> I am grateful for my parents’ decisions here and so I conclude that having children in a world with a 1% risk of apocalypse is fine. That's the is-ought fall

> I am grateful for my parents’ decisions here and so I conclude that having children in a world with a 1% risk of apocalypse is fine. That's the is-ought fallacy. That people did it before doesn't make it fine. Or survivorship bias - you were lucky, but that doesn't negate the risk. > If you’re not one of [antinatalists], I think the quality-of-life argument for not having kids now is pretty weak. Again, what about those who think now, as well as under some, not even all conditions? > that’s not really the relevant timeframe for actually stabilizing the climate, given that we have this decade to cut emissions in half. That actually makes sense until you ask the question: what if we faill or struggle? Then the lowered population could really come in handy. This same argument also neutralizes the voting problem: your child won't have the right to vote in the next decade. Even in the longer term, who is going to guarantee that the child will vote for reduced emissions? I'm a fan of astral codex ten, but I had the impression that the usual writing has less blind spots.