3 ms·

If nothing else more humans increase our collective potential intelligence to solve problems. It's my my main issue with the anti-natalist movement: If theoret

If nothing else more humans increase our collective potential intelligence to solve problems. It's my my main issue with the anti-natalist movement: If theoretically everyone who believed in climate change agreed that anti-natalism was the solution, by definition within a generation the largest voting block would be the children of climate deniers. Which would actually make climate change much worse. We don't need fewer humans, we need smarter/better institutions and more efficient technology. Every life born is one more potential option for a breakthrough.

js8 6y ago
> If theoretically everyone who believed in climate change agreed that anti-natalism was the solution, by definition within a generation the largest voting block would be the children of climate deniers. Which would actually make climate change much worse. As an anti-natalist (more precise would be anatalist, I am not opposing that other people have kids, I just wish they chose not to), let me address that. The point is not everybody to not have kids, but just enough to stabilize or slightly decrease the population. First, you're assuming that climate denial is genetic and not cultural. Which is a big assumption, and I am in general in favor of nurture argument. (As a side note, by waiting longer to have kids, humans might actually be selecting for kids that are learning more and longer, which favors nurture even more.) However, even if I take that assumption. If I chose not to have kids, that very much means I do not care about biology and what my genetics want. I am making the decision as a person free of the evolutionary pressure (well, somewhat, because I still care about survival of human race). Therefore, I am not sure why I should be bothered by the evolutionary pressure on other individuals. The truth is, it is going to be their battle. I can only lend them a helping hand (and perhaps an example), and do (what I believe is) a morally correct thing. If they mess up and still act wrong, it's not my moral responsibility. It is a similar question as to whether or not vote strategically. If everybody votes strategically, you can get a result that no one wants. Therefore, somebody has to sacrifice and decidedly vote not strategically.
- justwalt 6y ago
  I highly doubt he thinks climate denial is a genetic presupposition.
  - js8 6y ago
    Well, I didn't want to say that out loud, but the argument is a soft version of "stupid people will win" argument, which I disagree with (and I find it repulsively elitist). That's where the genetics comes in; I should have written biology instead of genetics, though.
- scottLobster 6y ago
  I'm not assuming climate denial is genetic at all, parents and cultures have a great deal of influence on their children's beliefs. If every Christian decided to not have kids tomorrow the world would be mostly Muslim and Hindu within a few decades. The few converts to Christianity would not replace the losses. Same with Climate Change. If the only culture that reproduces is climate deniers, the they will be the majority. In democracies majorities win. I'm not saying you or anyone else should have kids out of some sense of duty. If you don't want kids, fine. People having kids they didn't want has led to a lot of messed up families. However I find the argument that it's because of climate change to be a post-hoc rationalization. It's like if during the black death people said they're not having kids because it's morally correct to not produce more plague carriers. As for your voting analogy, under our current system (in the US) if everyone votes strategically some good might occur albeit in a somewhat corrupt, half-assed manner. If fewer people vote strategically then those who vote strategically win, however small a minority they might be. That's how we ended up with a two party system. Alliances willing to compromise parts of their values will defeat smaller but pure adversaries.
  - js8 6y ago
    > I'm not assuming climate denial is genetic at all, parents and cultures have a great deal of influence on their children's beliefs. I think for my argument it doesn't matter whether the inheritance of the denialist position happens through biological or cultural means. Either way, what you're assuming is that by and large people cannot change their position (from the position of their parents) based on the situation they will find themselves in, that they cannot adapt culturally (i.e. they can only adapt via natural selection). > However I find the argument that it's because of climate change to be a post-hoc rationalization. Maybe it is. How can anyone know? I don't think it changes anything in the debate, if it's just a rationalization of something else. Maybe your belief that it is a post-hoc rationalization is a rationalization of something as well. > under our current system (in the US) if everyone votes strategically some good might occur albeit in a somewhat corrupt, half-assed manner Saying "some good might occur" is equivalent of "some bad might occur", which was my point. Your (not mine) U.S. voting system is horrible, you should push for changing it into something more sane. But regardless, I think what I wrote is true for most voting systems.
boardwaalk 6y ago
We (humans) are so mind-blowingly disorganized at solving problems that you likely could have much more of an impact focusing on solving that organization problem (even just a small part of it) than spending resources raising kids. And that is ignoring the environmental impact. IOW, if your goal is to better humanity, having a kid is a really, really blunt instrument versus using more of your brain capacity x time on that goal.

