Should We Die Out For The Sake of Mother Earth?
Opinions on Having Children Amidst The Climate Crisis
By SOPHIE GOBLE
While perusing the streets of one of Portland’s many summer street markets in late August, my eye was drawn to a booth with a large banner that read: “May we live long and die out.” Naturally, I was intrigued; I put on my journalistic hat to chat up a volunteer from the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), who explained a philosophy I had never encountered before: The best way to save the planet is for humanity to voluntarily stop reproducing. No more children, no more human-inflicted destruction. I picked up their brochures and went on my way, but this idea continued to linger in my mind.
Though sarcastic at times, VHMET’s website states that their strategy offers a “humanitarian alternative to human disasters.” The group was founded in the late 1980s, but currently operates in a time when the politics of reproduction and climate change are under scrutiny. In response to the rapidly declining birthrate in the United States, President Trump has called for a “baby boom,” dubbing himself the “fertilization president.” He claimed that he will give expecting mothers a $5,000 stipend and award a “national medal of motherhood” to any woman who has more than six children.
In order to understand what’s really at stake climate-wise, I talked to Professor Steven Neshyba about carbon emissions, climate tipping points and all things VHEMT. Neshyba explained that while industrialized countries are leading the way in excessive carbon output, the United States has an egregiously high rate of CO2 emissions. Americans emit 20.8 tons of CO2e per person per year, compared to the global average of 6 tons. Neshyba said that America’s carbon footprint is “an astonishing lot,” due in large part to our driving, flying and beef consumption.
The consequences of these emissions are often framed in the context of climate thresholds, or tipping points, which are critical markers of irreversible damage to the Earth’s ecosystem. An upper limit of two degrees for increasing global temperatures is scientifically considered the critical cusp for cascading disastrous effects of climate change. Currently, the globe has reached the marker of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Neshyba said that for the Earth to stay under that two-degree threshold, extreme cuts in carbon emissions would have to be made, drastically changing lifestyles for those who live in developed nations. “We have to get down to 4.9 tons per year per person to stay under a two-degree warming,” Neshyba said. He noted that the “increasing population makes it that much harder” to stay under that warming threshold, as every 20.8-ton-emitting individual “drives climate change that much faster.”
Neshyba himself does not fully align with the solutions posed by VHEMT. However, he agreed that overpopulation is a problem. “If the entire world were emitting at the rate that Americans do, in order to stay under two degrees warming, the population would have to be a quarter of what it is.” He sees that objective as unrealistic. “I don’t have any influence on what the global population is. I do have an influence on what I can do.”
Curious how students at this university would respond to this premise, I shared a survey across campus to capture their opinions. The results indicated that, though many believe that climate change is a problem, having children should be a personal decision. Responses further revealed a divide between those who see climate change and overpopulation as a structural issue and those who believe individual choices still hold significant weight.
Charlie Cronk (‘28) was quick to challenge the movement. “The problem isn’t overpopulation, it’s the hoarding of resources by the ultra wealthy,” they said. Maxine McKinnell (‘26) echoed that sentiment, arguing that “what prevents this is not a straining of natural resources but rather corporate greed and waste.”
Claire Thomas (‘27) added, “Overpopulation is a systematic problem, not an individual one. The VHEMT puts the blame of overpopulation on individuals who have children, rather than addressing the structures that lead to people having lots of children in the first place.”
Professor Neshyba noted that structural issues often shape reproductive decisions more than personal ones, presenting the idea that many have children due to fear of not being taken care of once they become elderly. “If we had mechanisms in place that ensured that you would be taken care of after you are no longer able to work and earn a salary, I think that would remove a lot of the motivation to have kids,” he said.
Some students expressed worry that VHEMT’s philosophy risks alienating the very people most capable of affecting positive change. William Schnider (‘29) argued that “VHEMT is not a feasible strategy because heavily environmentally conscious people not having kids just means less environmentally conscious people will take up a higher proportion of the next generation and make it even harder to create change through policy and action in the future.” Katrina Gibbs-Egan (‘26) agreed that overpopulation is a problem, “but so are a myriad other things that humans do which impact the environment. If everyone who cares about environmental issues does not have children, then in 80 years, there will only be those who were raised not to care about climate issues or protecting the earth left.”
Seeking further perspectives on this matter, I chatted with Taylor Rendell (‘26) about her experience as both a student and a mother of an eight-month-old son. Rendell described herself as fairly informed on the risks of climate change, but she said her decision to have children was “easy.” She explained that she had always known she had wanted to have kids, as it was her “calling.” Coming from a large family, she was certainly not discouraged. “My parents would never disown me if I didn’t want to have kids,” she said. “It would be fine, but there’s pressure for sure.”
Having kids is certainly a cultural norm; even with a child under one year old, Rendell said that multiple people have asked her when she’s planning on having her next one. Neshyba thinks that this norm should be altered, at least slightly. “If it becomes a norm to have fewer than two kids, then it will be more likely to happen,” he said. Simply stated, fewer kids means fewer carbon emissions.
Rendell acknowledged that there are anxieties that accompany raising a child in a world fighting the consequences of a changing climate. “I think everyone who has a child is always worried about the state that they would grow up to be in, of course,” she said. She says raising the next generation to be conscious of their climate impact is pivotal; she advocates for education as an important step toward sustainability. “I think it starts with understanding how our resources are generated,” she said. “If I want to teach my son a good sustainability mindset, it’s to teach him where our resources come from, how they’re made, where they go when they’re used.”
The emphasis on increasing knowledge, rather than extinction, was a perspective shared by a large portion of survey respondents. What gives Neshyba hope is seeing “amazing students doing amazing things.” Disagreeing with VHEMT’s solution, Neshyba said, “I look back at all the awesome things humans have done and are capable of doing — it’s just a cop out, I think, to say our only solution is to wipe ourselves off the map.”
Through activism, restraint or raising the next generation with awareness, each perspective circles back to the same question: What kind of world do we want to leave behind? As the VHEMT website reminds readers, “In the end, the real ‘enemies’ are human greed, ignorance and oppression. We can achieve more by promoting generosity, awareness and freedom than we can by vainly kicking at a buttless foe. Great progress can be made toward improving the quality of life on Earth by countering greed with responsibility, ignorance with education and oppression with freedom.”
Throughout this process, I was in contact with a prominent scholar in atmospheric and climate science research who heavily aligns with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. They declined to comment on this piece.