• @null_radixOP
    link
    13 years ago

    yep many great reason not to! But the point here is that climite change is probably not one of them

    If you think privileged modern Americans shouldn’t have children now because of quality-of-life issues, you implicitly believe that nobody in the Third World, or nobody before 1900, should ever have had children. This isn’t necessarily wrong. There’s a group of philosophers called “antinatalists” who believe nobody should ever have kids because life is suffering. These people are at least consistent. If you’re not one of them, I think the quality-of-life argument for not having kids now is pretty weak.

    • xenith
      link
      2
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      The difference between deciding whether to have children in a past less-than-ideal situation and now while considering climate collapse is hope.

      People believed that things could change and get better, and that their own child could help shape a better world.

      People who are currently choosing not to have children due to climate collapse don’t see a future where anything but extreme suffering and death is possible. They don’t agree with the author’s assessment that it’ll be bad for people growing their own food but we’ll maybe be OK, and personally I don’t either. We’re here because the rich and powerful decided that short term gains for the few matter more than basic humans needs for all, and that governing notion is only accelerating. No one is going to help or save us.

      Sure it might not be an extinction level event, but I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to create life that has to experience a “might not be an extinction level event.”