There are a lot of depictions of children in the novel. On page 18, as we learn that Adam and Ellie are trying to conceive he wonders what sort of world we will be leaving for the future generations. Where are you on this? I've heard people say it is selfish to have children at this point, but so many people want families. Is there something unethical about bringing children into this world or is that the wrong way to look at it?
After reading the book as well as watching the author, James Bradley's explanation on his thoughts, I would tend to agree with what Mr. Bradley stated when he described an opinion of the future in which of course terrible natural disasters and events wreak havoc on our changing climate, but that through it all we must always remain hopeful. I agree with this assertion wholeheartedly. Therefore, connecting this to the present question, I would say that personally, while I of course worry about long term implications of our Earth and what that could mean for future generations, I do verily believe that good things will come in the future as well.
I think if we really want to get into whether it is ethical to keep bringing children into the world, then I think we could have started having this conversation decades ago. Every generation it seems children face dangers, issues and barriers that their parents had never had to live through. Was it ethical to bring children into the world during the wars and the Great Depression? Was it ethical during the Spanish Influenza? Was it ethical during the civil unrest and uproar and racial riots of the 1960's? Is it ethical now, with technology advancing in leaps and bounds and children being glued to screens 24 hours a day? No matter what decade we are in there have always been reasons not to bring children into the world. There have always been scary disasters and social upheaval and that will undoubtedly continue until humans are long gone from this earth.
I especially enjoyed the authors description of the passing of time. How inconsequential we as humans really are and how insignificant our tiny blimp in time really is. The vastness of this reality really makes my concerns on bringing a next generation into this world seem silly. The human race will continue to live on whether a small portion of us deem it to be unethical or not.
At the end of the novel, the author depicts a new generation of children around the age of teen to young adult. This last chapter proves that even through mass climate change and entire cities being swallowed by the sea, kids still find ways to have fun and to enjoy life. While old generation hardships are replaced by new ones, life is still worth living and I believe that future generations will adapt and change with the world.
I think if we really want to get into whether it is ethical to keep bringing children into the world, then I think we could have started having this conversation decades ago. Every generation it seems children face dangers, issues and barriers that their parents had never had to live through. Was it ethical to bring children into the world during the wars and the Great Depression? Was it ethical during the Spanish Influenza? Was it ethical during the civil unrest and uproar and racial riots of the 1960's? Is it ethical now, with technology advancing in leaps and bounds and children being glued to screens 24 hours a day? No matter what decade we are in there have always been reasons not to bring children into the world. There have always been scary disasters and social upheaval and that will undoubtedly continue until humans are long gone from this earth.
I especially enjoyed the authors description of the passing of time. How inconsequential we as humans really are and how insignificant our tiny blimp in time really is. The vastness of this reality really makes my concerns on bringing a next generation into this world seem silly. The human race will continue to live on whether a small portion of us deem it to be unethical or not.
At the end of the novel, the author depicts a new generation of children around the age of teen to young adult. This last chapter proves that even through mass climate change and entire cities being swallowed by the sea, kids still find ways to have fun and to enjoy life. While old generation hardships are replaced by new ones, life is still worth living and I believe that future generations will adapt and change with the world.
I would agree with Paytra that all generations have challenges and are "known for something" and still manage to live their lives. Our generation or "GEN Z" is the generation known to grow up without technology.
Continuing because I accidently entered my response ahead of time:
I believe children are the hope of the future. I think that as Paytra mentioned, children are a product of the challenges they face in life. The kids in the 20s learned how to scrape by and they kept that mentality for the rest of their lives. Kids that grew up in the war learned how to protect themselves and their families and they kept that mentality all their lives. Kids that grew up after the war learned how to live life with little money once the economy had to essentially start over, and they learned all about how to use credit properly. They kept those skills all their lives. Kids in our generation have grown up learning how to depend on technology, and it now affects our job prospects and our grades in school because we need to know how to use Word, Powerpoint, how to do videos and presentations, and employers for certain jobs require Microsoft skills or social media skills. We are a product of our environment and the challenges or opportunities we have.
Children are very susceptible to their environment (nature vs nurture ideology). Children who grew up thinking climate change is the end of the world (such as Greta) are having values installed into them that they need to change the environment before we all die. Black children who grow up being given the "cop talk" grow up to see the racial inequalities in our systems that white kids are oblivious and ignorant to until taught about it because often, white parents don't think to teach their kids about systematic racism because they may have been ignorant to it because they haven't experienced it themselves. Kids from the upper classes who grew up with affluent parents grow up to learn the value of money and how to manage it, whereas kids from lower classes may know nothing about managing finances because their parents lived paycheck to paycheck and may not have good credit or know how to obtain it.
So my point is that children are a product of their surroundings. We learn at a young age what is important to us and our generation. We learn about challenges facing us all and attempt to try and fix the mistakes our parents and grandparents made. Is it ethical? One could say it's not a child's job to clean up the messes previous generations have made. However, people can attempt to fix their own mistakes but at some point, they will die and children will grow up and be left to fix the mistakes not fixed from the generation before. I think Ellie and Adam should not have felt bad for bringing a child into this world because if we avoided having kids to "protect them" from the world's horrors, our race would go exinct. There will never be a world that children do not face one crisis or another and they need to be able to adapt and face those challenges head-on, and previous generations need to be able to prepare them, to help them, and to mediate the challenges by attempting to fix them beforehand.
I believe children are the hope of the future. I think that as Paytra mentioned, children are a product of the challenges they face in life. The kids in the 20s learned how to scrape by and they kept that mentality for the rest of their lives. Kids that grew up in the war learned how to protect themselves and their families and they kept that mentality all their lives. Kids that grew up after the war learned how to live life with little money once the economy had to essentially start over, and they learned all about how to use credit properly. They kept those skills all their lives. Kids in our generation have grown up learning how to depend on technology, and it now affects our job prospects and our grades in school because we need to know how to use Word, Powerpoint, how to do videos and presentations, and employers for certain jobs require Microsoft skills or social media skills. We are a product of our environment and the challenges or opportunities we have.
Children are very susceptible to their environment (nature vs nurture ideology). Children who grew up thinking climate change is the end of the world (such as Greta) are having values installed into them that they need to change the environment before we all die. Black children who grow up being given the "cop talk" grow up to see the racial inequalities in our systems that white kids are oblivious and ignorant to until taught about it because often, white parents don't think to teach their kids about systematic racism because they may have been ignorant to it because they haven't experienced it themselves. Kids from the upper classes who grew up with affluent parents grow up to learn the value of money and how to manage it, whereas kids from lower classes may know nothing about managing finances because their parents lived paycheck to paycheck and may not have good credit or know how to obtain it.
So my point is that children are a product of their surroundings. We learn at a young age what is important to us and our generation. We learn about challenges facing us all and attempt to try and fix the mistakes our parents and grandparents made. Is it ethical? One could say it's not a child's job to clean up the messes previous generations have made. However, people can attempt to fix their own mistakes but at some point, they will die and children will grow up and be left to fix the mistakes not fixed from the generation before. I think Ellie and Adam should not have felt bad for bringing a child into this world because if we avoided having kids to "protect them" from the world's horrors, our race would go exinct. There will never be a world that children do not face one crisis or another and they need to be able to adapt and face those challenges head-on, and previous generations need to be able to prepare them, to help them, and to mediate the challenges by attempting to fix them beforehand.
