5 ms·

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet b

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stuff unless really needed.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
> I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. ... so that the planet is preserved for the descendants of less environmentally responsible human beings?
- dencodev 6y ago
  Yes. Just because someone is irresponsible and votes for governments that actively work to let these awful things happen doesn't mean they deserve to die from the effects of climate change.
  - dencodev 6y ago
    HN downvotes the weirdest things.
spacephysics 6y ago
And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases, and pollution. But not at the expense of human life. First it’s “To save the planet, I won’t have kids”. Next is, “To save the planet, you shouldn’t have kids” Regardless if you have children or not, the chilling sentiment still exists. My fear is when, inevitably, there is social pressure, if not force, to adhere to similar doctrines on a larger scale.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jungturk 6y ago
  It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate). The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest. I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.
  - spacephysics 6y ago
    My concern isn’t with the local decisions - I agree, if your local sacrifice meets your moral expectations for yourself, and that involves abstaining from reproducing, then have at it. The danger I see is that, with most movements, once a “critical mass” of support is reached, there tends to be a sentiment of “us vs them”. Then it’s less about accepting other people’s different beliefs (having x children vs having y or 0 children), and more of shaming/“forcing”/coercing non-believers to your side. We see this with cancel culture today, and various other movements in recent times.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bloak 6y ago
  > if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. Are you suggesting that being an "extreme environmentalist" is an inherited characteristic? Presumably not, because that would be ... eccentric, so what are you suggesting? > social pressure, if not force In most developed countries the population is falling or would be falling if it weren't for immigration, and currently that's with a fair amount of government support for human reproduction. If most people agreed that the population should be reduced and government policy were to reflect that opinion then I think the population would continue to fall without the need for anything the slightest bit chilling or oppressive. However, a minority political or religious movement could interfere with that.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

> I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. ... so that the planet is preserved for the descendants of less environmentally responsible human beings?

dencodev 6y ago
Yes. Just because someone is irresponsible and votes for governments that actively work to let these awful things happen doesn't mean they deserve to die from the effects of climate change.
- dencodev 6y ago
  HN downvotes the weirdest things.

spacephysics 6y ago

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases, and pollution. But not at the expense of human life. First it’s “To save the planet, I won’t have kids”. Next is, “To save the planet, you shouldn’t have kids” Regardless if you have children or not, the chilling sentiment still exists. My fear is when, inevitably, there is social pressure, if not force, to adhere to similar doctrines on a larger scale.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jungturk 6y ago
It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate). The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest. I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.
- spacephysics 6y ago
  My concern isn’t with the local decisions - I agree, if your local sacrifice meets your moral expectations for yourself, and that involves abstaining from reproducing, then have at it. The danger I see is that, with most movements, once a “critical mass” of support is reached, there tends to be a sentiment of “us vs them”. Then it’s less about accepting other people’s different beliefs (having x children vs having y or 0 children), and more of shaming/“forcing”/coercing non-believers to your side. We see this with cancel culture today, and various other movements in recent times.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bloak 6y ago
> if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. Are you suggesting that being an "extreme environmentalist" is an inherited characteristic? Presumably not, because that would be ... eccentric, so what are you suggesting? > social pressure, if not force In most developed countries the population is falling or would be falling if it weren't for immigration, and currently that's with a fair amount of government support for human reproduction. If most people agreed that the population should be reduced and government policy were to reflect that opinion then I think the population would continue to fall without the need for anything the slightest bit chilling or oppressive. However, a minority political or religious movement could interfere with that.