5 ms·

The environmental argument against kids insults me (not that you should care). As if it's a binary choice between preserving the environment and preserving our

The environmental argument against kids insults me (not that you should care). As if it's a binary choice between preserving the environment and preserving our species. I like to think that humans of tomorrow will find ways to solve problems we don't yet know how, so that we can save the environment and our species :) That said, here's a fine poem in support of your angle: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-verse https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-ver...

wkat4242 3y ago
It's not as if less people having kids leads to humanity becoming extinct. We're still growing way too fast. Some people will just want them and that's fine. It's just something that was previously seen as a virtue (or for example for Catholics almost a holy priority) is now becoming a hobby. And if not everyone takes up that hobby we can be sustainable for a lot longer. Even a population decline wouldn't be bad after we've been growing so hard as a species. Of course we can't keep growing forever. And hoping the future comes up with a magical answer is exactly how we got into the climate mess we're in right now.
- lm28469 3y ago
  The west is way bellow replacement rate so feel free to have a few kids, it's not going to change much
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    Human population is constantly growing. We can import people. Actually a lot of people are willing to join us, no need to breed fresh ones.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      I don't think you're up to date with current population trends, it's about to peak in the next decades
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        But that's good! Let it peak, drop a bit, and stabilise around 2 billion or so. That would be perfect for long-term sustainability. We've seen the same here in Europe. My parents' generation usually had large families, my generation had mostly 1-2 kids, and these days many families have no kids. Of course poorer countries and countries that are still very religious are a bit behind but they will catch up too. Humanity won't go extinct, there will always be people happy to have children.
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Honest questions: Can we maintain our current tech level with 2 billion people? And if we can't, is that fair to future generations? Aren't we condemning them to a more miserable life? (On the other hand, if 8 billion people leads to destroying the environment, that also leaves them more miserable...)
        wkat4242 3y ago
        Of course we can. Even with a lot less. We can automate the hell out of everything :) In fact there's a big concern that there won't be enough work. Even hypercapitalist countries like the US are thinking about UBI now. Food will be a bigger problem but less people also means less food needed.
        lm28469 3y ago
        > We can automate the hell out of everything :) That's what they told us in the 60s/70s/80s and we're still working as much while our standards are lowering but ok, we'll automagically fix things, we're just waiting for the right time
        seec 3y ago
        Standards are lowering precisely because there are too many people chasing the same ressources... You can't share everything beyond a certain point. The boomerism view of infinite growth is incredibly stupid especially if you start evaluating material requirement for a standard rich boomer lifestyle. The only reason we could have so many people on the planet at once is because almost half of them live in poverty, close to animal standard with some human technology sprinkled in some place... It's just shortsighted to believe that having so many people was sustainable in the first place.
- supersrdjan 3y ago
  Right, I overstated the implication. More people deciding not to have children does not lead to extinction. It's just that when people say things like "not having kids is good for environment" it comes off as a moral prescription that ought to apply to everyone, and hence those who violate it are the bad guys (selfishly acting to harm the environment). And yet if sustainability -- rather than self-extinction -- is the goal, we need a mix of both types of people. Am I wrong to interpret it like that? The ones who insist on having children as an ultimate virtue, I find them to be just as wrong. Either choice is fine, and the moral objections to either one are unreasonable. Edit: edited to expand the last sentence.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    I didn't mean any moral objection, just to explain why I feel extra good about my decision not to have any kids. In fact I really hate moral judgments of people's personal lives, like is being done to the LGBT community in the US at the moment.
    - supersrdjan 3y ago
      I see. Well then, my initial gut reaction was unwarranted, thanks for making me realize it.

wkat4242 3y ago

It's not as if less people having kids leads to humanity becoming extinct. We're still growing way too fast. Some people will just want them and that's fine. It's just something that was previously seen as a virtue (or for example for Catholics almost a holy priority) is now becoming a hobby. And if not everyone takes up that hobby we can be sustainable for a lot longer. Even a population decline wouldn't be bad after we've been growing so hard as a species. Of course we can't keep growing forever. And hoping the future comes up with a magical answer is exactly how we got into the climate mess we're in right now.

lm28469 3y ago
The west is way bellow replacement rate so feel free to have a few kids, it's not going to change much
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Human population is constantly growing. We can import people. Actually a lot of people are willing to join us, no need to breed fresh ones.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    I don't think you're up to date with current population trends, it's about to peak in the next decades
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      But that's good! Let it peak, drop a bit, and stabilise around 2 billion or so. That would be perfect for long-term sustainability. We've seen the same here in Europe. My parents' generation usually had large families, my generation had mostly 1-2 kids, and these days many families have no kids. Of course poorer countries and countries that are still very religious are a bit behind but they will catch up too. Humanity won't go extinct, there will always be people happy to have children.
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Honest questions: Can we maintain our current tech level with 2 billion people? And if we can't, is that fair to future generations? Aren't we condemning them to a more miserable life? (On the other hand, if 8 billion people leads to destroying the environment, that also leaves them more miserable...)
        wkat4242 3y ago
        Of course we can. Even with a lot less. We can automate the hell out of everything :) In fact there's a big concern that there won't be enough work. Even hypercapitalist countries like the US are thinking about UBI now. Food will be a bigger problem but less people also means less food needed.
        lm28469 3y ago
        > We can automate the hell out of everything :) That's what they told us in the 60s/70s/80s and we're still working as much while our standards are lowering but ok, we'll automagically fix things, we're just waiting for the right time
        seec 3y ago
        Standards are lowering precisely because there are too many people chasing the same ressources... You can't share everything beyond a certain point. The boomerism view of infinite growth is incredibly stupid especially if you start evaluating material requirement for a standard rich boomer lifestyle. The only reason we could have so many people on the planet at once is because almost half of them live in poverty, close to animal standard with some human technology sprinkled in some place... It's just shortsighted to believe that having so many people was sustainable in the first place.
supersrdjan 3y ago
Right, I overstated the implication. More people deciding not to have children does not lead to extinction. It's just that when people say things like "not having kids is good for environment" it comes off as a moral prescription that ought to apply to everyone, and hence those who violate it are the bad guys (selfishly acting to harm the environment). And yet if sustainability -- rather than self-extinction -- is the goal, we need a mix of both types of people. Am I wrong to interpret it like that? The ones who insist on having children as an ultimate virtue, I find them to be just as wrong. Either choice is fine, and the moral objections to either one are unreasonable. Edit: edited to expand the last sentence.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I didn't mean any moral objection, just to explain why I feel extra good about my decision not to have any kids. In fact I really hate moral judgments of people's personal lives, like is being done to the LGBT community in the US at the moment.
  - supersrdjan 3y ago
    I see. Well then, my initial gut reaction was unwarranted, thanks for making me realize it.