot damn, Gittemary 🥵 *mic drop* 👏👏👏
Thank you so much for this!
People with more than 2 children just piss me off i can't help it, especially when the whole family also still consumes meat and animal products.
I appreciate you including resources but it'd be great to disclose your bias too, bc that does shade your world view.
As a family of 5, African American, sustainable, and vegan, I appreciate this video. I love that you mentioned body autonomy, especially due to minorities being sterilized in America.
👏👏👏 I've been told by eco conscious friends that my choice to have children is selfish and against my environmental values. This video has given me the talking points I needed to argue against this claim! I love the point about how culture at home influences the impact of one's children. Parenting consciously when it comes to sustainability is so important ✌
my favorite part about this argument is that don't hve kids its always directed at europeans while there are whole areas that can't feed themselves with birth rates of 5+ kids per woman...
who cares about thinking if you have talking points.
My primary issue with this is even though your right is that it calls for the AVERAGE American, European, Canadian, etc people of postmodern societies with high consumption to eat less meat or no meat, drive electric cars or take a bike or moped everywhere if they can manage to work remote or close to home, live in modest high energy efficiency housing, and generally reduce their consumption by 3x or better. I simply have no faith. This could be incorrect but I read less than 2 in a 100 people in the US are willing to be plant based or even mostly plant based and I have not personally been able to convince a single person in 4 years of being mostly plant based to even reduce their meat consumption or cut out beef as an example. It's the least expensive step with the most dramatic effect but they don't care. I know some people have certain medical situations or other legitimate reasons but the average person has no excuse to not simply eat less steak and stop drinking dairy milk. We are a selfish people who know what is happening and are unwilling to cut back on our destructive consumption even though we know it is literally ending the world. It is a good thing we (US) are opting to have less children at large, because those children would most likely not live sustainably.
Thank you! I was hoping you'd make a video about this. There is no real scientific data at all to support the idea of overpopulation and I wish this myth didn't keep showing up everywhere. There certainly currently are issues with feeding the world population but that's not because there's too many people to sustain, but because of inequality and policies that are designed to make rich people richer and poor people poorer. Insisting that people stop having kids is just another way to put the responsibility on poor people (often PoC and disabled people) instead of the people who are actually responsible for climate change. The idea of overpopulation is nothing more than plain old eugenics.
As long as there is even ONE child in the foster care system, I can't justify bringing another life into the world. Intentionally having children does not make you a bad person, but it does make you selfish. Our species is not endangered.
🙏🏻🥰
Preach
This video was so eloquent! 💕 You really hit the nail on the head with this one
It’s a matter of how you raise your children, not how many you have. If you raise your children sustainably ie.reusable diapers, thrifted non-fast fashion clothes then you shouldn’t worry about their carbon footprint because if you live waste free they can too. Contrary to somebody who raised their children unsustainably ie.un reusable diapers, fast fashion, fast food consumption you are not helping. I hope this helped you have an understanding.
Thank you for this type of content, why is the “Thank you” button not activated? IDK how that works on your end
Wouldn’t hurt to plug up all the underwater volcanoes venting heat into the oceans. Some of the people in our world seem to have government as their god. And either think outside the box or didn’t know there was a box. Thinking outside the box is good as long as you can still have relevant thoughts based on fact instead of feeling
When working out cost of children nowadays they spoil the child with unnecessary items and everything is new only used a few mths. This is bollocks! It’s not that expensive. And can be reused with multiple children although it does pay to get shorts new because the way they are sewn nowadays doesn’t allow to change the elastic bands which isn’t sustainable. If you do use cloth nappies and have child care outside the home they will make you use disposables for WHS & hep A risk. The majority of child’s needs you can make sustainable though.
I think if your really worried about environment then adoption. You are raising someone with eco friendly lifestyle that otherwise might not get raised in that environment.
nice! ...great points as usual :)
thank you for this! So necessary