That’s not unethical. What’s unethical is not fighting climate change in a global model to not let our children deal with it.
It’s just like having a child while having a gambling addiction. Keep gambling and make that child live in poverty? That’s bad. Stop gambling and provide for your child? It’s fine
It’s the only way to fix the issue. Obviously the current and previous generations won’t do it. Our only hope is to teach the next generation better.
Big doubt that will, happen, but worst case scenario the world is still fucked but we all die much quicker (due to continued population increase) and be in Mad Max status for a shorter period of time (thereby avoiding additional, unnecessary suffering).
Best case scenario, some of these crotch goblins somehow care way more than their parents and come up with a way to save humanity from itself.
I’d expect not having children would also solve the problem.
If someone has Stage 4 lung cancer, does stopping smoking solve anything?
Are you comparing Children to Cigarettes?
I don’t understand the analogy you’re putting forward.
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.
No, you’re just piling the responsibility onto someone else. Hell, you’re even creating them just to do that.
We know the problem, we know how to fix it. If we aren’t fixing it, then how can you expect the future generations to do it?
The question was; “Is it ETHICAL to have children in the face of climate change?”
You could re-phrase it and just ask “Is it ok to keep having kids in a dying world?!” I think the straight up answer is “No”.
Why would you knowingly birth a baby just to watch it die a slow horrible death because the earth can’t sustain it?
We were warned about this shit back in the 90’s because it was already measurable back then.
We’ve been warned about climate changes and it’s ramifications, at least, every 10 years up until now.
And now we can actually FEEL the changes. And we’re still not doing jack shit about it.
So ask yourself: Is ok to keep birthing babies into a world not even you care to fix?
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.
Wouldn’t it be better for the environment and create less long term suffering to just eliminate humanity?
That would literally be the point of not having kids. Making the decision to be the final generation. No more humans, no more industry, no more pollution and deforestation. The world would not only start to heal, but heal faster without us in it.
As you say, Greed is the root cause. And who is greedy? We are! That makes us the root cause.
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.
If there was any truth to this, the world would be a utopia at this point. But no, because we are unrepentantly Human. There is only one way this ends, we go away. Willing or not.
Its not a next generation issue anymore. Its happening now ffs
It’s the next generation’s issue as well. Until someone currently alive either invents some amazing solution or the vast majority of living people make remarkable changes, children are still one of best hopes. Abstaining from having children fixes none of our current issues, and ensures that there are no future scientists or advocates.
It’s not a “it’ll be their problem, so who cares” mentality. It’s a “nobody right now has a viable/popular solution, even though they’ve had every chance. So hopefully someone in the future might.” It’s unfortunate for everyone involved, but until people stop being greedy that’s where we’re at.
The future we are looking at is a lot bleaker than “lol in 30 years we’ll sort it out”
That’s my whole point lmao. Stopping having kids will do absolutely nothing for the environment in the next 50-60 years, and without addressing the issue now, we’re fucked either way. Not having kids is only beneficial if we can’t find a solution now. And if we can’t find a solution before then, we’re all going to hell in a hand basket. May as well fulfill the biological imperative before the end of times 🤷♂️
And please tell me literally anywhere I suggested we kick it down the line? Thats a far cry from me saying children are our best hope at a realistic fix, and any fix we come up will need to also be implemented by the following generations.
I’ve heard this argument a lot, and honestly in scares me for a bunch of reasons. It feels like flirting with climate facism, but more than that, it feels like giving up on the world as a whole, and I don’t think that helps.
If you care about climate change, get involved in activism, vote for policies that will make a difference, do whatever you can to make the future a place that isn’t a burden to inhabit.
Well the question was," …is it ethical?" not “should it be mandated?” So I wouldn’t consider this climate fascism. Although you DID say"feels like." I get it. But as a personal choice, I say no. I guess it depends on how long you think this place will last. I think I’ll be fine, but I feel bad for the next generation.
The things you mentioned aren’t going to have an effect. I’ve been doing that for years. Corporations have been destroying the planet for decades and only corporations can solve the problem. Unfortunately, the primary purpose of a corporation is to maximize profit, not treat the world right.
Yeah, should be clear that I don’t think choosing not to have children makes you in any way a climate facist.
I totally hear you on thinking those things won’t have an effect. But I would say this: the only people who benefit from climate change activism being a lost cause, are the people looking to exploit our planet. Will you or me or a big group of us stop climate change in its tracks? Sadly no. But the future isn’t written, and we can still do a lot to mitigate the worst impacts and hold corporations to account.
Honestly, that’s the saddest part. Knowing what great things humans can achieve if we really commit. I believe we could totally lick this thing, or at least mitigate it. Unfortunately, humans operate on crisis management and this time it may be too late after everyone is on board with the idea that it’s a crisis.
Counter-intuitively I think the west should be having more children (to at least replacement rate; ~2.3 per family?) as it incentivises people to care more about the future they’ll be leaving for their children.
We (humanity) as a whole were able to remove lead from our atmosphere, eliminate acid rain and stop eroding our one layer.
While I have felt the doomer’ism at times in the past, as it seems like we are lurching from one disaster to another, things are always darkest before the dawn.
I guess you should do what makes most sense to you.
There is no such moral obligation as to “have children” or “don’t have children”. The choice should be yours.
The moral obligation is to the life you bring into this world. If you believe that society will collapse and they will experience hardship as a result then it may not be ethical to put them in that circumstance against their will.
I have to remind myself to self-censor when I’m talking to people with kids. They are naturally more optimistic about the future than I am. I don’t need to give them more reasons to worry about their children.
Mooood. Just because I’ve given up hope doesn’t mean I should try to take it from others.
“She would be my age in 2047. How much of the Earth would still be habitable then?”
I thought the timeline for large changes in habitability was longer than that? I guess that’s around the time we’ll hit the 1.5C threshold?
I have bad news for you: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68110310
We’re already there.
If by people you mean billionaires, then yes!
I don’t think it’s ethical to have children. I can’t ask their consent to exist and wish I could have been so asked, but if course it’s impossible. I feel that it’s cruel to forcibly inflict existence on someone.
Depends where you live and what future you can give them. If you can’t leave them property in a place that will be liveable in 40 years with a healthy well, probably not.
I mean, is it ever ethical to have children?
