Stop having kids to save the planet?

Upforthematch

British royals, Harry & Meagan will have a max of 2 kids they say to protect the environment.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/01/prince-harry-protect-environment-2-kids-is-enough/

Will this be a new trend? Many couples have one or two kids for plenty of reasons but is the carbon footprint one of them?

To save the planet is it the case that two will do or would you drive for five?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

The ones who care about the environment will have less children to pass those values on to, while the one's who couldn't care less will have plenty of children to pass that attitude to? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Harry Palmr

It's already a trend, check the fertility rates across the developed world. Nothing to do with the Earth of course, just boring things like emancipation, education and healthcare.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Harry Palmr wrote: »

It's already a trend, check the fertility rates across the developed world.

But is that a deliberate decision by people in order to save the planet?

Upforthematch

Upforthematch wrote: »

British royals, Harry & Meagan will have a max of 2 kids they say to protect the environment.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/01/prince-harry-protect-environment-2-kids-is-enough/

Will this be a new trend? Many couples have one or two kids for plenty of reasons but is the carbon footprint one of them?

To save the planet is it the case that two will do or would you drive for five?

If they’re soooooo worried about the environment maybe fly less?

kneemos

Yeah,two kids she'll be gone.

banie01

It's a tad ridiculous to equate birth strike or choosing not to have more than 2 kids as some form of radical environmental breakthrough or planet saving option.

Particularly it becomes even more ironic when on considers that the people making this choice are in general quite well off and are the product of 200+ years of the industrial revolution.
The "every little bit" helps attitude espoused by Harry and Meghan in particular who travel in entourage and often by Royal Flight or charter is the most facetious virtue signalling IMO.

The environmental impact of family and the desire to ensure we leave a world that our progeny can thrive in, is not at odds with having more than a couple of kids.

Given EU birth rates and the correlation between Birth rate and income, it's a totally manufactured 1st world problem anyway!
We are approaching a time when a cross in Birth rate versus Death Rate means pensioners in future generations will have less workers to fund their pensions.
Reducing the birth rate has much wider impact than just dropping Co2 emissions.

Are Harry and Meghan going to trot off to Niger and recommend that they take action to reduce birth rates?
That the 3rd world somehow magically jump to 1st world economic systems?

LuasSimon

Pity our traveller community wouldn’t think about the environment!

skooterblue2

Zaiden Mango Thumb wrote: »

The ones who care about the environment will have less children to pass those values on to, while the one's who couldn't care less will have plenty of children to pass that attitude to? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Oh just give it a few years and you will see the "white flight". Its already a thing in London

Thelonious Monk

We just have to keep going as is until war and famine break out over lack of resources. You cant even suggest eating less meat or not driving a car or living higher density and everyone goes absolutely mental.

banie01

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We just have to keep going as is until war and famine break out over lack of resources. You cant even suggest eating less meat or not driving a car or living higher density and everyone goes absolutely mental.

I recently gave up my car completely.
It was just too under utilized and was a waste of my capital.
Getting rid,had an added benefit of reducing the family Co2 footprint but in reality it was easy to justify eliminating a 5k year sunk cost versus local reasonably good public transport.
Luckily for me, I do live in an urban area so it's a fairly easy thing to do.

If I lived rural, thanks to the lack of rural transport and Ireland's spread we'd still be a 2 car family.

Yes there is an environmental benefit but for me the decision was purely financial

IAMAMORON

He should lock her up in the Tower.

MilaM

She had her first child 37. One has to wonder if her age also is part of their decision to not have too many.

I suspect having just few has a lot more to do with what they want for their own life, than saving the planet.

DEFTLEFTHAND

That I Harry guy seems like a real jag off.

William seems to be the sounder guy.


I'm looking forward to his reign.

Sorry about that

Dickish thing to say, with all their air miles. Pretty rude to his brother and sister in law too.

mvl

Sorry about that wrote: »

Dickish thing to say, with all their air miles. Pretty rude to his brother and sister in law too.

just what I was thinking.

actually, it would have been much better if he'd had zero kids with the current one ...

goose2005

Zaiden Mango Thumb wrote: »

The ones who care about the environment will have less children to pass those values on to, while the one's who couldn't care less will have plenty of children to pass that attitude to? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I'm offsetting my children's carbon emissions by massacring an African village

DEFTLEFTHAND

Why does ginger kraut have a profile to begin with?

He's the spare.


Who gives a fck about the ugly muppa.


Charles, William and George are the only important men in the family.

skooterblue2

Sorry about that wrote: »

Dickish thing to say, with all their air miles. Pretty rude to his brother and sister in law too.

Half brother, Cavalry officers have to have their sport too, you know.

skooterblue2

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Why does ginger kraut have a profile to begin with?

He's the spare.


Who gives a fck about the ugly muppa.


Charles, William and George are the only important men in the family.

Dont think you are going to see Charles on the throne otherwise the Queen would have abdicated years ago, as she should have. It will either be a short reign or they will usher William in directly. Charles isnt fit for the throne.

