4 ms·

huh? No children because you want to save environment, sorry to be cynical.

by justplay 7y ago

patientplatypus 7y ago
I also have made the same decision for the same reasons. There are too many of us.
- justplay 7y ago
  please enlighten me!
  - bigato 7y ago
    less humans means less human impact on the planet
  - neilalexander 7y ago
    I guess the reasoning is because humans are the worst thing that have ever happened to the environment, therefore by producing less humans, we produce less environmental damage.
  - diggan 7y ago
    Now I'm neither of the parents (comment parents) here, but I'm myself torn on the issue. On one hand, having children will contribute to the overall higher consumption, meaning the environment eventually will suffer from the increase in population. On the other hand, having children and raising them as good as you can, can offset the impact (or even have a better impact on climate change as a whole, even though the increase of consumption) other people have on the environment, if you "train" your child(s) to care for the environment.
bristleworm 7y ago
that's not cynical. this is cynical: http://www.vhemt.org/ http://www.vhemt.org/
throwaway8879 7y ago
As I stated, I made a decision to not have kids for other reasons, not because I want to save the environment. But the decision to not have kids will have more of a positive net effect towards saving the environment than any other lifestyle changes I can make right now.
js8 7y ago
I have also made the same decision. What do you want to know?
bloudermilk 7y ago
If you're mathematically oriented, you could look at it this way: Global population is one of four terms in the [Kaya identity][0]. A lower population equals less emissions, especially in countries with high GDP and energy intensity. It seems logical enough to me that choosing not to have children is an indirect but sane way to limit one's emissions. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity

huh? No children because you want to save environment, sorry to be cynical.

patientplatypus 7y ago

I also have made the same decision for the same reasons. There are too many of us.

justplay 7y ago
please enlighten me!
- bigato 7y ago
  less humans means less human impact on the planet
- neilalexander 7y ago
  I guess the reasoning is because humans are the worst thing that have ever happened to the environment, therefore by producing less humans, we produce less environmental damage.
- diggan 7y ago
  Now I'm neither of the parents (comment parents) here, but I'm myself torn on the issue. On one hand, having children will contribute to the overall higher consumption, meaning the environment eventually will suffer from the increase in population. On the other hand, having children and raising them as good as you can, can offset the impact (or even have a better impact on climate change as a whole, even though the increase of consumption) other people have on the environment, if you "train" your child(s) to care for the environment.

bristleworm 7y ago

that's not cynical. this is cynical: http://www.vhemt.org/ http://www.vhemt.org/

throwaway8879 7y ago

As I stated, I made a decision to not have kids for other reasons, not because I want to save the environment. But the decision to not have kids will have more of a positive net effect towards saving the environment than any other lifestyle changes I can make right now.

js8 7y ago

I have also made the same decision. What do you want to know?

bloudermilk 7y ago

If you're mathematically oriented, you could look at it this way: Global population is one of four terms in the [Kaya identity][0]. A lower population equals less emissions, especially in countries with high GDP and energy intensity. It seems logical enough to me that choosing not to have children is an indirect but sane way to limit one's emissions. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity