Pronatalism

The other day, our local daily Göteborgsposten had a fascinating piece on pronatalism (which turned out the be a slightly edited version of this one in The Guardian). In a time when people are foregoing having kids in response to climate change, I found this rather refreshing. While I agree with the basic premise, that more kids rather than fewer takes us closer to solving climate change and many other social challenges (such as meeting unrealistic expectations of retirement income), I still believe that having, or not having, kids is a deeply personal decision, and that people should not be shamed either way.

Essentially, the reason why having fewer kids will not help the climate is the same as why refraining from flying will not, namely that marginal reductions, or even emission cuts by a few dozen percentages, cannot fundamentally change the carbon algebra of a world with eight billion people. The only way out is the innovation and deployment of technologies (such as nuclear) that would once and for all sever the link between human activities and carbon emissions while providing the energy necessary to draw down atmospheric carbon to the point that concentrations return to pre-industrial levels (around 280 ppm compared to 420 ppm today).