2 ms·

I think I already responded to all this elsewhere in this discussion. I can only accept that making children is useful to solve the problem, if I see any single

by js8 6y ago

I think I already responded to all this elsewhere in this discussion. I can only accept that making children is useful to solve the problem, if I see any single example of somebody who has actually done it. Somebody, who decided to have kids with the sole purpose of raising future geniuses to solve this particular problem, and considered the trade-off (because inaction has a cost too). Where it wasn't just a convenient excuse for your own inaction in the matter. (Besides, I think imposing your desires, however good they might be, onto your children is morally wrong.) Looking at my own example, this is false. My grandfather (who died when I was 15) was a chemical engineer, and a big fan of renewable energy. Possibly he thought the same - my generation will be the one that solves these problems. But what did I do? I work at a SW company, because it pays well. I have a rather modest lifestyle, but I can't really say I would be working on an individual solution either. So here we are - 40 years of procrastination. I ultimately think that "they will solve the problem" is wishful thinking. There is no problem to be solved, the problem is that we (as humanity) need to stop expanding our energy needs. Whether we do it by limiting population or limiting consumption or both, doesn't really matter. But I don't think there is any problem that remains to be solved. The problem is pure and simple, procrastination. And it won't be solved by procreation.

toasterlovin 6y ago
I’m not arguing that you’ll have kids who will directly solve the problem. Instead, I am making a statistical argument. Here’s what I said in another reply: > The carrying capacity of the earth will be reached whether you have children or not. So the consideration is different: whose descendants will take up that carrying capacity. If you, as a person concerned about the environment, opt to have children, then, statistically speaking, you are biasing the future composition of the human population toward being more concerned about the environment (since your kids share you innate predispositions and will be raised in the familial and cultural milieu that you create for them). And if people who are concerned about the environment systematically choose to not have children because they have become infected by this meme, then you have a situation where the future composition of the human population is becoming more biased toward doing nothing about the environment. So not having kids is a losing strategy.
- js8 6y ago
  Please don't cross-spam the thread. In any case, I think I already addressed it. Humans are not just mindless meme carriers, they have a mind on their own. And if you're considering it statistically, then that argument seems even more like an excuse. If everybody expects that someone else will do a job (save the planet), but nobody actually makes a step towards that job (educating somebody to save it, or doing whatever else towards it), then the work simply doesn't get done. Remember, at the end of the day, concerns do not matter, only actions. We already have enough humans who are concerned.
  - toasterlovin 6y ago
    Agree that actions matter. But if there is a meme (having kids is bad for the environment) that is systematically removing people who are more likely to take action, then less action with be taken.

by js8 6y ago

toasterlovin 6y ago

I’m not arguing that you’ll have kids who will directly solve the problem. Instead, I am making a statistical argument. Here’s what I said in another reply: > The carrying capacity of the earth will be reached whether you have children or not. So the consideration is different: whose descendants will take up that carrying capacity. If you, as a person concerned about the environment, opt to have children, then, statistically speaking, you are biasing the future composition of the human population toward being more concerned about the environment (since your kids share you innate predispositions and will be raised in the familial and cultural milieu that you create for them). And if people who are concerned about the environment systematically choose to not have children because they have become infected by this meme, then you have a situation where the future composition of the human population is becoming more biased toward doing nothing about the environment. So not having kids is a losing strategy.

js8 6y ago
Please don't cross-spam the thread. In any case, I think I already addressed it. Humans are not just mindless meme carriers, they have a mind on their own. And if you're considering it statistically, then that argument seems even more like an excuse. If everybody expects that someone else will do a job (save the planet), but nobody actually makes a step towards that job (educating somebody to save it, or doing whatever else towards it), then the work simply doesn't get done. Remember, at the end of the day, concerns do not matter, only actions. We already have enough humans who are concerned.
- toasterlovin 6y ago
  Agree that actions matter. But if there is a meme (having kids is bad for the environment) that is systematically removing people who are more likely to take action, then less action with be taken.