For millennia, climate change is stronger than biological

Frustrated by the government's moderate response, some activists have taken matters into their own hands. They drive electric vehicles, use public transport more often and swear to eat meat. All of these changes will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that heat the Earth. But no personal action reduces a person's carbon footprint, such as having fewer children.

According to an often quoted study, citizens of developed countries multiply by six their carbon footprint, adding about 60 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The calculation calculates the probability that each offspring can also reproduce, potentially increasing the carbon footprint of an individual for decades after his death. In other words, giving up having a child has more than 25 times the impact of abandoning a gas car that reduces carbon emissions.

Such details remain a distant abstraction for most people. But for Lundahl, his friends in Seattle and a growing number of Americans, the reality of climate disruption seems too real. Last summer, the Pacific Northwest, still pristine, smothered the thickness of the smoke last summer, resulting in the cancellation of hundreds of flights at the international airport Seattle-Tacoma, while forest fires, exacerbated by climate change, swept the region.

Four years ago, two women who shared their fears about raising children in such a world formed the Conceivable Future group to create a safe space to talk about it. One of the co-founders, Josephine Ferorelli, writer, editor and yoga teacher, said the subject had been treated very early as "fringey or hysterical or strange".

They have no way of knowing how many people now share their concerns, but one thing is clear: "When we talk to women, we are relieved, even excited by the fact that we have brought this issue to the light of day" Ferorelli, 36, said. "People are like," Oh my God. I felt like I was the only one to have felt that way. "

"Do I really want to bring a child to the world?"

Natalie Lubsen, 28, Lundahl's friend, would like to have children. But Lubsen – who works at a magazine's marketing office that seeks "a more just, sustainable and compassionate world" – said she sometimes saw a dark horizon.

"We feel that anything can happen, the spiral of impacts," said Lubsen, "with much more global turmoil, starvation, mass migration, water insecurity, and more. Food insecurity, possible political collapse and natural disasters ".

In the summer of 2015, Lubsen, Lundahl and friends gathered with about two dozen other people in the meeting room of a Seattle Cooperative Market. Lundahl helped organize the event as a volunteer for Conceivable Future. It was the first time friends had joined other Seattle residents to publicly discuss their fears of procreation in an era of climate change.

Another member of Seattle's group of friends, Caitlin Blair-Stahn, recalled that this rally had been an opportunity "to be present with our grief over climate change … and then to be able to talk about it." to act concretely and, hopefully, happy even at a given moment. make a change. "

The challenge is extremely personal for Blair-Stahn, a 29-year-old nanny who has been dreaming since she was a mother. But her long-time boyfriend, now her husband, had different ideas.

"I had this internal struggle:" Do I really want to bring a child into this world? ", Said Nathaniel Blair-Stahn, also 29 years old. At the 2015 Conceivable Future meeting, he made a video, expressing his anger at the idea that "we will use everything in the world until there is nothing left".

For Caitlin, the idea of ​​having a partner who did not want to have children was a "compromise." The two men broke up for over two years, just after Nathaniel had received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Washington. But after some thoughts on his soul, Nathaniel – despite his worries about overcrowding – decided that he did not want to miss the experience of fatherhood.

Shortly in 2019, Caitlin learned that she was pregnant. She and Nathaniel are waiting for a small Blair-Stahn in August.

"It may be a really stupid idea to have children. On the other hand, the streets are not burning at the moment, "he said recently, mocking his ambivalence. "And I think children can really be a positive thing for society. We will raise our child with our values ​​and be very active in trying to make a difference in the world. "

It means adding a baby to the couple's community, sharing a living space with friends, recycling and composting and buying local produce, while the couple share a unique hybrid to move to Seattle. Nathaniel, who is looking for a job as a computer programmer, believes that collective political action will bring far greater solutions to the climate crisis.

"It's a systemic problem and it needs systemic solutions," he said, citing the end of fossil fuel consumption as the most critical example. "I now feel that having a child is an individual choice and changing that alone will not make a big difference."

Consequences "morally serious"

Academia and the media have debated the issue of human reproduction in difficult times.

Travis Rieder, an ethicist at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, urges young people to consider all the usual variables and then add another level of analysis.

"Procreate both contributes to climate change and creates a new victim of climate change," said Rieder, a research professor and father of one. "I do not know if people should have children or a big family, but I am convinced that climate change should be part of their deliberations because the consequences of incorporating a new person into a changing world are really moral. serious."