Going off of what Jessie-Lynn has said, I also believe that our children (or future children) are our hope for the future. Children are a product of their environments and learn what they are taught. Children who are raised with knowledge about the climate and what is happening are going to be more likely to grow up and work to change these problems. I don't think that it is selfish to bring a child into this world, BUT I do think it is selfish to bring a child into this world and not prepare them for the world around them- and this includes teaching our future generations about the climate and climate change, and things that we can do to protect them. While it is not a child's job to clean up our mess, each generation is going to be left with something from the last. Like Jessie-Lynn also stated: Adam and Ellie shouldn't have felt bad for bringing a child into the world. No matter how hard we try and protect our children, there are always going to be scary things in the outside world. We can't keep our children sheltered forever, and without the net generations, humankind would go extinct. Children are the hope of our future. Look at how advanced and education our generation is becoming with the resources and technologies that we are handed- now imagine what our children and other future generations will be able to do.
Hi Jodi,
I agree with you! As you said, the human race would go extinct without a future generation, so I think we need to look at how to improve the world together rather than abandon having children. I really like how you mentioned we should raise our children with knowledge, because I think education is the base for improving many things within our society. Children do seem to offer new hope and possibilities to the world, and I don't think that will ever be a bad thing.
I agree with you! As you said, the human race would go extinct without a future generation, so I think we need to look at how to improve the world together rather than abandon having children. I really like how you mentioned we should raise our children with knowledge, because I think education is the base for improving many things within our society. Children do seem to offer new hope and possibilities to the world, and I don't think that will ever be a bad thing.
I agree with Jessies point about how children have grown up trying to fix the mistakes of the last generation for as long as humans have existed. Using homosexuality as an example, in the 1980's it was extremely deviant to be homosexual, however the next generation of children changed that narrative and therefore today, any member of the LGBTQ population is accepted whereas the discrimination against these groups is the deviant and criminal aspect.
I also like how Jessie included that if we were to stop having children due to it not being "ethical" for them to clean up our messes, the human race would go extinct. The human race will continue to adapt and live on either way.
I also like how Jessie included that if we were to stop having children due to it not being "ethical" for them to clean up our messes, the human race would go extinct. The human race will continue to adapt and live on either way.
This is an interesting point. While I don't think our sole purpose is to have children, from an evolutionary perspective future generations are needed should the human race wish to continue. I also agree that each generation typically has to deal with the previous generation's 'dirty laundry.' For instance, generations before us left behind deep-rooted racism that we have spent the past several decades trying to dismantle (and fight for justice will likely continue for years to come as we grow older). What will we leave behind? Most likely a planet that is severely degraded and stripped of natural resources.
I agree with you Emily that a lot of the time the next generation must deal with issues created by the previous generation. In your opinion do you think the generations that are adults and should be setting up the future well for the next generation or look out for their generations interests more? An example that comes to mind is economic gain vs the environment.
Wow, what a great discussion! I see a lot of hope in the future because of our youth today. Unfortunately, we need governments to change if we are going to start protecting the earth before it is too late. The problem, of course, is not enough younger people are in positions of power. Worse still, as we age, we tend to get more and more conservative as times change. Think about it: the boomers today were the hippies of the 60s who protested war and were in favour of free love and drugs. Now they are watching Fox News. :-(
Hmm ... That's an interesting question. I think we must remain hopeful that there is a way to do both. Focusing solely on economic gain is not sustainable. We can 'ignore' the environment for now, but there will come a time (as the novel demonstrates) that this will become impossible.
Thank you to Paytra and Jodi for the positive feedback. Good analysis Patyra on using homosexuality in the 80s as an analogy.
This was said incredibly well. Your statements changed my opinions. I had a thought, "why bring a child into a world unfit and unsafe for them", but the truth is that no matter what time period, people are never fully safe and completely taken care of in every aspect of their life. I believe if the world was seriously ending within 5, 10, maybe 20 years then it would be more unethical to bring a child into it, but given that even years later at the end of the book when Summer and even Noah had grown up I believe it wasn't necessarily unethical although they did face serious life changing difficulties with the environment. There could be millions of reasons why the world is unfit for a child, yet people still choose to have them.
Hi Ellen!
