5 ms·

> If your marginal, insignificant impact on the climate is enough to prevent you from having kids, then you probably never really wanted them anyways. Or they

> If your marginal, insignificant impact on the climate is enough to prevent you from having kids, then you probably never really wanted them anyways. Or they have different values than you. Shocking, right? > Why should anybody give up kids but keep their iPhones, AC, avocados, and software engineering jobs? > You might feel differently when you’re older. Ahh, there it is. That moral superiority that oh-so-often exudes from folks with kids criticizing folks who don't want them. I'm 42. Married almost 20 years. No kids. Still no desire to have them. Amazing, right? Suggestion: Don't talk down to people about their reproductive choices. You might not agree with folks but you're no one's moral superior.

rank0 5y ago
Maybe I've come off the wrong way here. I do not believe that either party can claim the moral high ground for their decision on raising children. I DO however, get annoyed when I see people present themselves as some kind of martyr simply for being child free. Those same folks on this forum gladly spew out carbon in pursuit of building a new ML model, cryptocurrency, or unnecessary startup cash-grab. > I'm 42. Married almost 20 years. No kids. Still no desire to have them. Amazing, right? > Suggestion: Don't talk down to people about their reproductive choices. You might not agree with folks but you're no one's moral superior. For the record, I am 26 and have also have no children. Your suggestion is exactly my point. Seems like we have some common ground!
- foundron 5y ago
  Choosing not to have kids is still an uncommon stance. Are they really presenting themselves as martyrs, or just trying to normalise an unpopular idea that has merits? Is it helpful to dismiss them like that? Maybe they're not the same ones doing high carbon pursuits? If it's really not a big deal, then we can just accept others' differences without getting annoyed.
  - rank0 5y ago
    > Maybe they're not the same ones doing high carbon pursuits? It's possible but I seriously doubt it. Just being on this forum tells me that OP has likely emitted more carbon than almost every other human in the history of our species. The startup space openly celebrates carbon intensive profit chasing behavior. How can we have it both ways? We've gotta reduce our personal carbon footprint but also let's create tech startups to get rich. It's just a bit silly imo.
    - foundron 5y ago
      Yes you are right. But so have the majority of people alive today with phones connected to the Internet. It's hard to be perfect in today's world. Unnecessary startup cash-grabs are no good indeed. Maybe one day they'll see it your way and abandon high-carbon pursuits. But for now if they're taking steps towards being sustainable, then let's encourage them.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  > Maybe I've come off the wrong way here. I do not believe that either party can claim the moral high ground for their decision on raising children. And the difference is the OP literally was just talking about themselves and their own choices. Go read their comment. They even went out of their way to say "For me, it's practicing what I preach, because I view climate change as the most pressing existential threat to our species" and finished their comment by stating "If you disagree... more power to you! It's your decision to make, and I mean that earnestly." Never once do they deign to make moral statements about anyone else. It's purely about their decision and why they've made it. The only way to take offense to that is to look for it. You, by contrast, proceeded to attack the person's beliefs, going so far as to say of their desire to have children: "you probably never really wanted them anyways." As for this... > For the record, I am 26 I'd wait until at least your 30s before you start telling people what they might or might not feel when they get older...
  - rank0 5y ago
    > Never once do they deign to make moral statements about anyone else. It's purely about their decision and why they've made it. I just straight up disagree here. The implication here is that they're making a significant personal sacrifice in an attempt to save the earth. In reality, they already don't want children and this is a convenient way to present themselves in a positive moral light. You're leaving out the part where OP says he doesn't really want kids that much. "I have other justificiations, too -- in terms of life priorities, I simply consider children as "nice to have". For someone on the fence like me, this is enough." This is pretty far away from someone who wants to start a family. Children are just "nice to have?" > The only way to take offense to that is to look for it. You could say the same thing about my response to OP.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

rank0 5y ago

Maybe I've come off the wrong way here. I do not believe that either party can claim the moral high ground for their decision on raising children. I DO however, get annoyed when I see people present themselves as some kind of martyr simply for being child free. Those same folks on this forum gladly spew out carbon in pursuit of building a new ML model, cryptocurrency, or unnecessary startup cash-grab. > I'm 42. Married almost 20 years. No kids. Still no desire to have them. Amazing, right? > Suggestion: Don't talk down to people about their reproductive choices. You might not agree with folks but you're no one's moral superior. For the record, I am 26 and have also have no children. Your suggestion is exactly my point. Seems like we have some common ground!

foundron 5y ago
Choosing not to have kids is still an uncommon stance. Are they really presenting themselves as martyrs, or just trying to normalise an unpopular idea that has merits? Is it helpful to dismiss them like that? Maybe they're not the same ones doing high carbon pursuits? If it's really not a big deal, then we can just accept others' differences without getting annoyed.
- rank0 5y ago
  > Maybe they're not the same ones doing high carbon pursuits? It's possible but I seriously doubt it. Just being on this forum tells me that OP has likely emitted more carbon than almost every other human in the history of our species. The startup space openly celebrates carbon intensive profit chasing behavior. How can we have it both ways? We've gotta reduce our personal carbon footprint but also let's create tech startups to get rich. It's just a bit silly imo.
  - foundron 5y ago
    Yes you are right. But so have the majority of people alive today with phones connected to the Internet. It's hard to be perfect in today's world. Unnecessary startup cash-grabs are no good indeed. Maybe one day they'll see it your way and abandon high-carbon pursuits. But for now if they're taking steps towards being sustainable, then let's encourage them.
CarelessExpert 5y ago
> Maybe I've come off the wrong way here. I do not believe that either party can claim the moral high ground for their decision on raising children. And the difference is the OP literally was just talking about themselves and their own choices. Go read their comment. They even went out of their way to say "For me, it's practicing what I preach, because I view climate change as the most pressing existential threat to our species" and finished their comment by stating "If you disagree... more power to you! It's your decision to make, and I mean that earnestly." Never once do they deign to make moral statements about anyone else. It's purely about their decision and why they've made it. The only way to take offense to that is to look for it. You, by contrast, proceeded to attack the person's beliefs, going so far as to say of their desire to have children: "you probably never really wanted them anyways." As for this... > For the record, I am 26 I'd wait until at least your 30s before you start telling people what they might or might not feel when they get older...
- rank0 5y ago
  > Never once do they deign to make moral statements about anyone else. It's purely about their decision and why they've made it. I just straight up disagree here. The implication here is that they're making a significant personal sacrifice in an attempt to save the earth. In reality, they already don't want children and this is a convenient way to present themselves in a positive moral light. You're leaving out the part where OP says he doesn't really want kids that much. "I have other justificiations, too -- in terms of life priorities, I simply consider children as "nice to have". For someone on the fence like me, this is enough." This is pretty far away from someone who wants to start a family. Children are just "nice to have?" > The only way to take offense to that is to look for it. You could say the same thing about my response to OP.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]