That’s not necessarily true. Some places have been ravaged by desertification and so actively planting trees can facilitate a forest where otherwise there would

That’s not necessarily true. Some places have been ravaged by desertification and so actively planting trees can facilitate a forest where otherwise there wouldn’t be any. Second, you can choose trees which are particularly good at sequestering carbon for long periods. Humans are already animals that act as “ecosystem engineers” (like beavers or trees). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_engineer We just haven’t historically been very good at it (ie we’ve often historically reduced ecological diversity instead of facilitating it). I think we can do much better, and there are many examples of humans who HAVE done a great job at it (for instance, the man who planted a forest on an island in India). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZDSqyE1do https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZDSqyE1do Do you think the planet would be better off if everything else was the same but his parents had decided not to have him? So this is why I think we can’t apply a broad average of human footprint to whether someone should decide to have kids or not. Instilling values, such as being a net-positive to the environment and the value of choosing to live a net-carbon-negative life (and support continued climate action), can be more important than just the marginal impact of not having kids at all. Also, negative-sum thinking ends up in a pretty dark place pretty fast if brought to its logical conclusion. And it seems pretty obvious what the long term result would be if all climate-conscious people had no kids but folks who don’t give a crap about climate action raise lots of children.