5 ms·

Children should not be on this list. The first reason is baby/bathwater: The reason we care about climate change is for the sake of children; simply denying th

Children should not be on this list. The first reason is baby/bathwater: The reason we care about climate change is for the sake of children; simply denying them existence isn't much of a solution. E.g. You could equally solve homelessness by (humanely and painlessly) killing all the homeless people in their sleep. But more importantly: If the present is any indication, in the future, children of "coastal-American/Northwestern-European tech workers" are going to be the only people with the motivation and ability to address climate change. Subtract them from the equation and think about who is left: Religious nativists (Muslim, Christian, and otherwise), supremacist ideologues and ethnonationalists, and a great mass of impoverished third-worlders too disconnected and ignorant to even use birth control correctly. There is no chance a climate change solution gets sustained without the high-IQ pro-globalist Western elite. Basically if you're reading this you should have as many kids as possible to benefit the planet in the future.

MrEldritch 8y ago
You might want to rephrase your post; implying that everyone who isn't a "coastal-American/NW-European tech worker" must therefore be either: a) Religious nativists, b) Supremacist ideolouges, c) Ethnonationalists, or d)"a great mass of impoverished third-worlders too [...] ignorant to even use birth control correctly" ...is simultaneously pretty offensive, and bafflingly hyperbolic. Alternatively, given that I live in Texas, and am therefore neither a coastal-American nor NW-European tech worker, would you mind telling me which of those four alternative categories I'm in?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  It needs to be rephrased, but the point is otherwise good. I'd put it like this: only those who are both well enough to have time to care about climate and smart enough to understand the magnitude of the problem are the ones who'll be considering having no children as a mitigation strategy. If they all follow through, that leaves you with only people who can't care (due to economic situation) or don't care (religion/ideology/stupidity) reproducing and passing their values on to the next generation. It's essentially the Idiocracy plot, with climate change twist.
  - regularfry 8y ago
    Quoting from myself upthread: > Given the timespan involved, everyone who can intellectually contribute to fixing the problem in the article must already have been born.
- jlawson 8y ago
  This is a pedantic overly literal reading of what I wrote. Please use your brain while reading to interpret what's being said in the form that makes sense. Otherwise we'll just spend all our time dragging you away from hostile, idiotic misinterpretations (which you'd never make it you agreed with the underlying point) to talk about the issue. E.g I obviously don't mean that literally no person who doesn't live in the coastal USA can help. I'm indicating an archetype of a person.
regularfry 8y ago
> The reason we care about climate change is for the sake of children Is it? And if so, whose? If we should plan for disaster by 2040, I'm going to see it. I stand a good chance of living 30-40 years past it (unless modern medicine collapses, which isn't unlikely). Given the timespan involved, everyone who can intellectually contribute to fixing the problem in the article must already have been born. Voluntarily going childless absolutely deserves to be on that list. The children I choose to benefit may not be my own, and that's fine. I'd hope that the false equivalence with killing homeless people would be obvious, but just in case: there is a real difference between stopping a life that is already in progress, and deciding not to start one in the first place. > If the present is any indication That's a hell of an assumption. The safer stance is to assume that the West will shrink in significance, and for Asia and Africa to grow. Your comment about the "great mass of impoverished third-worlders" is not consistent with reality: the number of people in this state is less than a billion; you're leaving out the vast numbers of educated and capable folk in China, India, and Africa, who not only outnumber Western tech folk, but also many of whom have a far higher incentive to solve the problem because they directly risk their home locations becoming uninhabitable.
ForHackernews 8y ago
> simply denying them existence isn't much of a solution. E.g. You could equally solve homelessness by (humanely and painlessly) killing all the homeless people in their sleep. This is a ridiculous analogy. Hypothetical children who don't exist have no rights (because, again, they don't exist) -- homeless people do have human rights. The rest of your post is just eugenics.
- jlawson 8y ago
  "That's just eugenics" isn't even true in this case (my point is mostly about culture). And even if it was true, is not an argument, it's a label.

MrEldritch 8y ago

You might want to rephrase your post; implying that everyone who isn't a "coastal-American/NW-European tech worker" must therefore be either: a) Religious nativists, b) Supremacist ideolouges, c) Ethnonationalists, or d)"a great mass of impoverished third-worlders too [...] ignorant to even use birth control correctly" ...is simultaneously pretty offensive, and bafflingly hyperbolic. Alternatively, given that I live in Texas, and am therefore neither a coastal-American nor NW-European tech worker, would you mind telling me which of those four alternative categories I'm in?

TeMPOraL 8y ago
It needs to be rephrased, but the point is otherwise good. I'd put it like this: only those who are both well enough to have time to care about climate and smart enough to understand the magnitude of the problem are the ones who'll be considering having no children as a mitigation strategy. If they all follow through, that leaves you with only people who can't care (due to economic situation) or don't care (religion/ideology/stupidity) reproducing and passing their values on to the next generation. It's essentially the Idiocracy plot, with climate change twist.
- regularfry 8y ago
  Quoting from myself upthread: > Given the timespan involved, everyone who can intellectually contribute to fixing the problem in the article must already have been born.
jlawson 8y ago
This is a pedantic overly literal reading of what I wrote. Please use your brain while reading to interpret what's being said in the form that makes sense. Otherwise we'll just spend all our time dragging you away from hostile, idiotic misinterpretations (which you'd never make it you agreed with the underlying point) to talk about the issue. E.g I obviously don't mean that literally no person who doesn't live in the coastal USA can help. I'm indicating an archetype of a person.

regularfry 8y ago

> The reason we care about climate change is for the sake of children Is it? And if so, whose? If we should plan for disaster by 2040, I'm going to see it. I stand a good chance of living 30-40 years past it (unless modern medicine collapses, which isn't unlikely). Given the timespan involved, everyone who can intellectually contribute to fixing the problem in the article must already have been born. Voluntarily going childless absolutely deserves to be on that list. The children I choose to benefit may not be my own, and that's fine. I'd hope that the false equivalence with killing homeless people would be obvious, but just in case: there is a real difference between stopping a life that is already in progress, and deciding not to start one in the first place. > If the present is any indication That's a hell of an assumption. The safer stance is to assume that the West will shrink in significance, and for Asia and Africa to grow. Your comment about the "great mass of impoverished third-worlders" is not consistent with reality: the number of people in this state is less than a billion; you're leaving out the vast numbers of educated and capable folk in China, India, and Africa, who not only outnumber Western tech folk, but also many of whom have a far higher incentive to solve the problem because they directly risk their home locations becoming uninhabitable.

ForHackernews 8y ago

> simply denying them existence isn't much of a solution. E.g. You could equally solve homelessness by (humanely and painlessly) killing all the homeless people in their sleep. This is a ridiculous analogy. Hypothetical children who don't exist have no rights (because, again, they don't exist) -- homeless people do have human rights. The rest of your post is just eugenics.

jlawson 8y ago
"That's just eugenics" isn't even true in this case (my point is mostly about culture). And even if it was true, is not an argument, it's a label.