Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change

#91

Post by CarelessExpert »

JohnWhigham wrote: post #89
CarelessExpert wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's going to be plenty of others in developing countries that will more than offset your decision not to have kids. First, this is at least racism-adjacent as far as I'm concerned. Second, birth rates are declining throughout the world thanks to increased access to reproductive technology, improvements in income and quality of life, and increased urbanization: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-d…

Nothing I said was racist. Many developing countries have a higher birth rate than the US, no one disputes this. You are the one brought that baggage to the conversation. Why? I don't know. Maybe you need to do some reflection on that. Second, birth rates ... Irrelevant to my point.

> Nothing I said was racist. Many developing countries have a higher birth rate than the US, no one disputes this.

The trope that folks in "developing" countries universally pop out huge numbers of kids sufficient to "more than offset your decision not to have kids" is just that, a trope, based on, generously, a paternalistic western view of the rest of the world that lacks any kind of nuance.

For example, China's birthrate is below replacement rate. Is China a "developing" nation in your mind?

What about India? Birthrates have also been dropping consistently, averaging around 2.5 children per couple, which is just a bit above replacement rate (2.1), and in many communities birth rates are actually below replacement:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-bel...

Sub-Saharan African birthrates are on average much higher but they've been plummeting for years and the trend is likely to continue:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

All of this reflects a global crash in fertility rates:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

> Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 - and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.

Frankly, you might want to reflect on why you hold on to these outdated beliefs about the "developing" world.

Re: Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change

#92

Post by JohnWhigham »

CarelessExpert wrote: post #91
JohnWhigham wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing I said was racist. Many developing countries have a higher birth rate than the US, no one disputes this. You are the one brought that baggage to the conversation. Why? I don't know. Maybe you need to do some reflection on that. Second, birth rates ... Irrelevant to my point.

> Nothing I said was racist. Many developing countries have a higher birth rate than the US, no one disputes this. The trope that folks in "developing" countries universally pop out huge numbers of kids sufficient to "more than offset your decision not to have kids" is just that, a trope, based on, generously, a paternalistic western view of the rest of the world that lacks any kind of nuance. For example, China's bi…

For example, China's birthrate is below replacement rate. Is China a "developing" nation in your mind?

That's why I said many, not all.

paternalistic western view of the rest of the world that lacks any kind of nuance

To reiterate again: there's nothing racist about the fact that many "developing" countries have higher birthrates than the West. Post all the statistics you want about them leveling off: right now in 2021, many are still higher than the West. You are saying it's "paternalistic". You are senselessly bringing in this irrelevant context. If I had to guess, it's because you feel the need to inject politics into conversations so you can argue in bad faith.

The term "developing countries" is a commonly used phrase; the UN uses it. Go complain to them if it's so racist.

Re: Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change

#93

Post by dang »

us_vs_them wrote: post #11
josephcsible wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really suggesting that you want everyone with different political beliefs than yourself to all die?

[flagged]

We've banned this account for using HN for political/ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you favor, because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for, i.e. curious and thoughtful conversation. Political battle is the opposite of that.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future, but please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change

#94

Post by vibrato2 »

NortySpock wrote: post #59
vibrato2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now apply that to long term vaccine safety. Ooh hitchens is fun when his logic goes against theistic religion. Not so enjoyed when it works against the modern religion of scientism.

Compare long term vaccine safety to long-lasting after-effects of covid-19.

How? There’s no data

Re: Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change

#95

Post by vibrato2 »

chownie wrote: post #71
vibrato2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I added a source but hacker news isn’t fond of analysis or thinking in regards to political issues; it was flagged.

It might be getting flagged because the author of the PDF started out openly with the objective of linking deaths to vaccines. That or that it's not an objective document, it reads like a hit piece on vaccines with shaky evidence and random unsourced testimonials. When you read PDF with that in mind, the author's repeated pointing to the massive jump in unverified self-report stats on VAERS (right after the president…

So what? It’s asserting an analysis that the vaccine is killing people.

Doctors have an obligation to report adverse events on VAERS, which they don’t actually seem to be doing very frequently as far as reactions are seen.

Re: Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change

#96

Post by throwacherry »

rank0 wrote: post #63
throwacherry wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A drop of rain is small indeed, but many drops can fill oceans. It is scary indeed, to think we can't help raise children unless we give birth to them ourselves, while ignoring millions of struggling kids today. Why can't we love them as our own? Ultimately, we all come from the same source [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Thanks for the flowery language master Yoda. I am in no way advocating against adopting children. That is a wonderful thing to do for another human being. It has very little to do with climate change and surely you understood that the original comment was discussing having no kids at all. The carbon footprint of your child is there whether or not you adopt it.

Welcome, you are.

Re: Millennials Not Having Babies Because of Climate Change

#97

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

JohnWhigham wrote: post #90
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will have those children regardless of OP's choices.

I know, which is precisely why declaring one is not going to have kids because of "the climate" is nonsensical.

I disagree. You might think "gee, why should I do anything to help when no one else is?", but some of us have different philosophies.
Post reply on HN