6 ms·

Oh sweet pea, don't forbid yourselves from having children because of climate change. :( Your family can still live a conscious life, and you get to rise the mo

Oh sweet pea, don't forbid yourselves from having children because of climate change. :( Your family can still live a conscious life, and you get to rise the most awesome climate change fighters the world has ever seen!

brightball 7y ago
Agreed. I don’t understand the mindset of not having kids because of climate change. You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet while others who won’t continue on. When I hear things like that, it sounds to me like giving up and preparing for the end. And at the same time I take that with what seems like numerous different acts of messaging directed towards guilting people into not having families...and I can’t help but wonder if that message is benign or malicious.
- Daishiman 7y ago
  If statically speaking, preparing for the end is the sanest course of action because it does appear to be the most likely scenario within the next 50 years, why wouldn't it be the right mindset?
  - brightball 7y ago
    Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years. But more specifically, is everybody on earth getting the same message? If not...why?
    - Daishiman 7y ago
      > Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? For those of us who don't have a particularly strong desire to have children this is very much a dealbreaker. > It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years. The only way that would be the case is if you ignore the evidence that makes the current situation untentable in a way that no other prior instance of history has been.
      - brightball 7y ago
        The current situation? We’ve previously had the threat of nuclear war situation and 2 world wars in the last 100 years. With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere, we could be having a totally different conversation.
        ForHackernews 7y ago
        > With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere ... and reverse the laws of thermodynamics, too! Recapturing atmospheric CO2 means working to transform from a high-entropy state to a lower-entropy state. That's not going to happen for free. So you need to have: 1) A fast efficient carbon-capture mechanism. 2) A way to generate lots and lots of power that doesn't itself produce CO2. You're not describing a "single scientific advance" as much as you're describing dozens or hundreds of major feats of engineering. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I would not bet the planet on it.
        brightball 7y ago
        Nuclear already accomplishes the power requirements though. As far as I can tell it’s more about having a working option and then paying for it. But even if we aren’t betting the planet on it...this is akin to a poker game where all of your money is already in the middle. Folding the hand just means you lose. There is literally nothing to gain by giving up. Nothing.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    How is preparing for the end logical "statistically speaking"? The world has ended 0 times so far. The world has a 100% record of not ending.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      This is the anthropic fallacy[0]: if and when society does collapse, you won't be here arguing about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
      - imgabe 7y ago
        So it seems pretty pointless for me to prepare for the end of the world, since if it happens there won't be anything I need to do. Makes more sense to prepare for the continuation of the world, since then I'd have to actually do something.
  - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
    Because taking the most extreme course of preparation (genetic suicide) does not have as much effect on the end result as staying in the game, accepting one's own imperfection but continuing to try to be a net positive.
    - futureastronaut 7y ago
      I don't have a strong opinion either way, but do we really have to call the decision to not have kids "genetic suicide?" I'm not the sole custodian of my genetics, it's not like I have some freak mutation that's going to save the species. We are largely genetically similar.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  The mindset is not bringing more humans into the world to suffer on a planet with too little arable land and potable water left. > You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet It's too late for that. This is a crisis for people who are adults today to address, or it will be too late. The IPCC says we have to cut global emissions by 50% by 2030. We can't wait for your little Jr to grow up and maybe turn out to be an environmentalist.
Daishiman 7y ago
Or not? Children are free to follow suit with whatever life pursuits they desire. The vast majority of people won't be consciously fighhting the climate and consume vast amounts of resources. I feel that the excuses for having children when we know the collapse of most ecosystems is essentially inevitable at this point just hide the lack of ethics on the matter.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  It's not unethical to have children and no one needs an excuse to have them. Technically speaking, it's literally the only reason there is any life on earth. Don't have them if you don't want them, but this isn't an area where you can dictate someone else's choices.
  - jddj 7y ago
    There must exist a point where it becomes unethical to have children.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Ethics are a human framework that doesn't exist if there are no humans. To end child birth isn't ethical, it's the end of ethics.
      - jddj 7y ago
        And if you were to trace back in time one generation from there, you'd discover the point where it became unethical to have children.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Parent comment isn't a dictator. He can't 'dictate' whether you procreate or not, but he's arguing that it may be unethical to cause more suffering by doing so.
    - 7y ago
makerofspoons 7y ago
There is little time to raise 'the most awesome climate change fighters the world has ever seen'. By some indications and projections you'll just be birthing these children to live a short, brutal life.
- techrich 7y ago
  In 10 years it all over.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I'm very curious how someone who holds your beliefs imagines the world will be in 10 years. "Short, brutal life" sounds like you're picturing billions of people roasting to death in the sun or maybe some sort of ecological inspired genocide? When you visualize the human race on planet earth in 10 years, what are you imagining? This isn't a snarky question btw, I'm genuinely curious.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Well, if you are in some places in India for example we expect heatwaves that are simply not survivable for anyone within a few decades. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-change-to-cause-humid-heatwaves-that-will-kill-even-healthy-people https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-...
  - makerofspoons 7y ago
    10 years is too soon- more like 20 in my worldview (still a very brief life for someone born today). Here are a few things I see in 20 years: - Human population in decline - Industrial output per capita in decline - Food production per capita in decline - Resources in decline - Pollution will ultimately peak We have not meaningfully deviated from the collapse predicted in 'The Limits of Growth': https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits...
  - ForHackernews 7y ago

brightball 7y ago

Agreed. I don’t understand the mindset of not having kids because of climate change. You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet while others who won’t continue on. When I hear things like that, it sounds to me like giving up and preparing for the end. And at the same time I take that with what seems like numerous different acts of messaging directed towards guilting people into not having families...and I can’t help but wonder if that message is benign or malicious.

