4 ms·

Pointing out the environmental impact of having biological children is always unpopular here. A lot of HN-ers are pretty attached to the 'three kids and a white

Pointing out the environmental impact of having biological children is always unpopular here. A lot of HN-ers are pretty attached to the 'three kids and a white picket fence' lifescript. Interestingly advocates of veganism (which has a similarly massive impact on your carbon footprint) are much more welcome, but I guess for most people the drive to reproduce is more inherent that the desire to eat meat.

verylittlemeat 7y ago
If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the problem. Those comments are unpopular because most people can see they're just smug self righteous twitter tier mic drops.
- 666lumberjack 7y ago
  Maybe I wasn't clear; I'm not talking about comments on random threads about climate change suggesting it could be solved easily if people just didn't have kids. I don't think it's unreasonable, though, to suggest not having biological children if someone asks how they could lower their carbon footprint.
- firethief 7y ago
  > If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the problem. I don't see how this is compatible with the observed reality that individuals make choices that are not best for society (whether due to rational self-interest/incomplete information/behavioral factors).
  - rdiddly 7y ago
    I suppose you could say there's room for that under redefining the problem, like "The real problem is that people refuse to employ known solutions to those problems."
    - firethief 7y ago
      That salvages the argument, but deflates it as an argument against talking about the known solutions: discussing them is part of the solution to such a meta-problem, directly, by leading people to employing them; and indirectly, by leading to insight on why people aren't employing them yet. The former is hazardous (and verylittlemeat spoke against it): people fight for their views on the internet, and it degrades discussion more than it reaches people. The latter has leverage and is potentially highly impactful (i.e. the kind of discussion I come here hoping to find).
      - verylittlemeat 7y ago
        Many of the opinions downvoted on HN fit the same mold. They're what I call "if you're an alcoholic just stop drinking" arguments. They're totally reductive and really just serve to stroke the speakers ego or shame others rather than actually address the issue.
      - rdiddly 7y ago
        I agree; it's sort of an escape hatch. There's no problem I can't solve if you always give me "Redefine the problem" as one of the options!
hef19898 7y ago
Maybe because children are somewhat ingrained in us a species. Also, just because an idea is unpopular doesn't mean it is good.
- 666lumberjack 7y ago
  Yes - it's not surprising to me that few people are willing to consider adopting or living a 'childfree' lifestyle, only that the suggestion that doing so is an extremely effective way to reduce your carbon footprint is received so poorly. I would suggest that whether an idea is good and whether it is popular are mostly orthogonal, but also that encouraging people who aren't certain they want kids to not do so is, from the perspective of someone concerned about climate change, a good idea.
yongjik 7y ago
I mostly don't downvote anti-having-children(?) comments (I just ignore them), but I think most of them are counter-productive because, as others say, the desire to have children is ingrained to a lot of people, so not having children is a really tough sell. In light of the climate emergency we're facing, it almost sounds like deliberately advertising a wildly unpopular plan, detracting from other actionable plans with much higher chances of being accepted. And the (not always, but frequent) I'm-holier-than-thou-because-I-transcended-ape-instincts vibe doesn't help.
michalf6 7y ago
Suicide is also a good solution from a climate standpoint. If you're seriously considering life choices which directly impair your reproductive chances you already lost the game.
defen 7y ago
> Pointing out the environmental impact of having biological children is always unpopular here. 1) Because you're treating an idealized version of "the environment" as a terminal goal. 2) The people most likely to agree with your argument are precisely the ones who should be having more kids.
- pengstrom 7y ago
  Who should be having more kids? And consequently, who should not?
  - defen 7y ago
    I didn't say anything about how anyone should have fewer kids. However, intelligence and political attitudes are highly heritable, so when smart educated middle class people (regardless of race or country) decide not to have children so that they can do their small part to "save the planet", what they're actually doing is their own small part in helping ensure that the next generation is turned over to people who are less intelligent and don't share their political beliefs.

verylittlemeat 7y ago

If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the problem. Those comments are unpopular because most people can see they're just smug self righteous twitter tier mic drops.

666lumberjack 7y ago
Maybe I wasn't clear; I'm not talking about comments on random threads about climate change suggesting it could be solved easily if people just didn't have kids. I don't think it's unreasonable, though, to suggest not having biological children if someone asks how they could lower their carbon footprint.
firethief 7y ago
> If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the problem. I don't see how this is compatible with the observed reality that individuals make choices that are not best for society (whether due to rational self-interest/incomplete information/behavioral factors).
- rdiddly 7y ago
  I suppose you could say there's room for that under redefining the problem, like "The real problem is that people refuse to employ known solutions to those problems."
  - firethief 7y ago
    That salvages the argument, but deflates it as an argument against talking about the known solutions: discussing them is part of the solution to such a meta-problem, directly, by leading people to employing them; and indirectly, by leading to insight on why people aren't employing them yet. The former is hazardous (and verylittlemeat spoke against it): people fight for their views on the internet, and it degrades discussion more than it reaches people. The latter has leverage and is potentially highly impactful (i.e. the kind of discussion I come here hoping to find).
    - verylittlemeat 7y ago
      Many of the opinions downvoted on HN fit the same mold. They're what I call "if you're an alcoholic just stop drinking" arguments. They're totally reductive and really just serve to stroke the speakers ego or shame others rather than actually address the issue.
    - rdiddly 7y ago
      I agree; it's sort of an escape hatch. There's no problem I can't solve if you always give me "Redefine the problem" as one of the options!

hef19898 7y ago

Maybe because children are somewhat ingrained in us a species. Also, just because an idea is unpopular doesn't mean it is good.

666lumberjack 7y ago
Yes - it's not surprising to me that few people are willing to consider adopting or living a 'childfree' lifestyle, only that the suggestion that doing so is an extremely effective way to reduce your carbon footprint is received so poorly. I would suggest that whether an idea is good and whether it is popular are mostly orthogonal, but also that encouraging people who aren't certain they want kids to not do so is, from the perspective of someone concerned about climate change, a good idea.

yongjik 7y ago

I mostly don't downvote anti-having-children(?) comments (I just ignore them), but I think most of them are counter-productive because, as others say, the desire to have children is ingrained to a lot of people, so not having children is a really tough sell. In light of the climate emergency we're facing, it almost sounds like deliberately advertising a wildly unpopular plan, detracting from other actionable plans with much higher chances of being accepted. And the (not always, but frequent) I'm-holier-than-thou-because-I-transcended-ape-instincts vibe doesn't help.

michalf6 7y ago

Suicide is also a good solution from a climate standpoint. If you're seriously considering life choices which directly impair your reproductive chances you already lost the game.

defen 7y ago

> Pointing out the environmental impact of having biological children is always unpopular here. 1) Because you're treating an idealized version of "the environment" as a terminal goal. 2) The people most likely to agree with your argument are precisely the ones who should be having more kids.

pengstrom 7y ago
Who should be having more kids? And consequently, who should not?
- defen 7y ago
  I didn't say anything about how anyone should have fewer kids. However, intelligence and political attitudes are highly heritable, so when smart educated middle class people (regardless of race or country) decide not to have children so that they can do their small part to "save the planet", what they're actually doing is their own small part in helping ensure that the next generation is turned over to people who are less intelligent and don't share their political beliefs.