js8 6y ago

> If theoretically everyone who believed in climate change agreed that anti-natalism was the solution, by definition within a generation the largest voting block would be the children of climate deniers. Which would actually make climate change much worse. As an anti-natalist (more precise would be anatalist, I am not opposing that other people have kids, I just wish they chose not to), let me address that. The point is not everybody to not have kids, but just enough to stabilize or slightly decrease the population. First, you're assuming that climate denial is genetic and not cultural. Which is a big assumption, and I am in general in favor of nurture argument. (As a side note, by waiting longer to have kids, humans might actually be selecting for kids that are learning more and longer, which favors nurture even more.) However, even if I take that assumption. If I chose not to have kids, that very much means I do not care about biology and what my genetics want. I am making the decision as a person free of the evolutionary pressure (well, somewhat, because I still care about survival of human race). Therefore, I am not sure why I should be bothered by the evolutionary pressure on other individuals. The truth is, it is going to be their battle. I can only lend them a helping hand (and perhaps an example), and do (what I believe is) a morally correct thing. If they mess up and still act wrong, it's not my moral responsibility. It is a similar question as to whether or not vote strategically. If everybody votes strategically, you can get a result that no one wants. Therefore, somebody has to sacrifice and decidedly vote not strategically.

justwalt 6y ago
I highly doubt he thinks climate denial is a genetic presupposition.
- js8 6y ago
  Well, I didn't want to say that out loud, but the argument is a soft version of "stupid people will win" argument, which I disagree with (and I find it repulsively elitist). That's where the genetics comes in; I should have written biology instead of genetics, though.
scottLobster 6y ago
I'm not assuming climate denial is genetic at all, parents and cultures have a great deal of influence on their children's beliefs. If every Christian decided to not have kids tomorrow the world would be mostly Muslim and Hindu within a few decades. The few converts to Christianity would not replace the losses. Same with Climate Change. If the only culture that reproduces is climate deniers, the they will be the majority. In democracies majorities win. I'm not saying you or anyone else should have kids out of some sense of duty. If you don't want kids, fine. People having kids they didn't want has led to a lot of messed up families. However I find the argument that it's because of climate change to be a post-hoc rationalization. It's like if during the black death people said they're not having kids because it's morally correct to not produce more plague carriers. As for your voting analogy, under our current system (in the US) if everyone votes strategically some good might occur albeit in a somewhat corrupt, half-assed manner. If fewer people vote strategically then those who vote strategically win, however small a minority they might be. That's how we ended up with a two party system. Alliances willing to compromise parts of their values will defeat smaller but pure adversaries.
- js8 6y ago
  > I'm not assuming climate denial is genetic at all, parents and cultures have a great deal of influence on their children's beliefs. I think for my argument it doesn't matter whether the inheritance of the denialist position happens through biological or cultural means. Either way, what you're assuming is that by and large people cannot change their position (from the position of their parents) based on the situation they will find themselves in, that they cannot adapt culturally (i.e. they can only adapt via natural selection). > However I find the argument that it's because of climate change to be a post-hoc rationalization. Maybe it is. How can anyone know? I don't think it changes anything in the debate, if it's just a rationalization of something else. Maybe your belief that it is a post-hoc rationalization is a rationalization of something as well. > under our current system (in the US) if everyone votes strategically some good might occur albeit in a somewhat corrupt, half-assed manner Saying "some good might occur" is equivalent of "some bad might occur", which was my point. Your (not mine) U.S. voting system is horrible, you should push for changing it into something more sane. But regardless, I think what I wrote is true for most voting systems.

boardwaalk 6y ago

We (humans) are so mind-blowingly disorganized at solving problems that you likely could have much more of an impact focusing on solving that organization problem (even just a small part of it) than spending resources raising kids. And that is ignoring the environmental impact. IOW, if your goal is to better humanity, having a kid is a really, really blunt instrument versus using more of your brain capacity x time on that goal.