> If we are saving the planet "for" someone else, who are they? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question, but there are billions of people in the world already,

> If we are saving the planet "for" someone else, who are they? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question, but there are billions of people in the world already, and another few billions that will be born in the next little bit regardless of our individual actions. Do those not matter much? Does it have to be something "of your own" in order to make it worthwhile? > The extreme logical extension of the philosophy in point 8 that isn't "if I care about the future, and if all life is equal, I should remove myself from the gene pool and build a society that doesn't value the environment". I don't quite see how you arrive from "I remove myself from the gene pool" at "build a society that doesn't value the environment". Is it because you don't have someone to raise and tech who will carry your values forward? If so, then there's a good alternative: Teach someone else, be a mentor, get your message out to other people who are not your dependents. Sure they may not adopt your philosophy entirely, but then again, even one's own kids will make up their own mind and you're only one of many influences. Moreover, by influencing people who already exist out there, you'll make a direct (hopefully positive) impact compared to the baseline of you not being involved in any way in the first place. If you have a kid to "build a society that values the environment", it'll be a net win for the environment if (a) your kid offsets its natural carbon impact by dedicating a significant effort to climate action, (b) same goes for any of their descendants, and (c) they make up for the time that you could have spent on climate action instead of raising your kid, such as mentoring or getting involved in politics. Building a society that values the environment isn't worth much if the outcome is still a net negative. I feel that "continuing my legacy" is a widespread desire among hopeful parents. It's important to recognise that if your legacy is mainly to raise a child without making much of a direct contribution otherwise (because raising a child is a heck ton of work) then it's not unlikely for your kid to do the same. How long do we want to pass down the baton until one of those descendants makes a sizeable contribution by themselves? And how many lives will have been created, producing carbon and love and all, in order to get there? I think there's a great deal of power to multiplying one's own efforts and get others to carry on one's torch, but really, having kids is by far not the only way to do this.