What really struck out to me was when you said, ""why bring a child into a world unfit and unsafe for them", but the truth is that no matter what time period, people are never fully safe and completely taken care of in every aspect of their life". I think this a lot and its really sad to think that we definitely are not the only ones.
What really struck out to me was when you said, ""why bring a child into a world unfit and unsafe for them", but the truth is that no matter what time period, people are never fully safe and completely taken care of in every aspect of their life". I think this a lot and its really sad to think that we definitely are not the only ones.
I agree with most of the points that Jodi, Paytra, and Jessie-Lynn make. There will always be something that upcoming generations will have to face and our job is to make sure that if we bring a child into this world, we must do our best to make sure that he/she/they are equipped with all the necessary tools needed to at least survive in the world.
Answering Dr. Dipaolo's question on whether there is something unethical about bringing children into this world, I would say that there sort of is. I should preface this by saying that this is a personal opinion that might seem harsh to other people but I definitely believe that not everyone who wants to have children should be allowed to have children. Not everyone who wants children is worthy of being a parent. Let us put aside huge concerns such as pandemics and natural calamities and focus on smaller things such as the financial and mental stability of people who are considering bringing children into this world. Why should we as a community in good conscience let an almost broke person or someone with major mental health problems have children or even a child? What sort of quality of life will those children have? Moreover, we now know that overpopulation has a link with climate change. Should we talk about limiting the number of children people have or in other words 'family planning?
This is very much a personal opinion that I am aware does not fit into liberal mainstream ideas and narratives. I know that I am talking about limiting people's choices and that it goes against some human rights that we have discussed in this class and believe must be protected but I believe when considering global consequences, it is important to know if some of these personal choices are ethical, not just globally but also in terms of the future.
Answering Dr. Dipaolo's question on whether there is something unethical about bringing children into this world, I would say that there sort of is. I should preface this by saying that this is a personal opinion that might seem harsh to other people but I definitely believe that not everyone who wants to have children should be allowed to have children. Not everyone who wants children is worthy of being a parent. Let us put aside huge concerns such as pandemics and natural calamities and focus on smaller things such as the financial and mental stability of people who are considering bringing children into this world. Why should we as a community in good conscience let an almost broke person or someone with major mental health problems have children or even a child? What sort of quality of life will those children have? Moreover, we now know that overpopulation has a link with climate change. Should we talk about limiting the number of children people have or in other words 'family planning?
This is very much a personal opinion that I am aware does not fit into liberal mainstream ideas and narratives. I know that I am talking about limiting people's choices and that it goes against some human rights that we have discussed in this class and believe must be protected but I believe when considering global consequences, it is important to know if some of these personal choices are ethical, not just globally but also in terms of the future.
Hey Minahil!
Interesting avenue of thought! I would tend to agree with you that individuals wanting children should be lawfully required to attend a planned parenthood class. It should be just as big of an ordeal to bring a child into the world as it is to try and adopt one. However, like you pointed out, I do believe going down that path would violate some extreme human rights laws and would put us on the path of the Chinese government, in which they decided in 2013 that parents are only permitted to have two children as long as at least one parent was an only child. But I do agree with a happy medium being intense education on parenthood and financial stability!
Interesting avenue of thought! I would tend to agree with you that individuals wanting children should be lawfully required to attend a planned parenthood class. It should be just as big of an ordeal to bring a child into the world as it is to try and adopt one. However, like you pointed out, I do believe going down that path would violate some extreme human rights laws and would put us on the path of the Chinese government, in which they decided in 2013 that parents are only permitted to have two children as long as at least one parent was an only child. But I do agree with a happy medium being intense education on parenthood and financial stability!
I agree, Paytra! It's a complex issue that requires a lot of thought and planning and definitely some legal decisions.