Thelonious Monk

Still waters wrote: »

If we all killed a commercial pilot we'd be doing the world a huge favour

Youd prob have to kill about 300 africans to offset one irish child! Napalm is supposed to be good.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

LuasSimon wrote: »

Pity our traveller community wouldn’t think about the environment!

Jeez, drag travellers in to every thread possible. I'm no fan of theirs but it's getting tiresome at this stage.

DEFTLEFTHAND

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Dont think you are going to see Charles on the throne otherwise the Queen would have abdicated years ago, as she should have. It will either be a short reign or they will usher William in directly. Charles isnt fit for the throne.

Believe me he'll take it.

He's mad for it apparently.


Wants to fulfill his destiny and claim his birthright.


Doesn't matter how short the reign is.

Blaizes

Yip isn’t carbon footprint very low in Africa, we consume mountains of stuff in comparison.

skooterblue2

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Believe me he'll take it.

He's mad for it apparently.


Wants to fulfill his destiny and claim his birthright.


Doesn't matter how short the reign is.

I dont doubt it one bit. You hardly think anyone who was a regular correspondent with Saville would be fit for the throne?

Dont you think the Queen in all her wisdom would have abdicated years ago (At least 20 years ago) to allow him succeed? The man isnt capable of choosing a suitable wife, or choosing appropriate friends. Andrew despite his faults would have been a much better choice. I think we will leave Anne and Edward out of the conversation.

DEFTLEFTHAND

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I dont doubt it one bit. You hardly think anyone who was a regular correspondent with Saville would be fit for the throne?

Dont you think the Queen in all her wisdom would have abdicated years ago (At least 20 years ago) to allow him succeed? The man isnt capable of choosing a suitable wife, or choosing appropriate friends. Andrew despite his faults would have been a much better choice. I think we will leave Anne and Edward out of the conversation.

He'll be fine , there won't be any controversy with him.

Loads of people were buddies with Saville but it doesn't make them complicit in his crimes.


The only major mistake Charles ever really made was marrying that mentally ill woman instead of his first love.


However I've heard that he was always a very good father to those boys.

d8491prj5boyvg

I think the rule of thumb is gave one less than you originally planned. I would add one less if the original number was greater than one

hatrickpatrick

Humans have already massively overpopulated the planet as it is. I applaud anyone who chooses not to contribute to that for whatever reason. The global population needs to drop by about half IMO.

ceadaoin.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I dont doubt it one bit. You hardly think anyone who was a regular correspondent with Saville would be fit for the throne?

Dont you think the Queen in all her wisdom would have abdicated years ago (At least 20 years ago) to allow him succeed? The man isnt capable of choosing a suitable wife, or choosing appropriate friends. Andrew despite his faults would have been a much better choice. I think we will leave Anne and Edward out of the conversation.

Apparently , abdication is something the queen will never do. She thinks it's a lifelong job type of thing. So Charles just has to wait around so that he can fulfill his destiny or whatever.

With regards to the op, if you only want one or two kids then fair enough, but why should you be applauded for it? If you want more but sacrifice your happiness for the greater good then you're an idiot. It's not going to make one bit of a difference. Overpopulation isn't exactly a problem amongst the type of people who are educated and informed enough to to make that choice is it? Most of the world will still continue to have lots of kids

kneemos

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I dont doubt it one bit. You hardly think anyone who was a regular correspondent with Saville would be fit for the throne?

Dont you think the Queen in all her wisdom would have abdicated years ago (At least 20 years ago) to allow him succeed? The man isnt capable of choosing a suitable wife, or choosing appropriate friends. Andrew despite his faults would have been a much better choice. I think we will leave Anne and Edward out of the conversation.

Allegations of Andrew being involved with Epstein and underage girls.

skooterblue2

kneemos wrote: »

Allegations of Andrew being involved with Epstein and underage girls.

I have heard that but that contradicts breaking off relations with Saville. Epstein is something way bigger that a garden variety paedo trafficker. He is a tool for manipulating the social influencers (popstars, politicians, media, Hollywood etc etc) by the "real" establishment. This is what is getting in the way of his trial. AOC was told about him and when she went to investigate she was told something much bigger was at work. I am not saying he cannot be disposed of and replaced before tea time but there are people who have a vested interest in preventing him talking.

Harvey Weinstein

If we can forget about the pros and cons of immigration for a moment,
somethings not adding up when they're telling us to have less kids for environmental reasons, while at the same time telling us we need to increase our population.

Say my name

Stop the children's allowance and give it instead as a reward to childless people.

Problem solved!

Go even further and put a tax on each child. Have a basic social welfare but the child tax comes off that if the situation arises.

Ash.J.Williams

Is this a white thing or are we all on board?

skooterblue2

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Is this a white thing or are we all on board?

Its population replacement, most eastern european countries including Russia are not on board, still very family centered. You are on board or you are not, they are going to make it happen with rising autism rates, flouride in the water and what ever white guilt they put on us.

Bobblehats

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

If we can forget about the pros and cons of immigration for a moment,
somethings not adding up when they're telling us to have less kids for environmental reasons, while at the same time telling us we need to increase our population.

