Having kids in Climate Change

Essentially all environmental disaster is a matter of how many humans there are on our planet. The easiest solution is to lower the birth rate. Now do we have the moral and logical strength to do so. Survival or extinction depends of the answer.

Environment
Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate August 18, 201611:09 AM ET
Heard on All Things Considered

Jennifer Ludden
————————snip—————————
"It's gonna be post-apocalyptic movie time," he says.
The room is quiet. No one fidgets. Later, a few students say they had no idea the situation was so bad. One says he appreciated the talk but found it terrifying, and hadn't planned on being so shaken before heading off to start the weekend.
Still. Even given the apocalyptic scenarios: Can you actually expect people to forgo something as deeply personal as having children? To deny the biological imperative that's driven civilization?

Rieder and two colleagues, Colin Hickey and Jake Earl of Georgetown University, have a strategy for trying to do just that. Rieder is publishing a book on the subject later this year, and expects to take plenty of heat. But he's hardly alone in thinking the climate crisis has come to this.
——————snip———————
Rieder's audience seems to want an easier way. A student asks about the carbon savings from not eating meat.

Excellent idea, Rieder says. But no amount of conservation gives you a pass. Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows and light bulbs.

For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441.

http://www.npr.org/2016 ... term=nprnews

http://tinyurl.com/jnbyyaa