4 ms·

"Don't have a lot of kids, it's bad for the environment" is an objectively pro-dysgenic argument. People with a low IQ will not understand the argument and no

"Don't have a lot of kids, it's bad for the environment" is an objectively pro-dysgenic argument. People with a low IQ will not understand the argument and no one with low conscientiousness will care about it. "Don't have kids, for sustainability" is just an argument that the children of low-IQ low-conscientiousness people should inherit the Earth. It's an unsustainable practice. It's also the answer to the commentor below asking, "If you're not having children, who are you saving the planet for?" Smart people need to have more children. Areas of the earth that pollute terribly by dumping garbage into rivers, etc, need to stop. Rich nations need to stop feeding poor nations until they have refugee-creating population explosions, and people need to get over how mean that sounds if they actually want to save the planet.

jbob2000 9y ago
I am reminded of a charity that was posted to HN recently. They were helping mothers in Africa birth children. I asked what they were doing to help the children after they were born, and the reply was that other charities would fill that gap. So ignorant. It's just blind heart-fullness. Yeah, let's help bring more children into poverty! It was refreshing to read your comment and I hope that other technologists apply critical thinking to their charity.
js8 9y ago
> "Don't have kids, for sustainability" is just an argument that the children of low-IQ low-conscientiousness people should inherit the Earth. I'll play devil's advocate and say, maybe they should. Who do you think has a lower ecological footprint - a homeless alcoholic or a successful scientist? There is even a theory that posits that intelligence evolved in order to increase entropy faster. I have nothing against intelligence; it's a gift, as far as I can tell. But the claim that intelligent people (with few exceptions) are somehow going to live more sustainably is just ridiculous.
- ignoramceisblis 9y ago
  I don't think it's ridiculous. Assuming that one component of "intelligent behavior" is the ability to think "further into the future," that is, not purely beholden to feeling good in the here and now, intelligent people are more likely to make more sustainable choices (if only for their own sake).

jbob2000 9y ago

I am reminded of a charity that was posted to HN recently. They were helping mothers in Africa birth children. I asked what they were doing to help the children after they were born, and the reply was that other charities would fill that gap. So ignorant. It's just blind heart-fullness. Yeah, let's help bring more children into poverty! It was refreshing to read your comment and I hope that other technologists apply critical thinking to their charity.

js8 9y ago

> "Don't have kids, for sustainability" is just an argument that the children of low-IQ low-conscientiousness people should inherit the Earth. I'll play devil's advocate and say, maybe they should. Who do you think has a lower ecological footprint - a homeless alcoholic or a successful scientist? There is even a theory that posits that intelligence evolved in order to increase entropy faster. I have nothing against intelligence; it's a gift, as far as I can tell. But the claim that intelligent people (with few exceptions) are somehow going to live more sustainably is just ridiculous.

ignoramceisblis 9y ago
I don't think it's ridiculous. Assuming that one component of "intelligent behavior" is the ability to think "further into the future," that is, not purely beholden to feeling good in the here and now, intelligent people are more likely to make more sustainable choices (if only for their own sake).