4 ms·

> Consume less, make less people, and use less power. Yes, people should consume less oil (but big corporations don't). Yes, people should use less power (but

> Consume less, make less people, and use less power. Yes, people should consume less oil (but big corporations don't). Yes, people should use less power (but big corporations just count power as a cost of doing business). Yes, people should make less people (but big corporations need manpower). > Ask yourself if those things are possible in your life and whether that means perfect should be the enemy of good when bringing in a responsible solution demands responsible care. Your needs for immediate satisfaction do not supersede the longterm welfare of your progeny. I have no intention of creating progeny in this fucked up world. Moreover, nuclear power is far safer, per watt produced, than coal or oil. > From the outside looking in, valuing current demand over the lives of our children is what got us in this mess. It's not individual people who've got us in this mess. Or rather, it is... individual people working for individual corporations who don't consider individual people anything other than feedstock for corporation profits.

codegrappler 4y ago
I tend to have a more optimistic view of life and I have 3 kids. I want to support a world that makes things better for them. I’ve always found the “make less people” claim overly patronizing. It’s fine if you don’t want kids, but the kids today will be running the nursing homes, fixing the infrastructure and running the country when we’re retired. I want to help raise this next generation with good moral values and work ethics. I should be able to make that choice.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  I agree with you, even though I’m not having children. My partner and I just need to figure out who can support us when we’re old… (e.g. help us steer our finances in case we can’t ourselves)
  - samstave 4y ago
- kelnos 4y ago
  I think the idea isn't for everyone to stop having kids, but to reduce reproduction down to something near replacement rate, so population growth slows or stops. There's nothing inherent about society that requires more people than the current workforce to run things in 20+ years, though admittedly, generations are not of equal size (booms and busts in the birth rate over time) and there are often demographic issues as particular generations age out of the workforce. I too support people's desire and right to make choices about reproduction, but at some point it just becomes irresponsibly selfish for a couple to have more than some replacement-level N number of kids. Not just for the planet, but at a smaller level, too, when considering a family's financial resources, etc. I wish more would-be parents would take this sort of thing into account before choosing (or unintentionally not-actually-choosing) to have a(nother) kid.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > to reduce reproduction down to something near replacement rate, so population growth slows or stops Most of the rich world is already doing this [1]. The change was enforced by rising living standards and costs of living. Not proselytising. [1] https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm
- samstave 4y ago

codegrappler 4y ago

I tend to have a more optimistic view of life and I have 3 kids. I want to support a world that makes things better for them. I’ve always found the “make less people” claim overly patronizing. It’s fine if you don’t want kids, but the kids today will be running the nursing homes, fixing the infrastructure and running the country when we’re retired. I want to help raise this next generation with good moral values and work ethics. I should be able to make that choice.

andsoitis 4y ago
I agree with you, even though I’m not having children. My partner and I just need to figure out who can support us when we’re old… (e.g. help us steer our finances in case we can’t ourselves)
- samstave 4y ago
kelnos 4y ago
I think the idea isn't for everyone to stop having kids, but to reduce reproduction down to something near replacement rate, so population growth slows or stops. There's nothing inherent about society that requires more people than the current workforce to run things in 20+ years, though admittedly, generations are not of equal size (booms and busts in the birth rate over time) and there are often demographic issues as particular generations age out of the workforce. I too support people's desire and right to make choices about reproduction, but at some point it just becomes irresponsibly selfish for a couple to have more than some replacement-level N number of kids. Not just for the planet, but at a smaller level, too, when considering a family's financial resources, etc. I wish more would-be parents would take this sort of thing into account before choosing (or unintentionally not-actually-choosing) to have a(nother) kid.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > to reduce reproduction down to something near replacement rate, so population growth slows or stops Most of the rich world is already doing this [1]. The change was enforced by rising living standards and costs of living. Not proselytising. [1] https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm
samstave 4y ago