5 ms·

The likelihood of a child becoming such a climate messiah is astronomically smaller than that of a mere additional exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-cons

• malvosenior 7y ago
  There 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 ago
    But 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 ago
      People 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 ago
        And 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.
        • malvosenior 7y ago
          Low birthrates cause many problems, look at Japan. They have a massive labor shortage and a ballooning elderly population with not enough people to take care of them. I don't think it's clear at all that a lower birthrate is a good thing.
          • EForEndeavour 7y ago
            Japan is a bit of an extreme example. A manageably low(er) global birth rate would be better for the climate, among other things.
            • malvosenior 7y ago
              Japan isn’t that different from most other first world countries: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-r...
              • EForEndeavour 7y ago
                Japan is indisputably a demographic outlier. It's the oldest country, meaning even without having the absolute lowest birthrate, its population poised to shrink at one of the fastest rates on earth. Combined with its conservative immigration, low birth rate is only part of the picture.
                • malvosenior 7y ago
                  Yes, but encouraging a lower birth rate in first world countries will quickly put them in the same position as Japan currently is in.