I think it's great that you bring up China, there is a lot to learn from their actions. Even before the implementation of the two-child policy, China had the one-child policy and now they are suffering the consequences, and mainly due to that they decided on making a two-child policy. John Oliver did a piece on this that I think is quite interesting and relatable to this discussion post. I'll link it below but I find it depressingly humorous that almost every human rights issue we've decided to focus on, an example of it can be found in China.
I think it's great that you bring up China, there is a lot to learn from their actions. Even before the implementation of the two-child policy, China had the one-child policy and now they are suffering the consequences, and mainly due to that they decided on making a two-child policy. John Oliver did a piece on this that I think is quite interesting and relatable to this discussion post. I'll link it below but I find it depressingly humorous that almost every human rights issue we've decided to focus on, an example of it can be found in China.
This is well said, and I agree 100%. Just because someone wants children- does not mean they should have them. I know many personal friends, even myself, who were raised into a life that was unfit for children. Financial/mental stability definitely matters, if a parent is unfit to feed and care for a child it definitely goes against the child's human rights.
My thoughts exactly, Ellen!
I love watching John Oliver because he puts world issues into perspective while being funny and I can never get enough of his accent! Thanks for sharing Minahil!
Hi Minahil! Although I disagree to some extent, as I think that the size of one's family should still remain the choice of the parents (despite how well off they are or are not), you make several valid points. Should we be reconsidering the family structure in light of the climate crisis? Perhaps. As you have noted, there are ethical concerns no matter what way you look at it. If we continue the way we are currently living, natural resources will only become more scarce and many children grow up in disadvantaged households anyways. On the other hand, if we limit the amount of children people have we are significantly limiting their personal freedom and autonomy.
I agree that it is very much a complex issue that requires a lot of thinking. I am not hopeful that we will ever be able to come to an agreement on this as a community.
There are so many things to think about here. If someone wishes to be a parent and financially are unable to care for the child, should we consider the possibility of imposing that responsibility onto the state? Should the state make sure that every parent has the resources it needs to care for the basic needs of the child? How would that even look like?
As you said, there are ethical concerns on either side of this discussion.
There are so many things to think about here. If someone wishes to be a parent and financially are unable to care for the child, should we consider the possibility of imposing that responsibility onto the state? Should the state make sure that every parent has the resources it needs to care for the basic needs of the child? How would that even look like?
As you said, there are ethical concerns on either side of this discussion.
Exactly. It is kind of crazy that when parents have a biological child (i.e. give birth to them) there is little to no screening whereas prospective adopting parents/families have to go through hoops to even be considered. Maybe our current framework for 'family' isn't fully recognizing the best interests of the child.
I didn't even consider some of the points you brought up, the one about over population is especially pungent as people in parts of the world struggle to find food, get a proper education and provide for themselves because of the limited resources available due to overpopulation. Do we have a right to introduce a person to those challenges and other that they will face long after we are gone ?
I am not sure where I stand on ethics as I can see both positive and negative aspects. This is something I have thought about a lot, I have a two-year-old nephew and another one on the way. I constantly wonder what their future will be like. Especially when it seems that things keep getting worse- mass wildfires, worldwide pandemic, droughts, pollution, etc. I worry that they will have to move constantly to avoid natural disasters, I worry that they will not experience the full extent of their childhood if the pandemic cant be lifted, I worry that they will experience the same or greater fear about the pandemic and climate change that we as young adults/adults cannot even comprehend. For these reasons, I think it is unethical, especially if these issues worsen. I don't think it's fair to bring an innocent child into a world that continues to have more and more problems that directly affect the quality of life. However, as Paytra stated all generations have problems or dangers, but children were still born into war, poverty, riots, and other extreme issues. Having future generations to develop new ideas, values, motivations, etc aids progression. For example, the climate has been declining for years and it is caused by people, older generations tended to ignore the climate crisis or disregard its existence. Greta Thunberg is a 17-year-old activist, although she did not cause the climate crisis, she is able to promote change especially to those in the same age range because our values/motives for the future are relatively similar.