Daishiman 7y ago
If statically speaking, preparing for the end is the sanest course of action because it does appear to be the most likely scenario within the next 50 years, why wouldn't it be the right mindset?
- brightball 7y ago
  Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years. But more specifically, is everybody on earth getting the same message? If not...why?
  - Daishiman 7y ago
    > Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost? For those of us who don't have a particularly strong desire to have children this is very much a dealbreaker. > It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years. The only way that would be the case is if you ignore the evidence that makes the current situation untentable in a way that no other prior instance of history has been.
    - brightball 7y ago
      The current situation? We’ve previously had the threat of nuclear war situation and 2 world wars in the last 100 years. With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere, we could be having a totally different conversation.
      - ForHackernews 7y ago
        > With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere ... and reverse the laws of thermodynamics, too! Recapturing atmospheric CO2 means working to transform from a high-entropy state to a lower-entropy state. That's not going to happen for free. So you need to have: 1) A fast efficient carbon-capture mechanism. 2) A way to generate lots and lots of power that doesn't itself produce CO2. You're not describing a "single scientific advance" as much as you're describing dozens or hundreds of major feats of engineering. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I would not bet the planet on it.
        brightball 7y ago
        Nuclear already accomplishes the power requirements though. As far as I can tell it’s more about having a working option and then paying for it. But even if we aren’t betting the planet on it...this is akin to a poker game where all of your money is already in the middle. Folding the hand just means you lose. There is literally nothing to gain by giving up. Nothing.
- imgabe 7y ago
  How is preparing for the end logical "statistically speaking"? The world has ended 0 times so far. The world has a 100% record of not ending.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    This is the anthropic fallacy[0]: if and when society does collapse, you won't be here arguing about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
    - imgabe 7y ago
      So it seems pretty pointless for me to prepare for the end of the world, since if it happens there won't be anything I need to do. Makes more sense to prepare for the continuation of the world, since then I'd have to actually do something.
- SuoDuanDao 7y ago
  Because taking the most extreme course of preparation (genetic suicide) does not have as much effect on the end result as staying in the game, accepting one's own imperfection but continuing to try to be a net positive.
  - futureastronaut 7y ago
    I don't have a strong opinion either way, but do we really have to call the decision to not have kids "genetic suicide?" I'm not the sole custodian of my genetics, it's not like I have some freak mutation that's going to save the species. We are largely genetically similar.
ForHackernews 7y ago
The mindset is not bringing more humans into the world to suffer on a planet with too little arable land and potable water left. > You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet It's too late for that. This is a crisis for people who are adults today to address, or it will be too late. The IPCC says we have to cut global emissions by 50% by 2030. We can't wait for your little Jr to grow up and maybe turn out to be an environmentalist.

Daishiman 7y ago

Or not? Children are free to follow suit with whatever life pursuits they desire. The vast majority of people won't be consciously fighhting the climate and consume vast amounts of resources. I feel that the excuses for having children when we know the collapse of most ecosystems is essentially inevitable at this point just hide the lack of ethics on the matter.

malvosenior 7y ago
It's not unethical to have children and no one needs an excuse to have them. Technically speaking, it's literally the only reason there is any life on earth. Don't have them if you don't want them, but this isn't an area where you can dictate someone else's choices.
- jddj 7y ago
  There must exist a point where it becomes unethical to have children.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Ethics are a human framework that doesn't exist if there are no humans. To end child birth isn't ethical, it's the end of ethics.
    - jddj 7y ago
      And if you were to trace back in time one generation from there, you'd discover the point where it became unethical to have children.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Parent comment isn't a dictator. He can't 'dictate' whether you procreate or not, but he's arguing that it may be unethical to cause more suffering by doing so.
  - 7y ago

makerofspoons 7y ago

There is little time to raise 'the most awesome climate change fighters the world has ever seen'. By some indications and projections you'll just be birthing these children to live a short, brutal life.

techrich 7y ago
In 10 years it all over.
malvosenior 7y ago
I'm very curious how someone who holds your beliefs imagines the world will be in 10 years. "Short, brutal life" sounds like you're picturing billions of people roasting to death in the sun or maybe some sort of ecological inspired genocide? When you visualize the human race on planet earth in 10 years, what are you imagining? This isn't a snarky question btw, I'm genuinely curious.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Well, if you are in some places in India for example we expect heatwaves that are simply not survivable for anyone within a few decades. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-change-to-cause-humid-heatwaves-that-will-kill-even-healthy-people https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-...
- makerofspoons 7y ago
  10 years is too soon- more like 20 in my worldview (still a very brief life for someone born today). Here are a few things I see in 20 years: - Human population in decline - Industrial output per capita in decline - Food production per capita in decline - Resources in decline - Pollution will ultimately peak We have not meaningfully deviated from the collapse predicted in 'The Limits of Growth': https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits...
- ForHackernews 7y ago