A fifth of female climate scientists who responded to Guardian survey said they had opted to have no or fewer children

Ihad the hormonal urges,” said Prof Camille Parmesan, a leading climate scientist based in France. “Oh my gosh, it was very strong. But it was: ‘Do I really want to bring a child into this world that we’re creating?’ Even 30 years ago, it was very clear the world was going to hell in a handbasket. I’m 62 now and I’m actually really glad I did not have children.”

Parmesan is not alone. An exclusive Guardian survey has found that almost a fifth of the female climate experts who responded have chosen to have no children, or fewer children, due to the environmental crises afflicting the world.

An Indian scientist who chose to be anonymous decided to adopt rather than have children of her own. “There are too many children in India who do not get a fair chance and we can offer that to someone who is already born,” she said. “We are not so special that our genes need to be transmitted: values matter more.

  • Mnemnosyne
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    If it is solved it will definitely be through technology of some sort. While I agree it will not be one brilliant scientist, technology will be the solution.

    That technology may come in the form of a way to produce more energy without fucking up the climate, and the engineering and logistical capacity to roll out the change at a breakneck pace.

    It may come in the form of simply developing a way to control the global climate directly.

    It might come in the form of some technology to control the behavior of humans so that we can actually respond appropriately.

    Or it might come in the form of the singularity, when self improving machines grow so far beyond us so fast that they can just do what is needed whether we like it or not.

    But one way or another I guarantee that if it’s solved, it’ll largely be a technological solution, because getting humanity to just…stop using energy at our current rate…is just not going to happen.

    • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      The issue with technosolutionism is that it can’t fit the necessary parameters to address climate change. We already know we can’t go further with infinite growth. It’s not possible to tackle climate change. We need degrowth. Without it, it’s impossible.

      The problem is that our economy is based on growth, and this growth will generate the new tech. If you’re for state developed and owned technologies, you have to change the political dogma et system first.

      Addressing the climate crisis is a change in the politic and in the economic system. Without both of them, it will continue.