2 ms·
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: >
by 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 agoPlease 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 agoAgree 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.