Stop having kids to save the planet?

Upforthematch · 03-08-2019 04:38PM #1

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 · 03-08-2019 04:43PM

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 · 03-08-2019 04:48PM

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 · 03-08-2019 04:50PM

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?

03-08-2019 04:50PM

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 · 03-08-2019 04:51PM

Yeah,two kids she'll be gone.

banie01 · 03-08-2019 04:53PM

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 · 03-08-2019 04:54PM

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

skooterblue2 · 03-08-2019 04:54PM

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 · 03-08-2019 04:55PM

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 · 03-08-2019 04:59PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:01PM

He should lock her up in the Tower.

MilaM · 03-08-2019 05:03PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:14PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:16PM

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

mvl · 03-08-2019 05:24PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:31PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:33PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:33PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:36PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:43PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:45PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:48PM

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 · 03-08-2019 05:51PM

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

03-08-2019 05:52PM

skooterblue2 · 03-08-2019 05:54PM

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 · 03-08-2019 06:10PM

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 · 03-08-2019 06:13PM

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 · 03-08-2019 06:13PM

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. · 03-08-2019 06:28PM

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 · 03-08-2019 06:41PM

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.

Stop having kids to save the planet?

Comments