Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...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 is…
Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
101–110 of 138 posts
Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
#102I’ve always believed that if you’re a smart, educated, motivated person (if your reading this than I’m assuming you are one) that probably the best thing you can do for the world is to have kids. Those kids will likely contribute to the world in all sorts of ways that we can’t imagine.
You could always adopt kids and give them the benefit of your intelligence, education, and motivation.
Would advise that only if government guarantees no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_spectrum_disorde...
Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
#103I’ve always believed that if you’re a smart, educated, motivated person (if your reading this than I’m assuming you are one) that probably the best thing you can do for the world is to have kids. Those kids will likely contribute to the world in all sorts of ways that we can’t imagine.
Children is the worst thing you can do for the climate and for the planet in general. Utopian hope that future generations will magically save the world is naive and plainly misleading. Reproduction is , considering that we are actively altering/murdering natural selection process among humans, there’s no way "more humans" is a solution.
Some optimists have theorized that population growth will stabilize at 9B, but in no way that can be true. Gene is selfish, after all.
Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
#104My ancestors thought it was okay to have kids during times in which many scholars where certain the apocalypse was due in the next 25 years, during periods in which the plague killed more than half of the population, during the 30 years war and in a time when there was a realistic chance of nuclear annihilation in the next 10 years. I am glad they did.
Did any of those groups they have a scientific basis for believing that having kids would speed up the advent of the apocalypse or worsen its effects? Let's not draw false parallels.
So: yes. Many times. In fact it would be accurate to say that a portion of the population has believed this, now for hundreds of years.
Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could always adopt kids and give them the benefit of your intelligence, education, and motivation.
The "adopt" kids usually are the kids of alcoholic parents, who gave them a subtle but unrepairable "drink" too much. You will not be informed about that by government- and you will go through hell trying to repair what alcohol made unrepairable. Would advise that only if government guarantees no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_spectrum_disorde...
Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not so sure that it does. I would say the expected cost of climate change to the lives of children born today is still far far less then the expected cost in the past due to disease, war, famine (etc). So the poster above is noting that if people were, or we would have, been okay with having kids in the past, then we still should today.
The question is phrased ambiguously, but the article makes it clearer that what is meant is: "Is it still OK _for the planet_ to have kids...", not "Is it still OK _for the kids_ to have kids..." EDIT: actually, I'm not sure which one of those the representative was getting at.
That's a strange question. The planet doesn't have feelings, so it doesn't really care whether or not we have kids.
Other living organisms on the planet may care. But the rock we're on surely doesn't.
Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
#107I have a 4 month old daughter and looking a the history I‘m pretty glad she is born today and not 50 or 100 years ago.
Yes, the question is in the context of climate change, not other variables.
Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
#108It is an important speculative question, but also misses the fact right now that worldwide fertility is crashing[1]. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46118103
Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
#109Yes, let's die out! Let's not even let any kid get born that may invent the key to nuclear fusion. Sure, let's just choose some non-sentient animals and plants over ourselves killing any chance of betterment right here and now. Let's not even try to spread out over the stars, let's make sure that any life on our current planet dies as soon as this planet dies instead of taking it with us across the barren ocean that…
Re: Is it still ok to have kids in face of climate change?
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why it’s weird so many kids from other countries want to come here for their higher studies, right?
Not sure I get your point. I don't think it's weird at all. Because: - That happens to every country - One in three top US professors educated overseas https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/one-in-three-top-u... - Most of their classmates will be foreign students too https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/10/11/foreign...
Both your sources are for the US only. How did you get to 'every country'?