Hey Emily!
The point you made about children not getting to experience a proper childhood really resonates with me. I found It very sad in the book when it was clear that Summer was not experiencing a normal childhood and that her mother was worries about the lasting effects that would have on her. Clearly it did some damage as summer grows up, estranged from her parents, and has a child that she does not tell her parents about and then abandoned the minute she is able to. I think that speaks volumes as to how the current climate for childhood is comparing to the one we all were lucky to experience.
The point you made about children not getting to experience a proper childhood really resonates with me. I found It very sad in the book when it was clear that Summer was not experiencing a normal childhood and that her mother was worries about the lasting effects that would have on her. Clearly it did some damage as summer grows up, estranged from her parents, and has a child that she does not tell her parents about and then abandoned the minute she is able to. I think that speaks volumes as to how the current climate for childhood is comparing to the one we all were lucky to experience.
I agree, it's sad to see that go through generations as well. It did not only affect Summers childhood but Noah's (and Li) as well. He watched people die, had to run, had his mom leave, and could not enjoy the same things in childhood as what we would have considered normal. Even just listening to the sound of birds required technology.
Me too, and it is distressing that many children in various parts of the world are already experiencing this as a result of our dying planet. I think children are often disproportionately affected by the effects of climate disaster. When children are forced to flee their home due to natural disaster, they not only lose their home/shelter, they also miss out on their schooling and their chance to just be a kid. I feel extremely lucky to have grown up able to play outside and enjoy fresh air and clean water to swim in.
This is something I have thought about for a long-time. As I've gotten older I've found it scarier and scarier to think about the life my children would have and then grandchildren. With the climate crisis getting worse, it worries me to bring children into it as I can't imagine the climate crisis getting better before it gets much worse. Although I do not believe it is unethical, as Paytra mentioned every generation has faced dangers when bringing children into the world, ours is not the first and there is still hope for our future. The future generations are still needed to continue evoking change for the better in the world we live in now.
This reminds me of a similar discussion we had in Understanding Environmental Problems last year after reading exerts from "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich. The Population Bomb was a highly influential book that included dire warnings about mass starvation and environmental collapse if our population continued to increase. This, among other factors, sparked a movement for population control. Since its publication, however, many of the book's allegations have been proven wrong.
To this end, my opinion is that it is not selfish to bring more children into this world despite the current climate crisis. Population control measures such as forced sterilization or financial penalties for having too many children seems inhumane to me. That being said, I do think it is important to note that there are so many children already on this Earth that need a home (whether that is through seeking refugee status in a new country or being fostered/adopted by a loving family). There are issues that need to be sorted out there as well, but I think the size of one's family should remain the choice of the parents.
From reading Clade, I think we are still allowed to maintain cautious optimism about the future and have more children (if that is something we wish to do). From his interview that we watched this session, author James Bradley notes that "the future is not set" and that we must remain hopeful. I think that humans are innovative and, if we are willing to fight for it, we are capable of saving our planet from further environmental devastation.
To this end, my opinion is that it is not selfish to bring more children into this world despite the current climate crisis. Population control measures such as forced sterilization or financial penalties for having too many children seems inhumane to me. That being said, I do think it is important to note that there are so many children already on this Earth that need a home (whether that is through seeking refugee status in a new country or being fostered/adopted by a loving family). There are issues that need to be sorted out there as well, but I think the size of one's family should remain the choice of the parents.
From reading Clade, I think we are still allowed to maintain cautious optimism about the future and have more children (if that is something we wish to do). From his interview that we watched this session, author James Bradley notes that "the future is not set" and that we must remain hopeful. I think that humans are innovative and, if we are willing to fight for it, we are capable of saving our planet from further environmental devastation.
