3 ms·

It's baffling how anyone can simultaneously believe: 1. climate change is an existential threat to humanity 2. having one or more children is a good thing If

by aazaa 5y ago

It's baffling how anyone can simultaneously believe: 1. climate change is an existential threat to humanity 2. having one or more children is a good thing If you believe one, you need to yield on the other. The article yields on (1) to support (2). The thing is that (2) faces headwinds that have nothing to do with climate, namely economics. It's insanely expensive to have children. Not just the actual out-of-pocket, but also the opportunity costs, not to mention the emotional toll if the marriage becomes unstable. Then there's the toll on children raised by people other than their parents due to the horrendous economics of both parents being at work. So in this sense, the climate crisis as broadly defined, has a finite amount of room to run. Economics acts to cap births in developed economies. The rest of the world eventually catches up. Before you know it having a couple of kids has become a status symbol.

mcphage 5y ago
> It's baffling how anyone can simultaneously believe: > 1. climate change is an existential threat to humanity > 2. having one or more children is a good thing What's baffling about that? Climate change is an existential threat, but it means we need to do something about it, it doesn't mean we put life on pause until it gets solved. Nuclear weapons are still an existential threat, but we keep going. And the children we have are probably the ones who finish solving these problems—or maybe their children, or their childrens' children. Either way, you keep moving, keep living.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The cause of climate change is total consumption of resources, and so the solution to climate change in a relevant timeframe requires a decrease in the total consumption of resources. That can be accomplished via decrease in per capita consumption, or per capita. The former is not realistic at all. And maybe neither is a legitimate timeframe for decreasing total consumption. However, the most effective option at this point seems to be reducing the number of humans themselves, especially the ones that are consuming a lot.

by aazaa 5y ago

mcphage 5y ago

> It's baffling how anyone can simultaneously believe: > 1. climate change is an existential threat to humanity > 2. having one or more children is a good thing What's baffling about that? Climate change is an existential threat, but it means we need to do something about it, it doesn't mean we put life on pause until it gets solved. Nuclear weapons are still an existential threat, but we keep going. And the children we have are probably the ones who finish solving these problems—or maybe their children, or their childrens' children. Either way, you keep moving, keep living.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The cause of climate change is total consumption of resources, and so the solution to climate change in a relevant timeframe requires a decrease in the total consumption of resources. That can be accomplished via decrease in per capita consumption, or per capita. The former is not realistic at all. And maybe neither is a legitimate timeframe for decreasing total consumption. However, the most effective option at this point seems to be reducing the number of humans themselves, especially the ones that are consuming a lot.