Book Review: The Kid Question is About More Than Personal Preference
A U.S. government report from Nov. 2023 found that environmental harm was “already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States.”
With the climate catastrophe on a downhill trend and disproportionately impacting marginalized communities, Gen Z is left with a difficult question: is it ethical to have kids?
Jade Sasser, a journalist and associate professor at the University of California, Riverside, explores this internal debate, which she defines as “the kid question.”
Throughout her second book titled, “Climate Anxiety and the Kid Question: Deciding Whether to Have Children in an Uncertain Future,” Sasser cites various instances of young people hesitating to have children due to the climate crisis, arguing that the kid question is a socially-enforced problem with unequal distribution of responsibility on communities of color.
“People of color were considerably more likely than white people to take climate change into their future reproductive plans and to plan to have fewer children as a result,” Sasser wrote.
By pulling race into the conversation, Sasser opens the door for more research around the intersections between race, inequality and the internal debate of the kid question.
Through her numerous interviews, quantitative survey and teaching experience, Sasser dismantles the neo-Malthusian discourse that has caused people to believe that population growth invariably causes environmental degradation.
According to Sasser, these population-focused arguments blame “reproduction and population growth for climate change – a way of thinking that contributes to blaming communities of color and the poor for environmental problems.”
This scapegoating is part of a larger right-wing ideology known as ecofascism, which blames marginalized groups for environmental problems, advocating for solutions that unfairly target groups that are already oppressed.
By bringing reproductive issues into the public sphere, Sasser argues that people can spark policy action and environmental justice. For her, the deconstruction of existing power structures allows people to rebalance the scales.
Sasser lays out three central claims for her book: First, race is a critical component of the climate conversation. Second, climate emotions should be a public concern, not a private one, so political action can be taken. Lastly, older generations are ignoring young people, who are saying that the fact they need to ask the kid question in the first place is evidence of policy shortcomings, which require the older generations’ immediate attention.
To incorporate race into the kid question, Sasser highlights the inequalities embedded within mainstream discussions. One key example of this is the distinction between “childfree” and “childless” individuals.
While being childfree is a liberating choice made out of privilege, being childless is a restrictive truth, brought about by factors such as money, infertility and familial circumstances. In other words, childless people “are not childfree by choice,” according to Sasser.
Restriction applies to numerous marginalized communities; climate change and socio-political inequity have become factors that prevent them from confidently having the children they want. This is, again, a restrictive circumstance, not an empowering one.
Low-income and non-white communities, especially Black, Brown, and Indigenous peoples, face disproportionate climate impacts as a result of structural racism, so the choice of having children can be dictated by political structures. Sasser argues that recognition of the problem coupled with increased government support will ultimately serve to alleviate climate anxiety on a personal level by placing the burden of climate change on structures, rather than someone’s individual choice to have children.
Sasser’s second claim, that the kid question is a public concern, reveals how reproductive anxiety stems from the government’s influence over a so-called “personal” choice.
While some countries mail families with children a check to encourage population growth, helping its people and economy, Sasser finds the U.S. Supreme Court’s choice to overturn Roe v. Wade is contradictory because it serves to limit reproductive freedoms.
The decisions inform the public’s choices to have children, revealing the political nature of the kid question. Having the financial support to have children makes people more likely to follow through and have children. More people will also have children as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, but not by choice.
“The move will lead to more babies being born due to forced birth,” Sasser said.
Powerful entities like the government can end emissions and drilling on a large scale, but choose not to. Sasser finds that this leads young prospective parents to feel helpless because they feel responsible for halting the climate crisis.
#NoFutureNoChildren has found a way to regain some of the power. The organization leverages the next generation, promising to not have children until there is political action to slow the impacts of climate change. One of the organizers commented on the survey responses they had collected.
“People in their thirties were like, ‘Yeah, it’s really rough, I really love kids, but I’m considering not having any.’ And then the thirteen-year-olds were like, ‘Yeah, I wish I wasn’t born. I’m anxious all the time, and I don’t want kids,” he said.
Sasser’s third and final central claim aims to tie these ideas together: young people are calling for policy change and no one is listening. She says Gen Zers and Millennials should not need to weigh the future of the climate when making decisions about having children.
Her interviewees express frustration with how they are looked down upon for both having children and abstaining from having children, feeling they cannot do anything right. Rather than blaming prospective parents for their individual choices, Sasser argues people should be listening to the complaints voiced by these generations regarding climate policy.
By ending on how families can be a sanctuary amid the crises facing us today, Sasser aims to validate those dealing with anxiety surrounding the kid question. She has two goals: to make people who are struggling feel heard and to stimulate more research on climate change emotions in marginalized communities.
“People of color need to be included because research provides evidence that can be used for policy-making purposes,” she said.
While the government is not the only factor contributing to the inequalities wrapped up inside the kid question, Sasser writes that, regardless, the problem was never about reproduction.
“While babies are symbolic of the fight, the fight is not actually about the babies. It is about the systemic and institutional forces that are driving a future in which babies and families don’t seem like a viable possibility for people who want them,” she said.
Rather than blaming people for choosing to have kids during a climate crisis or scolding them for not having children because their parents want grandchildren, Sasser wants to end the blame game occurring in reproductive circles. Instead, she finds solace when she realizes that she's not alone and hopes others will feel the same.
By forming bonds with others, not only does she say people can improve the mental health crisis caused by climate change, but they can also work toward a better future by mobilizing.