3 ms·

Imagine you were somehow able to choose: 1. Either never exist at all, or 2. Exist as a human in the world of 50 years from now To me, the clear choice is #2.

Imagine you were somehow able to choose: 1. Either never exist at all, or 2. Exist as a human in the world of 50 years from now To me, the clear choice is #2. If the moral question is whether human life is worth it to continue in the future, it's obviously worth it. If the moral question is whether our own domination of the planet harms too many wildlife animals, and is therefore immoral, that feels like a more reasonable tradeoff. However it feels odd to me to that the same people advocating stopping having children continue to eat meat. I will advocate for continued human growth regardless. I feel like there are few "long, slow" problems we cannot overcome.

flr03 8y ago
#1 Ego cogito, ergo sum
Zizizizz 8y ago
It's not about whether human life is still worth it, it's about whether we should have fewer children to lighten the cost. There are plenty of people who are vegetarian who feel this way too. It isn't just meat eaters. Having a child is far more impactful than eating meat or driving electric cars. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children?&ampcf=1 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
- deogeo 8y ago
  > it's about whether we should have fewer children to lighten the cost. Most of the West has had sub-replacement-level fertility for several decades, so we already have fewer children.
wildmanx 8y ago
> If the moral question is whether our own domination of the planet harms too many wildlife animals, and is therefore immoral, that feels like a more reasonable tradeoff. We have already killed over 80% of all wild mammals and half of all plants on this planet. And brought hundreds of species to extinction (that we know of .. and an unknown number of those we don't know of). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-ra...

flr03 8y ago

#1 Ego cogito, ergo sum

Zizizizz 8y ago

It's not about whether human life is still worth it, it's about whether we should have fewer children to lighten the cost. There are plenty of people who are vegetarian who feel this way too. It isn't just meat eaters. Having a child is far more impactful than eating meat or driving electric cars. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children?&ampcf=1 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...

deogeo 8y ago
> it's about whether we should have fewer children to lighten the cost. Most of the West has had sub-replacement-level fertility for several decades, so we already have fewer children.

wildmanx 8y ago

> If the moral question is whether our own domination of the planet harms too many wildlife animals, and is therefore immoral, that feels like a more reasonable tradeoff. We have already killed over 80% of all wild mammals and half of all plants on this planet. And brought hundreds of species to extinction (that we know of .. and an unknown number of those we don't know of). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-ra...