Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#81

Post by mc32 » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #74

cortesoft wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your argument, but in terms of environmental impact on climate change, those ‘smart, educated, and motivated’ kids will likely have a greater negative impact on climate change than less educated kids. It is the successful people who harm the environment the most. I still don’t believe that we should stop having kids, but let’s not pretend that OUR kids won’t harm the environment.

It's also the educated, motivated kids in the developed world that have the greatest chance of averting or remediating climate change.

Probably the best result would be a soft leveling off rather than abrupt stoppage in reproduction anywhere. Interestingly, some historians claim the Black Plague in Britain/England caused a disruption which later on cascaded in such way to allow the the transition from feudalism to more capital intensive economics (same wealth distributed among fewer heirs).

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#82

Post by astura » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

thisisweirdok wrote: post #40

I thought this was an interesting point from the Gates' annual letter, the specific context is Africa but it's true globally. > As more children survive to adulthood, women are having fewer kids than ever before. The result is a global population that’s creeping slowly toward middle age. So people are _already_ having fewer children. Assuming we want to maintain the human species, _someone_ needs to be having childre…

>If you're unsure? Have children. Someone's bound to survive the apocalypse. Maybe it'll be your genetic material.

Huh? What?

... I don't really understand why I would care if my "genetic material" survives a future apocalypse vs some other rando's "genetic material?" or anyone's "genetic material" for that matter.

This is an especially bizarre reason for having children.

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#83

Post by ergothus » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

Accipitriform wrote: post #62

ergothus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the best thing you can do for the world is to have kids ...yet what is the best thing for the kids? That's a harder thing to know - you can't really compare "not existing" with "living in a world that has a ton of issues". You can debate how bad the issues will be, but that really dodges the inability to make that comparison.

> ...yet what is the best thing for the kids? That's a harder thing to know - you can't really compare "not existing" with "living in a world that has a ton of issues". LOL! I certainly can 'compare "not existing" with "living in a world that has a ton of issues"'. In the "don't exist" case, there is no possibility of anything good happening. In the "exist" case, there is a possibility of something good happening. Ea…

See, this FEELS like a simple choice - but think of the implications of what you're saying.

If existing is flat out always better than not - and I want to note this is NOT about suicide (ending existence) but about creating the existence in the first place) - then you're saying the moral thing is to have as many children as possible. For everyone.

Taken to a hyperbolic extreme, this is clearly ridiculous. But this isn't a strawman argument - the point is not to say "I'm right", but to find what we're really valuing. If we can all agree that drowning the world in babies that live short lives of misery is laughably ridiculous, then where is the serious argument? Finding a happy medium where we should have as many people as we can sustainably?

Is creating distinct human existences REALLY something of inherent value? Are those of us choosing to be childless for whatever reason immoral?

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#84

Post by mindslight » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

Shameless yellow journalism!

The text of the article says the actual quote is "And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?". Which is sympathizing with an audience rather than contemplating decrees. But then it's written up as a strongly polarizing narrative, entirely tangential to the context of the original quote!

I'm not trying to defend Ocasio-Cortez here - in fact, I actually dislike her... but I'm willing to admit that my current opinion has been "informed" entirely by these baseless bullshit headlines! I am obviously not wed to this opinion, and I will have to do my own research some time - the point is that many won't.

It might be interesting if HN completely changed its policy on titles. What if rather than trying to be true to the "original" title (ie optimized to enrage), the goal was to make a passive description of the subject under discussion. Perhaps even one longer-lasting thread per topic. We sit here talking about the sorry state of online discourse, yet even here the clickbaiters get the substance of their bait directly embedded on the front page - and every time it's clicked-through, it validates the strategy.

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#85

Post by rrggrr » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

Former political staffer here to remind HN that this is political attention getting, period, and not intended to be a sincere proposal from AOC.

In politics donations (money) is e v e r y t h i n g and if your policies divert from typical donor interests then you have say things like this to expand and activate your donor base. This kind of signaling occurs across the political spectrum.

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#86

Post by mc32 » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

carno wrote: post #77

mc32 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If not, why have an education system at all?

Exactly? Education happens in school, college, friends, community and, partially, at home. The concept that "my kids" are better than other people kids because they are like me is extremely silly on many levels. They might not share your ideals and even if they do, it promotes a single line of thinking.

Which is why it’s weird so many kids from other countries want to come here for their higher studies, right?

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#87

Post by carno » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #41

I think this misses what the question should be. It's not whether to have children. It's HOW MANY children. FWIW I have two. My wife and I wanted kids. We also did not want to contribute to the population explosion. YMMV.

Thank you, it seems like everyone is interpreting it like humanity should stop existing.

The point is to slow down the population growth, by not having kids, and improve a bit the predicted future for those who do end up having kids.

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#88

Post by deogeo » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

Zizizizz wrote: post #56

CompelTechnic wrote: post #34

Imagine you were somehow able to choose: 1. Either never exist at all, or 2. Exist as a human in the world of 50 years from now To me, the clear choice is #2. If the moral question is whether human life is worth it to continue in the future, it's obviously worth it. If the moral question is whether our own domination of the planet harms too many wildlife animals, and is therefore immoral, that feels like a more reaso…

It's not about whether human life is still worth it, it's about whether we should have fewer children to lighten the cost. There are plenty of people who are vegetarian who feel this way too. It isn't just meat eaters. Having a child is far more impactful than eating meat or driving electric cars. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...

> it's about whether we should have fewer children to lighten the cost.

Most of the West has had sub-replacement-level fertility for several decades, so we already have fewer children.

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#89

Post by gwbas1c » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

> Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

Yes

You might want to think hard about how many kids you want to have, though. We know that we need slightly more than 2 kids per couple to keep current population levels.

I think the best approach to answering this question has to do with how many children your siblings and friends have. If everyone you know is childless; have a large family, guilt-free. If everyone has large families, consider having only child. If everyone you know has 2.5 kids, then consider limiting yourself to 1-3 kids.

By the way, having children is awesome. If you really feel guilty about overpopulation, but want kids, please consider limiting yourself to one, or adoption. Raising children is such a wonderful experience that you shouldn't let something like climate change get in the way. Put the extra money towards building a net neutral home and driving an electric car.

Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?

#90

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

carno wrote: post #77

mc32 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If not, why have an education system at all?

Exactly? Education happens in school, college, friends, community and, partially, at home. The concept that "my kids" are better than other people kids because they are like me is extremely silly on many levels. They might not share your ideals and even if they do, it promotes a single line of thinking.

[deleted]