London Review of Books (LRB) 
Given what we know about the future of the planet, is having children a matter of consumer choice, of political conviction, or something an authority will eventually decide for us? Meehan Crist explores the debate about the ethics of childbearing in the age of climate crisis. She addresses the relationship between BP and the British Museum, the implications of culture-washing, and the logic of cultural divestment initiatives.
Read a written version of Crist’s lecture: https://lrb.me/meehancristlecture
Subscribe to the LRB and get up to 75% off the cover price: https://lrb.me/meehancristsubs
Meehan Crist is writer in residence in biological sciences at Columbia University. She is a founding member of NeuWrite and the host of Convergence: a show about the future.
ABOUT THE LRB
The LRB is Europe’s leading magazine of books and ideas. Published twice a month, it provides a space for some of the world’s best writers to explore a wide variety of subjects in exhilarating detail – from culture and politics to science and technology via history and philosophy. In the age of the long read, the LRB remains the pre-eminent exponent of the intellectual essay, admired around the world for its fearlessness, its range and its elegance.
As well as essays and book reviews each issue also contains poems, an exhibition review, ‘short cuts’, letters and a diary, and is available in print, online, and offline via our app. Subscribers enjoy unlimited access to almost 15,000 articles in our digital archive. Our website features a regular blog and a channel of audio and video content, including podcasts, author interviews and highlights from the events programme at the London Review Bookshop.
source
About The Author
Why was the 1970s more prescient about this than the new millennium? Check out SOYLENT GREEN, check out SILENT RUNNING, in '70s popular cinema. Media debate on overpopulation was more prevalent then than now. Now, institutionalised ignorance is endemic in education, Parliament, an economy based on property development, and corporate dictatorship. And then add what Sid Vicious said about 'the man in the street.'
A fascinating, wide-reaching presentation on perhaps the most important question of the century. Thank you.
It does seem extremely unethical to choose to have a biological child. The entire planet is dying due to human overpopulation.
That is the most important point: the companies and governments which support them, are devastating the ecosystem and leaving the population within a system which can only further environmental destruction. But until we succeed in exiting this system, having a biological child goes against both rational sense and moral sense, because it is choosing one's own selfish desires over the reality of the devastation that the new child will cause for the rest of the Earth. Until this system is changed, it is very unethical to choose to reproduce.
I read the 9000 word essay first, loved it, read it on hard copy via printer and spent entire time underlining, highlighting words and phrases. Then watched and listened to actual speech here. Could hear infants in the room chattering to each other in background. Lovely touch. My own view, and I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, but my vision of the future is this: we humans have 30 more generations , 500 years, to prepare future generations in end times, circa 2500 anno destructo, no God no Jesus, game over. So my vision is have children no problem enjoy them enjoy the memories and use your time to write manuals for future gens about how to accept the mass dieoffs when they come and learn to lay down and die with grace and dignity when their time comes. I'm writing such a manual now. Meanwhile, in 2020 enjoy life, think positive, bask in happiness and be w your friends. 30 more generations. And I'm an optimist. I work at The Cli-Fi Report since 2011 and wake up everyday psyched and ready to go online. My home is cli-fi.net
It's an irrelevant question from a practical standpoint because those who choose not to reproduce will be replaced by those who do as a matter of course.
Appreciate her calling out BP, did not expect that
Well, that's 1:22 of my life I'll never get back. Obviously, there’s no question that population growth exerts environmental pressure. It’s one of the many issues about which we should be concerned.
I like her point, that we shouldn’t be asked to forgo children to fix a problem that we didn’t create. Instead we should work to fix that problem. Unfortunately, we are not fixing the problem of overconsumption and we never will. There’s no way to tell the people who have essentially been waiting in the queue behind us “sorry, we used up all the high standard of living and you won’t be able to enjoy it.”
I was out after quoting AOC. The dumbest and most contrived celebrity on Twitterers. And there’s some stiff competition
The difference between right and wrong is how much.
I gave this woman a like, but I disagree with her vacuous statement about "not telling a person to not breed". Why shouldn't we force people not to breed, and cause harm? Just like we force people not to sexually harrass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wYOuFVEaXs
Any knowledge of golbal fertility rates rends this question moot. A better question to ask is; is it OK not to have children.
I guess if it's okay to have a soda, it's okay to have children too. But it's unconscionable to burp out one's children into the world as effervescent bubbles because we can't seem to find enough time from having fun to do the parenting, to provide them the assistance and support, to enable them to fulfil their potential by living up to the standards we preach to them.
Yes, name your kid irn bru or Pepsi, by all means. but do not treat them like throwaways in your race to fulfil your own potential, or whatever you have fantasized for yourself.