5 ms·

> The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense. We're in a world where we constantly told that we have to give up meat/dairy, powered

> The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense. We're in a world where we constantly told that we have to give up meat/dairy, powered transport, heating/cooling, and a whole lot more to avert climate catastrophe. I'm surprised there's so few mentions of the incredible destructiveness of having kids (e.g. vs. owning an ICE car or taking a few flights per year)

cassianoleal 3y ago
What's the point of averting climate catastrophe? I thought it was to avoid human extinction. Having kids and no cars helps ensure the continuation of humanity. Turns out there's only one sure way to ensure human extinction, and it's for humans to stop reproducing.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Climate change won't cause human extinction. It will cause destruction of the environment, leading to it being able to support even less people than it does now. Because nature can't keep up with the speed we're changing it. But human extinction, no. Some areas will even become more habitable. And humans will only become extinct if everyone stops having kids which won't happen because some people like having them.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    The bottom-end of "human's as a species still exist" is not an existence you are familiar with or want, and is worse then what our hunter-gatherer forebears had to deal with. > Some areas will even become more habitable. Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      > The bottom-end of "human's as a species still exist" is not an existence you are familiar with or want, and is worse then what our hunter-gatherer forebears had to deal with. No, but that's the case even now. The bottom end of humanity is having a horrible time. I'm sure people in North Korea or the war-torn countries in Africa won't be that much worse off than they are now. > Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim. I agree think it will lead to conflict over land, for sure. Siberia might even become a hospitable place :) Mass migrations will cause huge problems for sure and probably even some wars. But again, those things are something we have now too. But it's not an extinction event, especially not for us here in the west. We'll have to deal with a lot of inconveniences but we have the resources to mitigate them. It's not fair but really nothing in the world is fair now (and it seems to be getting even worse with pretty much all the world leaders being hardliners now)
      - XorNot 3y ago
        So to summarize: you have completely undue confidence that this "won't be that bad" for you, despite billion+ death levels. Buddy: you're posting on a forum for tech workers. Not owners. Not billionaires. Not only are we not on anyone's radar as "essential", no one needs that many of us. Might want to rethink your place in the decaying world order if you think an ecosystem collapse needs a lot of programmers.
        wkat4242 3y ago
        I was just saying this would not be an extinction event. Which it won't be. The world order is decaying anyway due to all the hardliner world leaders I mentioned, all intent on conflict. But I don't think this has an awful lot to do with the climate issue. More with overpopulation and countries like China getting richer and wanting to play the geopower game. And yeah it may well be very bad for me but there really isn't anything I can do about it. I stand by my original point that it's not a human extinction-level event though.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  We don't need to stop reproducing entirely, but getting the rate down would surely be beneficial. We're stuck on a finite planet with diminishing natural resources. Endless growth isn't possible.
  - fileeditview 3y ago
    The areas of the world where reproduction rates are highest care the least about this sentiment. For many reasons.. Maybe we should just accept that some things auto regulate. It's the way of nature.
- nlnn 3y ago
  Not in all cases - I know people that don't hold any special place in their hearts for humanity as a whole. They see human extinction as a possibility to accept, rather than as something to necessarily avoid. I know a few people like this, and their reasons vary. These range from "if humanity goes extinct, it's god's will" to "dinosaurs went extinct and the earth survived, something else will evolve if we're not here" to "we've shown we can't be trusted to care for the planet, let nature take its course". In most cases they'd rather avert climate catasrophe, but for the continued habitability of the planet (for many species), rather than for the continuation of humanity.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
No no, having kids does not add to your environmental impact. If it did, then I personally have no environmental impact; it's already all on my parents ;)

cassianoleal 3y ago

What's the point of averting climate catastrophe? I thought it was to avoid human extinction. Having kids and no cars helps ensure the continuation of humanity. Turns out there's only one sure way to ensure human extinction, and it's for humans to stop reproducing.

wkat4242 3y ago
Climate change won't cause human extinction. It will cause destruction of the environment, leading to it being able to support even less people than it does now. Because nature can't keep up with the speed we're changing it. But human extinction, no. Some areas will even become more habitable. And humans will only become extinct if everyone stops having kids which won't happen because some people like having them.
- XorNot 3y ago
  The bottom-end of "human's as a species still exist" is not an existence you are familiar with or want, and is worse then what our hunter-gatherer forebears had to deal with. > Some areas will even become more habitable. Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    > The bottom-end of "human's as a species still exist" is not an existence you are familiar with or want, and is worse then what our hunter-gatherer forebears had to deal with. No, but that's the case even now. The bottom end of humanity is having a horrible time. I'm sure people in North Korea or the war-torn countries in Africa won't be that much worse off than they are now. > Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim. I agree think it will lead to conflict over land, for sure. Siberia might even become a hospitable place :) Mass migrations will cause huge problems for sure and probably even some wars. But again, those things are something we have now too. But it's not an extinction event, especially not for us here in the west. We'll have to deal with a lot of inconveniences but we have the resources to mitigate them. It's not fair but really nothing in the world is fair now (and it seems to be getting even worse with pretty much all the world leaders being hardliners now)
    - XorNot 3y ago
      So to summarize: you have completely undue confidence that this "won't be that bad" for you, despite billion+ death levels. Buddy: you're posting on a forum for tech workers. Not owners. Not billionaires. Not only are we not on anyone's radar as "essential", no one needs that many of us. Might want to rethink your place in the decaying world order if you think an ecosystem collapse needs a lot of programmers.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        I was just saying this would not be an extinction event. Which it won't be. The world order is decaying anyway due to all the hardliner world leaders I mentioned, all intent on conflict. But I don't think this has an awful lot to do with the climate issue. More with overpopulation and countries like China getting richer and wanting to play the geopower game. And yeah it may well be very bad for me but there really isn't anything I can do about it. I stand by my original point that it's not a human extinction-level event though.
bluescrn 3y ago
We don't need to stop reproducing entirely, but getting the rate down would surely be beneficial. We're stuck on a finite planet with diminishing natural resources. Endless growth isn't possible.
- fileeditview 3y ago
  The areas of the world where reproduction rates are highest care the least about this sentiment. For many reasons.. Maybe we should just accept that some things auto regulate. It's the way of nature.
nlnn 3y ago
Not in all cases - I know people that don't hold any special place in their hearts for humanity as a whole. They see human extinction as a possibility to accept, rather than as something to necessarily avoid. I know a few people like this, and their reasons vary. These range from "if humanity goes extinct, it's god's will" to "dinosaurs went extinct and the earth survived, something else will evolve if we're not here" to "we've shown we can't be trusted to care for the planet, let nature take its course". In most cases they'd rather avert climate catasrophe, but for the continued habitability of the planet (for many species), rather than for the continuation of humanity.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

No no, having kids does not add to your environmental impact. If it did, then I personally have no environmental impact; it's already all on my parents ;)