5 ms·

I would have loved to have kids. I'm 33 and will never have children. I consider it morally irresponsible to bring children into a world where they will have to

I would have loved to have kids. I'm 33 and will never have children. I consider it morally irresponsible to bring children into a world where they will have to deal with the worst of the changing climate. That's it, that's the only reason. It's heartbreaking, and yes, cynical -- but it's not a risk I'm willing to take ("the world will turn itself around and band together to mitigate climate change" is not a gamble I'm willing to put on my child's life).

fastneutron 3y ago
If you’re in a developed nation, and unless you expect the earth to go through an irreversible Venus syndrome in the next century, I don’t see how this argument is anything more than a fig leaf for more fundamental social ailments. What would you say to someone in 700 AD, for whom the next 1000 years were more likely to be objectively worse in terms of quality of life than the next 1000, even accounting for what climate change is expected, intervention notwithstanding. The costs of childcare, housing and education have exploded, and even establishing the relationship needed to do the deed in the first place is arguably harder than it s been. That sucks and there’s little any individual can do about it, despite the rhetoric blaming it on the generations most likely to be impacted by it. Climate is a convenient scapegoat to deflect blame, but we were never to blame in the first place.
- themacguffinman 3y ago
  > What would you say to someone in 700 AD, for whom the next 1000 years were more likely to be objectively worse in terms of quality of life than the next 1000 Not OP, but I would probably say something like "don't have kids, it's morally irresponsible to bring children into a world where they will have to deal with conditions likely worse and far more barbaric than climate change which causes immense suffering in the future". Then I'd quickly duck out before they reported me for being a witch.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    They didn’t burn that many witches back in those days, it was more of a renaissance* and reformation thing. *Romans really liked executing/punishing people for witchcraft too compared with medieval Christians
recontraputo 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mrDmrTmrJ 3y ago
Respectfully, and this is a very personal decision, I see it the opposite way that you do. Our ability to counteract, or reverse, climate change will be directly related to the vitality and economic power of future civilization. So if you have lots of children, in a thriving society, then humanity will be more able to reverse climate change than it is today. As data, consider that US emissions have already peaked. And "The proposed wind, solar and battery projects seeking interconnection to U.S. transmission grids today are enough to bring the country to 80 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030."[1] Certainly we are a long, long way from making total global emissions negative. But we can give our children the tools they need to completely reverse climate change. And if there're in a healthy and thriving society they're likely to solve the problem that we have caused. The slope of US emissions is already in the right direction - I can't wait for the total amount to go negative! https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/transmission/the-us-has-more-clean-energy-projects-planned-than-the-grid-can-handle https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/transmission/the-us-has...
- Frannyies 3y ago
  We are not in a position were we have not enough people to solve any specific problem. I don't get your logic.
- prennert 3y ago
  How can emissions be indirectly correlated with the population size on earth?
nataliste 3y ago
I don't understand this space of what I can only term ecological or economic antinatalism. Can you share your thoughts on the following? Do you think unbeing is preferable to a potentially miserable life that would still likely result in them having their own children that didn't experience their own level of suffering? How many generations of potential suffering is required before having children is off the table? How many n+ future generations of having potentially joyful and regenerating lives would offset the former generations of suffering? What level or type of disaster would trigger it? Would you have had kids if you knew that the Black Death was coming or, being a Roman citizen, that the Roman Empire was going to fall? If you were a European in 1920, fully knowing the outcome of WWII, would you intentionally have kids? What if you only had models that these things were coming in a fuzzy way? My father-in-law told me don't have kids. My brother-in-law sees climate change as catastrophic to any progeny, and my best friend views human life itself as an involuntary evil inflicted on children, but I have difficulties understanding their positions on an intuitive level. I get the reasoning on a rational level, but I don't have the gut-sense of it and it hurts my relationship with my family and friends. Like, my position is that I'd like to think that I'd undergo torture for my kids, and that my kids would do so likewise for theirs recursively until the number of generations outnumbered the stars. From what I can see, living-on is the only thing that actually lasts--everything else will fall away, improve, and fall away again, including what we mean by being human itself, but procreation is forever. How can I understand your perspective? Can I understand it? It would help me build stronger bridges if you (or anyone else) could help me intuitively picture it.

