Book Review: The Kid Question is About More Than Personal Preference

A United States government report from November 2023 found that environmental harm was “already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States.” Data also reveals that the population’s general loss of faith in political powers and climate change reversal has contributed to steadily declining birth rates on a global scale.

With the climate catastrophe on a downhill trend and disproportionately impacting marginalized communities, Gen Z is grappling 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 hopes to open the door to more research about the intersections between race, inequality and the kid question.

Through her numerous interviews, quantitative survey and teaching experience, Sasser dismantles the neo-Malthusian discourse that reflects a general consensus 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.

According to Earth.Org, even as the richest 1% of the planet emits more than double the amount the poorest half does, “marginalised communities suffer disproportionately, and eco-fascists place the blame almost entirely on poor people (particularly of colour).”

Sasser argues that people can spark policy action and environmental justice by bringing reproductive issues into the public sphere. For her, the deconstruction of existing power structures allows people to rebalance the scales.

Sasser lays out three central claims for her book, the first of which states that race and privilege are critical components of the climate conversation, especially when considering the role of climate in the kid question. Sasser highlights the racial inequalities in mainstream discussions, with one key example being the distinction between “childfree” and “childless” individuals. 

While being childfree is a liberating choice made out of privilege (and often whiteness), being childless is a restrictive truth, brought about by factors such as money, infertility or 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 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, meaning the choice of having children can be dictated by political structures. 

Sasser argues that recognition of the problem and increased government support will ultimately 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 is that climate emotions should be considered a public concern, not a private one, so that political action can be taken. Her stance reveals how reproductive anxiety stems from the government’s influence over a so-called “personal” choice.

Countries around the world have tried numerous methods to incentivize population growth, acknowledging that an aging workforce is detrimental to their economies—from lengthened maternity leave in Austria and improved child care in Germany to direct payments, called “baby bonuses,” to families in Italy and Greece.

But when these softer methods do not work, some countries have decided to limit reproductive freedoms. Iran, for example, has cracked down on contraceptives and abortion access in order to raise birth rates. 

Sasser also critiques the U.S. Supreme Court’s choice to overturn Roe v. Wade, which limited abortion access and resulted in over 30,000 babies born that would have otherwise been adopted.

“The move will lead to more babies being born due to forced birth,” Sasser said. 

These policy decisions inform the public’s choices to have children, revealing the political nature of the kid question.

Sasser highlights the organization #NoFutureNoChildren, which has discovered a way to regain some power and spark political action. The group leverages the next generation, promising to not have children until the government takes sufficient action to slow 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 was quoted saying in Sasser’s book. 

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 said that Gen Z 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 their complaints, especially those coming from marginalized communities.

“People of color need to be included because research provides evidence that can be used for policy-making purposes,” she said.

Sasser argues that the political realm is only one factor of this weighty dilemma. Regardless, she said, the debate 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.