ECOLOGY vs ECONOMY.

People in developed world trying to reguglate their population at
respectable numbers but certain scumbags see the third world’s spiralling population and have adverse ideas. Know your enemy.

messinkiapina

Upforthematch wrote: »

British royals, Harry & Meagan will have a max of 2 kids they say to protect the environment.

If they feel that having kids is a detriment to the environment, shouldn't they be just having zero kids? They want 2 and they want a pat on the back for their great sacrifice?

Edit: Not to mention the fact that one of their little brats is likely to have a carbon footprint that dwarfs a commoner's.

biko

Get the snip guys!

Gurgîn Bakircioglu (35) is a Swedish-Kurdish podcast producer and media personality. In May, he caused controversy with an opinion piece in the Swedish newspaper Expressen about his decision to have himself sterilized for climate change-related reasons. “Just imagine if more people did this!”

https://medium.com/@ruwbandealaman/we-need-to-talk-about-this-not-having-babies-for-the-sake-of-the-climate-2340535fb48d

Fun fact 1
Works for Swedish TV, notoriously "progressive" institution
https://pt-media.org/2019/04/29/svt-stop-having-children-adopt-third-worlders-instead/

Fun fact 2
Vegan
https://www.facebook.com/KIT.Sverige/posts/2417103151857781/

lawred2

Upforthematch wrote: »

British royals, Harry & Meagan will have a max of 2 kids they say to protect the environment.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/01/prince-harry-protect-environment-2-kids-is-enough/

Will this be a new trend? Many couples have one or two kids for plenty of reasons but is the carbon footprint one of them?

To save the planet is it the case that two will do or would you drive for five?

Maybe these fu(king pricks could stop using private jets, helicopters, heating 88 bed mansions when there's about three of them resident in it and whatever else first.

Patronising dickheads lacking entirely in any self awareness whatsoever

bazz26

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Humans have already massively overpopulated the planet as it is. I applaud anyone who chooses not to contribute to that for whatever reason. The global population needs to drop by about half IMO.

This dude had the right idea.

ToBeFrank123

Western consumers are the number one reason for resource use on this planet so no problem with less consumers. The Chinese have taken steps to keep their population under control and so should we.

Harvey Weinstein

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Western consumers are the number one reason for resource use on this planet so no problem with less consumers. The Chinese have taken steps to keep their population under control and so should we.

The steps the Chinese took involved forced abortions and involuntary sterilisations, I wouldn't be looking to them for inspiration.

Mr. teddywinkles

messinkiapina wrote: »

If they feel that having kids is a detriment to the environment, shouldn't they be just having zero kids? They want 2 and they want a pat on the back for their great sacrifice?

Edit: Not to mention the fact that one of their little brats is likely to have a carbon footprint that dwarfs a commoner's.

If they want to be hardcore they could take the next step again

uck51js9zml2yt

I wonder if her being 37 plays any part in her decision...what utter tripe they've come out with!

Blaizes

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Western consumers are the number one reason for resource use on this planet so no problem with less consumers. The Chinese have taken steps to keep their population under control and so should we.

We could just try to consume less even starting with all the stuff we get from China.

skooterblue2

Claudia Colossal Sourdough wrote: »

I wonder if her being 37 plays any part in her decision...what utter tripe they've come out with!

Leave them alone, His father was a cavalry officer and her mother is democrat voting social worker...... its not a great genetic base to start with.

arccosh

I heard a great argument about consumerism, but not the fact that there are more people, but the fact there is more people consuming more things...

the example was, a family in Bangladesh with 6 or 8 kids (which is the norm), would consume less than your average western family with 2-3 kids, because of consumerism and attitudes to having "stuff" and throwing it away...

making the argument it's attitude rather than the ammount of people that's causing the issue.

Personally, I'm in agreement with both too many people and attitude. In fairness, there hasn't been a war or deadly epidemic to do enough damage since probably WW2, so the population is bound to skyrocket unless manually controlled.

Also, about the China thing, they are seeing detrimental effects now, where they went too far in some areas and now you have an aging population in some areas with no younger people to look after them. In the likes of poorer regional areas, a big family was pretty much your pension pot.

Mr. teddywinkles

Economic stability equates consume + consume. Environmental preservation equates to stop that **** or find alternative sources. In turn capitalism equates to self destruction?

budgie412

biko wrote: »

Get the snip guys!


https://medium.com/@ruwbandealaman/we-need-to-talk-about-this-not-having-babies-for-the-sake-of-the-climate-2340535fb48d

Fun fact 1
Works for Swedish TV, notoriously "progressive" institution
https://pt-media.org/2019/04/29/svt-stop-having-children-adopt-third-worlders-instead/

Fun fact 2
Vegan
https://www.facebook.com/KIT.Sverige/posts/2417103151857781/

I remember when i wanted bakircioglu to score...

Woodsie1

Zaiden Mango Thumb wrote: »

The ones who care about the environment will have less children to pass those values on to, while the one's who couldn't care less will have plenty of children to pass that attitude to? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Great post.
This man has too much common sense for the internet.