On a 14-hour flight, sitting next to a crying baby, one may wonder: “Do we need kids?” While children ensure the survival of the human race, the financial, environmental, and societal concerns of bringing new life into the world spark intense debate. Is it responsible, or even essential, to continue having children in a world facing unprecedented challenges?

Regarding the environmental impact, there are two main arguments for why people should not have kids. One major environmental argument against having children is that it significantly increases carbon emissions. By having just one fewer child, individuals can drastically reduce their carbon footprint. However, some argue that future generations may grow up under stricter environmental laws, which would lessen their overall impact, assuming governments meet their emissions targets. It is hard to be optimistic, considering that many scientists argue nations are failing to meet emission targets at the necessary speed. Already, these targets like net zero by 2050 do not seem to be enough to prevent the Earth from reaching its tipping point. Achieving meaningful change requires a radical shift in how economies operate and how we live—but it seems unlikely that this will happen fast enough.

The second environmental argument is that parents should not bring a child into a world so severely affected by climate change that it would condemn them to a life of inevitable suffering. It seems dramatic, but the argument has merit. Depending on where a person lives (and how rich they are), they may be more or less likely to be massively impacted by climate change. Couples are afraid of the disasters that the future may hold for their kids; yet are not we already in a disaster? All around the world, people are experiencing death due to climate change. According to a 2022 report, nearly 62,000 people died due to extreme heat in Europe. Similarly, Bangladesh saw 5.7 million people affected by severe flooding that year While people in poverty are having it worse, climate change is and will continue to affect everyone, even at different levels.

But as we see it today, it is the younger generation who is advocating for change when it comes to the environment. And maybe the next generation can be the ones to continue to advocate for change and hopefully succeed. Without reproduction, humans would go extinct; we need kids to continue our species. On the other hand, while the climate crisis will most definitely have terrible consequences for the world if not addressed properly, the likelihood of humanity going extinct because of it is low.

When kids grow up, they are the ones inventing new solutions to our most pressing problems, including climate change. While I do not have much faith in the governments, I do have faith that people will fight for the protection of the Earth, support solutions through science, and work with governments to implement solutions.

Still, preserving the environment continues to be a factor in why couples sacrifice any desire they have for children due to the issue of overpopulation. With a world population exceeding 8 billion, ecological damage from deforestation, water scarcity, and habitat loss is accelerating. Rainforests, once covering 14% of the Earth, now only cover 6%. This depletionstrains natural resources, especially in regions like the Middle East and North Africa.

Yet, a common response to overpopulation is the issue of birth dearth and population implosion. The global replacement rate is 2.2 per woman, but it seems that many countries are far from this goal. This is causing multiple economic issues like a shrink in the workforce and reduced pensions because of an aging population that does not have enough young taxpayers to support them. For example, Japan is facing a record low fertility rate of 1.2, well below the global replacement rate. Governments have been implementing pronatalist strategies, but they simply do not work. Japan’s most tangible solution to its large elderly population would be to stop rejecting the idea of immigration. Only 3% of Japan’s population is made of foreigners. While fears of an erasure of culture are valid, it is time for people to realize that without immigration, societies cannot function. It is absolutely essential for the economy. Therefore, the issue is not really that the world needs more kids; countries need more people for their economies, which can be solved with immigration much more quickly than with pronatalist policies.

But how do kids affect lower-income communities? High fertility in low-income communities often strains resources, leading to reduced access to food, education, and healthcare. Policies like China’s One-Child policy and mass sterilizations in India aimed to address this, but they also resulted in social consequences, such as increased violence against women after 6.2 million male sterilizations in India. Gender consequences can be seen in China as well as there are 30 million fewer women than men.

Too much government intervention on either side creates more harm than good. Ultimately, the decision to have children is deeply personal, and influenced by environmental, economic, and social factors. While children are vital for the continuation of society and the economy, forcing parenthood on those unprepared or unwilling could lead to more harm than good. In a world of uncertainties, should we be focusing on finding solutions for sustainability – or on simply growing our numbers?