I agree that it would be inhumane to force sterilization or financial penalties. Perhaps there could be more encouragement for parents to consider the number of kids they have & more encouragement to adopt (Make the adoption process easier- I'm not saying allow anyone to adopt but some couples wait years to be approved/get a placement) but I think forcing this on people would be inhumane. I was able to think of one humane measure of population control which would be allowing women more accessibility to getting their tubes tied. I in no way think that this should be forced, however, I do think women should have the ability to make this decision for themselves. I think it is ridiculous that many doctors won't tie women's tubes if they are young, don't have children, or don't have "permission" from their husbands. I know women in my family who were in their late 30s-40 with older children and no intentions of having more children yet it was still a challenge to have the procedure, and they were still highly discouraged by their doctors because "what if their husbands decided they wanted more children."
Great point Emily. Making birth control/contraceptives and the adoption process more accessible would be an ethical way to look at the current situation. I agree - requiring one's husband to "sign off" or "give permission" in order for a women to have her tubes tied is kind of ridiculous, and opposes female reproductive rights.
I agree with you that the size of a family should be left to the parents. If we were to enforce rules or regulations to limit the number of children per family, then we enter into situations like the one child policy in China, which proved to us that there will always be problems. There have always been issues in the world, and there will always be issues, but I think the key is in continuing to try and alleviate these issues as best we can.
Exactly. The one child policy in China seems like an overextension of government power to me. How can we limit such a personal decision of one's family? I'm not sure if that is ethical, even such a policy were in place to protect the environment.
Hi Emily,
I really like your positive spin on a really tough question, especially where you said "I think we are still allowed to maintain cautious optimism about the future". I most often hear how it would be selfish to do so, and while I agree to an extent I think we are allowed to be "cautiously optimistic" as you said. Thank you for sharing such awesome insight :)
I really like your positive spin on a really tough question, especially where you said "I think we are still allowed to maintain cautious optimism about the future". I most often hear how it would be selfish to do so, and while I agree to an extent I think we are allowed to be "cautiously optimistic" as you said. Thank you for sharing such awesome insight :)
I personally believe there is an ethical side to bringing children into this world that needs to be considered. Maybe not so in the radical sense that if you bring them into this world your are forcing them to live in a doomed world but more in the sense that as long as you try your best to make sure the child you are bringing in the world lives as best as they can. This being said, everyone should do their own parts in making sure we try and reduce the effects of climate change, like securing food and shelter for everyone, and if you know you will not be able to secure that for your child maybe you should reconsider especially when you know the risk of climate emergencies are higher than they used to be.
We can see that in the novel with Summer when she leaves Noah with Adam. Deep down she knows he's going to make sure that Noah is safe and healthy and has everything he needs for a healthy childhood. I personally believe that adoption or even foster care is a good way to have a family if someone is concerned with the different climate emergencies, we already know that a lot of children are stuck in foster care and often dream of a forever home. If you know you can provide that to a child maybe it's something to consider. I thought at first that would be an option of Ellie and Adam especially after trying so hard for so long but I was surprised it wasn't.
I'm not saying we shouldn't start a family because I as many of my peers believe that children are the future, but just like many of them I believe we should prepare them for the world around them, but we also have to be able to protect them when they are most vulnerable and make sure that they still live a healthy and happy childhood since that is our responsibility. We also have to think about the other issues surrounding children. We need adequate sexual health education, programs in place to help people access birth control, as well as safe clinics which can provide women with abortion if the need arise. We have to think about how we apprehend birth and children because with the lack of social services which actually take into consideration the lives of women and their bodies we could avoid having so many children in adoption centres as well as in the foster care system. This is a societal ethical issue, not an individual one. One individual deciding to start their family while being properly planned for it can be great, but for someone who isn't ready and are forced to go through a pregnancy they know they won't be able to support because of lack of resources around birth control as well as abortion clinics (either illegal or expensive) is unjust for the woman as well as the child.
We can see that in the novel with Summer when she leaves Noah with Adam. Deep down she knows he's going to make sure that Noah is safe and healthy and has everything he needs for a healthy childhood. I personally believe that adoption or even foster care is a good way to have a family if someone is concerned with the different climate emergencies, we already know that a lot of children are stuck in foster care and often dream of a forever home. If you know you can provide that to a child maybe it's something to consider. I thought at first that would be an option of Ellie and Adam especially after trying so hard for so long but I was surprised it wasn't.
I'm not saying we shouldn't start a family because I as many of my peers believe that children are the future, but just like many of them I believe we should prepare them for the world around them, but we also have to be able to protect them when they are most vulnerable and make sure that they still live a healthy and happy childhood since that is our responsibility. We also have to think about the other issues surrounding children. We need adequate sexual health education, programs in place to help people access birth control, as well as safe clinics which can provide women with abortion if the need arise. We have to think about how we apprehend birth and children because with the lack of social services which actually take into consideration the lives of women and their bodies we could avoid having so many children in adoption centres as well as in the foster care system. This is a societal ethical issue, not an individual one. One individual deciding to start their family while being properly planned for it can be great, but for someone who isn't ready and are forced to go through a pregnancy they know they won't be able to support because of lack of resources around birth control as well as abortion clinics (either illegal or expensive) is unjust for the woman as well as the child.
I liked the idea you posed about adopting to limit your contribution to climate change. Part of the larger-scale issue is that the world simply has too many people and one of the most significant issues with the adoption/foster care system is that there are too many children waiting to be adopted. If more people considered adoption, perhaps both of these numbers would decrease. I think this is a really good connection thank you:)
I was extremely surprised it wasn't even mentioned in the book for Adam and Ellie's situation, because the book explained how hard it was to conceive and how expensive it had been. Adoption for them would have been a great solution because the pain actually caused them to separate. There might have been other factors as to why they separated and we cannot be for sure about it, but there might have been some differences in the outcome if they had chosen a different path.
Great points, but ultimately bringing children into the relationship isn't going to fix anything. Their struggles would still be prevalent even with adoption, unless they had wanted that for themselves (to adopt). If bringing a child into the relationship can't fix things (it can't, not on its own) then adopting wouldn't take away any issues for them either.
This is a great point and although it wouldn't have fixed their issues adoption could solve a lot of human rights issues we see, and take stress off the system. Ultimately I think being able to have your own children is a human right (ie the one child limit in china) and is a part of everyones reproductive right, adoption would be a wonderful way to have a family for people who decide its unethical for themselves to have children.
In watching the interview with James Bradley, I noted that the book is not dystopian but still hopeful. The world has not yet entered into that phase of no-return, and I agree with Bradley that change is still possible. It may sound naive, but I think the younger generation has a fresh perspective on what needs to be done and what we as the human collective need to do to achieve that change. Relating this concept to the idea of children, we do need children to continue the human race. Although this evidently does not include everybody as having children is a personal choice, I think doing so is not irresponsible solely based on the state of the earth. Climate change was not circulating through the minds of our parents generation, and we don’t know what issues or problems might develop in the next 30 years. We cannot anticipate the future, so I believe as long as we continue to hope and strive for better, welcoming children into the world is not a bad thing.
I am undecided on this point to be honest. I am worried about the world I would be bringing children into; climate change, pollution, mankind's general disregard for preserving the world for future generations, etc. I feel that i would be leaving any child i conceive to deal with these problems among any other that may come up during his/her lifetime. It seems very unfair to bring a child into this world and be unable to shield them from these atrocities. On the other hand i am also hopeful for the future and want to believe that future generations will make better decisions than my generations and all the others that have past before
The reality is that reproductive rights are human rights and that means that for someone to have a child is up to them. taking away this fundamental right would be in violation of everything human rights advocates stand for. You may not like the idea of bringing a child into this world, you might think its unfair with how cruel this world can be, but it is no ones choice but your own. Ultimately it is only unethical if you impose your beliefs on others, even in an apocalypse.