Not having children 'selfish' says Pope

[Nearly Sane]

Eejit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59884801

[ProfessorDavey]

Eejit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59884801

Complete non-sense.

What is selfish is to have children and not look after them properly. What is also selfish is to have large numbers of children which will necessarily lead to population growth and further pressures on global resources and impacts on climate change.

If someone freely choses not to have children they aren't being selfish in any way. It is deeply irresponsible to imply that people should be pressured into thinking they must have children if they don't want to, and also deeply irresponsible to attempt to remove access to contraception etc that people may want to use to have control over whether they have children and how many.

[Nearly Sane]

Complete non-sense.

What is selfish is to have children and not look after them properly. What is also selfish is to have large numbers of children which will necessarily lead to population growth and further pressures on global resources and impacts on climate change.

If someone freely choses not to have children they aren't being selfish in any way. It is deeply irresponsible to imply that people should be pressured into thinking they must have children if they don't want to, and also deeply irresponsible to attempt to remove access to contraception etc that people may want to use to have control over whether they have children and how many.

And bizarre coming from an organisation run by people who don''t have children

[Aruntraveller]

Or just maybe Mr. Pope, people see the state of the world and think I cannot in all decency bring a child into a world that is an unfolding disaster.

[ProfessorDavey]

And bizarre coming from an organisation run by people who don''t have children

Hmm - not sure they don't have children. They aren't supposed to have them, but that is a different matter.

But yes it is deeply hypocritical for someone who has committed not to have children to criticise other people who have made a similar decision.

[jeremyp]

Hmm - not sure they don't have children. They aren't supposed to have them, but that is a different matter.

But yes it is deeply hypocritical for someone who has committed not to have children to criticise other people who have made a similar decision.

But he’s also made a vow not to have pets either. In fact, he’s celipet

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But he’s also made a vow not to have pets either. In fact, he’s celipet

Lol......He's also the head of the ''Don't own a cat-holic church'' and is merely reiterating church ''Don't own a Dog-ma''

[Alan Burns]

Complete non-sense.

What is selfish is to have children and not look after them properly. What is also selfish is to have large numbers of children which will necessarily lead to population growth and further pressures on global resources and impacts on climate change.

If someone freely choses not to have children they aren't being selfish in any way. It is deeply irresponsible to imply that people should be pressured into thinking they must have children if they don't want to, and also deeply irresponsible to attempt to remove access to contraception etc that people may want to use to have control over whether they have children and how many.

The more people who freely choose not to have children, the more likely we are heading for a global catastrophe

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521

[ProfessorDavey]

The more people who freely choose not to have children, the more likely we are heading for a global catastrophe

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521

Non-sense. The reverse is true - the current growth in human population provides the greatest likelihood of global catastrophe, through inadequate basic resources to support that population and climate change.

Why would reduced human population result in global catastrophe - indeed why would the globe be harmed if one species (humans) became extinct. Remember this happens all the time to other species.

But the reality is that people won't stop having children - there is an inherent evolutionary drive to reproduce. The responsible thing for the planet is for people to have less children, to stabilise human global populations and ultimately (sustainably over generations) to gently reduce human populations.

[Aruntraveller]

The more people who freely choose not to have children, the more likely we are heading for a global catastrophe

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521

Are your knuckles very grazed?

[Outrider]

The more people who freely choose not to have children, the more likely we are heading for a global catastrophe

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521

It will cause significant economic change - whether that will be 'catastrophic' or not depends on if and how we adapt to it. Trying to maintain the current population levels is creating an unsustainable pressure on ecosystems and resources that will be catastrophic however we try to adapt to it, unless some unforeseen miracle technology emerges suddenly.

O.