3 ms·

Having a child doesn't mean they'll eventually go on working to solve climate change. If they don't, they'll actually make it (infinitesimally) worse by increas

Having a child doesn't mean they'll eventually go on working to solve climate change. If they don't, they'll actually make it (infinitesimally) worse by increasing resource consumption and carbon in the atmosphere. For all I know, my spawn might decide to work for Exxon Mobil.

WithinReason 5y ago
The number of people solving a problem scales with the number of people available to solve it. Besides, if it's feasible to earn enough money to offset your own carbon footprint (e.g. by paying for carbon capture), it's possible to scale the solution by having more children who then offset their own carbon cost and more.
- wnkrshm 5y ago
  Yeah but it scales badly, especially with all the people not solving it contributing to the problem.
- 1_player 5y ago
  > The number of people solving a problem scales with the number of people available to solve it. The climate crisis and carbon in the atmosphere scales with the number of people available to solve it, as well.
  - WithinReason 5y ago
    You're just repeating the comment I responded to
xyzzy123 5y ago
I suppose it depends on your mental model for how climate change will be solved. If you believe that a small number of people will have an outsized impact, each person is a "lottery ticket". If you believe in incremental progress then adding more people is likely to be "slightly positive". If you believe that little progress will be made on per capita emissions (or that they may even grow) then each additional person is a carbon burden.
- 1_player 5y ago
  It's not a matter of "belief". If a new person on the planet is born and goes their whole life without contributing to the cause and carrying on the current status quo of resource exploitation and fossil fuel usage, they will have made the crisis worse.
  - xyzzy123 5y ago
    That is true if you believe that humanity will not meet climate goals over the next century. On the other hand, if within a generation or two each person is net carbon negative (through labour, taxes, innovation or other support towards climate efforts) then children born today will be helping to mitigate the crisis. This is the "incremental" scenario. The plausibility of this depends on how you think system change happens and your assessment of what is possible or likely.

WithinReason 5y ago

The number of people solving a problem scales with the number of people available to solve it. Besides, if it's feasible to earn enough money to offset your own carbon footprint (e.g. by paying for carbon capture), it's possible to scale the solution by having more children who then offset their own carbon cost and more.

wnkrshm 5y ago
Yeah but it scales badly, especially with all the people not solving it contributing to the problem.
1_player 5y ago
> The number of people solving a problem scales with the number of people available to solve it. The climate crisis and carbon in the atmosphere scales with the number of people available to solve it, as well.
- WithinReason 5y ago
  You're just repeating the comment I responded to

xyzzy123 5y ago

I suppose it depends on your mental model for how climate change will be solved. If you believe that a small number of people will have an outsized impact, each person is a "lottery ticket". If you believe in incremental progress then adding more people is likely to be "slightly positive". If you believe that little progress will be made on per capita emissions (or that they may even grow) then each additional person is a carbon burden.

1_player 5y ago
It's not a matter of "belief". If a new person on the planet is born and goes their whole life without contributing to the cause and carrying on the current status quo of resource exploitation and fossil fuel usage, they will have made the crisis worse.
- xyzzy123 5y ago
  That is true if you believe that humanity will not meet climate goals over the next century. On the other hand, if within a generation or two each person is net carbon negative (through labour, taxes, innovation or other support towards climate efforts) then children born today will be helping to mitigate the crisis. This is the "incremental" scenario. The plausibility of this depends on how you think system change happens and your assessment of what is possible or likely.