4 ms·
One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your children c
by charliesharding 7y ago
One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your children could help to radiate that message outwards and may even become scientists that help to reverse it! Of course there's no guarantee that they'll adopt your views but if you fundamentally believe the world is capable of saving then it's worth a shot :)
- dawhizkid 7y agoYes, though if I were to have kids I would adopt, then, and not create one.
- mikestew 7y ago"Could", yes. The overwhelming odds, however, are that they'll grow up to be upper-middle class consumers who don't do anything outstanding other than hoover up huge amounts of resources and make the problem worse.
- malvosenior 7y agoUnless you're assuming the socioeconomic class of the original poster to be upper-middle class and that that will extend to their offspring, then you are incorrect. Most people are not upper-middle class, so the odds are against any random person being an upper-middle class consumer.
- homonculus1 7y agoMost people don't comment on HN. It is an assumption, but not an unwarranted one.
- malvosenior 7y agoThere are many non upper-middle class people here so I would say it is an unwarranted assumption.
- mikestew 7y agoI assumed nothing. I used the word "odds". Probabilities, what have you. And if one is posting on HN, "odds are" you and everyone in your household consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources. And if you'd like to drill further into an off-hand comment that might have taken a few liberties with the demographics of HN readers, then let's simplify it: your kid isn't going to cure cancer or fix global warming no matter who you are or your class status.
- homonculus1 7y agoThe likelihood of a child becoming such a climate messiah is astronomically smaller than that of a mere additional exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint. You're better off trying to impress eco-friendly memes on the offspring of people who insist on breeding no matter what. The notion of having kids to fight climate change is silly at best.
- malvosenior 7y agoThere are obviously many options between "climate messiah" and "exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint". People can create value in multiple dimensions. Even if you only look through the lens of offspring's ability to impact climate, then having children is essential unless you think changing the climate can be done in a single generation (the current one).
- homonculus1 7y agoBut you having children is not essential. It's a given that the masses are plowing ahead with their insistence on having several children regardless, so a shortage of future generations, scientists, activists, etc. will not be the problem--at least not until the climate becomes the limiting factor! Until then, the decision for fence-sitters is whether or not to shrink the window. Encouragement toward them should be in the direction of not to.
- malvosenior 7y agoPeople should not be making personal reproductive choices based on encouragement. It's no one's place to judge whether or not someone should have children.
- EForEndeavour 7y agoAnd there we have the problem: collectively, we know we'd be better off with a lower birthrate, but it's unthinkable to infringe on individuals' right to reproduce. Genes that predispose people toward selfless, bigger-picture thinking will snuff themselves out while genes that promote selfishness proliferate.