fastneutron 3y ago

If you’re in a developed nation, and unless you expect the earth to go through an irreversible Venus syndrome in the next century, I don’t see how this argument is anything more than a fig leaf for more fundamental social ailments. What would you say to someone in 700 AD, for whom the next 1000 years were more likely to be objectively worse in terms of quality of life than the next 1000, even accounting for what climate change is expected, intervention notwithstanding. The costs of childcare, housing and education have exploded, and even establishing the relationship needed to do the deed in the first place is arguably harder than it s been. That sucks and there’s little any individual can do about it, despite the rhetoric blaming it on the generations most likely to be impacted by it. Climate is a convenient scapegoat to deflect blame, but we were never to blame in the first place.

themacguffinman 3y ago
> What would you say to someone in 700 AD, for whom the next 1000 years were more likely to be objectively worse in terms of quality of life than the next 1000 Not OP, but I would probably say something like "don't have kids, it's morally irresponsible to bring children into a world where they will have to deal with conditions likely worse and far more barbaric than climate change which causes immense suffering in the future". Then I'd quickly duck out before they reported me for being a witch.
- ffhhttt 3y ago
  They didn’t burn that many witches back in those days, it was more of a renaissance* and reformation thing. *Romans really liked executing/punishing people for witchcraft too compared with medieval Christians

recontraputo 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mrDmrTmrJ 3y ago

Respectfully, and this is a very personal decision, I see it the opposite way that you do. Our ability to counteract, or reverse, climate change will be directly related to the vitality and economic power of future civilization. So if you have lots of children, in a thriving society, then humanity will be more able to reverse climate change than it is today. As data, consider that US emissions have already peaked. And "The proposed wind, solar and battery projects seeking interconnection to U.S. transmission grids today are enough to bring the country to 80 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030."[1] Certainly we are a long, long way from making total global emissions negative. But we can give our children the tools they need to completely reverse climate change. And if there're in a healthy and thriving society they're likely to solve the problem that we have caused. The slope of US emissions is already in the right direction - I can't wait for the total amount to go negative! https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/transmission/the-us-has-more-clean-energy-projects-planned-than-the-grid-can-handle https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/transmission/the-us-has...

Frannyies 3y ago
We are not in a position were we have not enough people to solve any specific problem. I don't get your logic.
prennert 3y ago
How can emissions be indirectly correlated with the population size on earth?

nataliste 3y ago

I don't understand this space of what I can only term ecological or economic antinatalism. Can you share your thoughts on the following? Do you think unbeing is preferable to a potentially miserable life that would still likely result in them having their own children that didn't experience their own level of suffering? How many generations of potential suffering is required before having children is off the table? How many n+ future generations of having potentially joyful and regenerating lives would offset the former generations of suffering? What level or type of disaster would trigger it? Would you have had kids if you knew that the Black Death was coming or, being a Roman citizen, that the Roman Empire was going to fall? If you were a European in 1920, fully knowing the outcome of WWII, would you intentionally have kids? What if you only had models that these things were coming in a fuzzy way? My father-in-law told me don't have kids. My brother-in-law sees climate change as catastrophic to any progeny, and my best friend views human life itself as an involuntary evil inflicted on children, but I have difficulties understanding their positions on an intuitive level. I get the reasoning on a rational level, but I don't have the gut-sense of it and it hurts my relationship with my family and friends. Like, my position is that I'd like to think that I'd undergo torture for my kids, and that my kids would do so likewise for theirs recursively until the number of generations outnumbered the stars. From what I can see, living-on is the only thing that actually lasts--everything else will fall away, improve, and fall away again, including what we mean by being human itself, but procreation is forever. How can I understand your perspective? Can I understand it? It would help me build stronger bridges if you (or anyone else) could help me intuitively picture it.