I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “too little, too late.”
At the rate we are currently destroying the environment, having kids or not having kids is a moot point. The damage doers are already alive, and based on what I see they are not taking any drastic action to resolve the issue.
Having more kids is simply another nail in the coffin. Take the kids away, and there are still way more nails in the coffin that are sustainable. Does population impact the earth? Yes. But population is a secondary driver and only a problem if we don’t fix the root issues of greed being the main driver of environmental destruction.
No longer having children will do jack shit to help us out of the hole we’ve dug. But there is a chance having children could produce someone who inspires the next generation, or comes up with a more viable solution to our existing problem.
Ah, so you think that somehow not having children will fix anything? We don’t have 50-60 years for the population rate to finally begin to decline to hopefully make a dent in a problem we needed fixed 1000 years ago.
Any suggested benefit of not having children speaks suggests children are the problem. They are not. Greed is 100% the problem, and will proliferate for those 50-60 years before abstaining from children would have an impact. Abstaining treats a symptom of the problem: “We live unsustainably, so overpopulation is a problem to the environment.” Whereas if we treat the root cause of the problem, greed, and make the sustainability changes needed, overpopulation becomes not so much of an issue.
It’s not “their job” to fix what we fuck up. But if we don’t fix our shit, it becomes their job whether they want it or not. We will NEED generations of people to apply the needed long term processes of trying to course correct and generations of scientific discovery so we can be smarter and always be seeking better solutions.
The impact of not having a child won’t be seen for decades, and any good not having a child solely for the sake of the environment may have is dwarfed by to good a child raised to care about then environment can do. We should absolutely be taking care of it now, and that’s why abstention of pro-creation shouldn’t be a viable solution. Of course it’s a personal choice, so do what you’re compelled, but the net good of someone who cares is way beyond the net bad of them existing.
To your last point: If we working under the idea that we’re already past the tipping point, have kids or not doesn’t even matter. It’s a slippery slope: wecontinue to exist and put ourselves through such an inevitable outcome?! Wouldn’t it be better for the environment and create less long term suffering to just eliminate humanity? I don’t subscribe to this way of thinking.
deleted by creator
If someone has Stage 4 lung cancer, does stopping smoking solve anything?
deleted by creator
I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “too little, too late.”
At the rate we are currently destroying the environment, having kids or not having kids is a moot point. The damage doers are already alive, and based on what I see they are not taking any drastic action to resolve the issue.
Having more kids is simply another nail in the coffin. Take the kids away, and there are still way more nails in the coffin that are sustainable. Does population impact the earth? Yes. But population is a secondary driver and only a problem if we don’t fix the root issues of greed being the main driver of environmental destruction.
No longer having children will do jack shit to help us out of the hole we’ve dug. But there is a chance having children could produce someone who inspires the next generation, or comes up with a more viable solution to our existing problem.
deleted by creator
Ah, so you think that somehow not having children will fix anything? We don’t have 50-60 years for the population rate to finally begin to decline to hopefully make a dent in a problem we needed fixed 1000 years ago.
Any suggested benefit of not having children speaks suggests children are the problem. They are not. Greed is 100% the problem, and will proliferate for those 50-60 years before abstaining from children would have an impact. Abstaining treats a symptom of the problem: “We live unsustainably, so overpopulation is a problem to the environment.” Whereas if we treat the root cause of the problem, greed, and make the sustainability changes needed, overpopulation becomes not so much of an issue.
It’s not “their job” to fix what we fuck up. But if we don’t fix our shit, it becomes their job whether they want it or not. We will NEED generations of people to apply the needed long term processes of trying to course correct and generations of scientific discovery so we can be smarter and always be seeking better solutions.
The impact of not having a child won’t be seen for decades, and any good not having a child solely for the sake of the environment may have is dwarfed by to good a child raised to care about then environment can do. We should absolutely be taking care of it now, and that’s why abstention of pro-creation shouldn’t be a viable solution. Of course it’s a personal choice, so do what you’re compelled, but the net good of someone who cares is way beyond the net bad of them existing.
To your last point: If we working under the idea that we’re already past the tipping point, have kids or not doesn’t even matter. It’s a slippery slope: wecontinue to exist and put ourselves through such an inevitable outcome?! Wouldn’t it be better for the environment and create less long term suffering to just eliminate humanity? I don’t subscribe to this way of thinking.
deleted by creator