• Albbi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Not having children is obviously not a societal change that everybody can do, otherwise humanity would fail. I’m not saying everybody should be having 10 children, but there’s nothing wrong with having a couple.

    The point I’ve been trying to make is that I’m worried that people who see that not having children is the easiest thing you can do to lower your carbon footprint will not care about doing anything else to help save the planet. You’ve done your part, so why not drive that gas guzzler for a little longer. Probably not gonna hurt you too much. I think more people will think this way than people who responsibly have children and have a physical reminder of why they’re trying to care about the future.

    And thanks for labelling me in an out group. Be careful, you’re probably very suseptible to extremism.

    • GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      You’re accusing others of extremism in the same breath as you make one of the silliest slippery slope arguments I’ve come across. You think those who choose not to have children due to climate concerns are sitting back, over consuming resources, and thinking they’ve done enough? That’s not an extreme assumption?

      Be careful, you’re treading awfully close to hypocrisy.

      • Albbi@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The very slippery slope of content people will remain content? Have you never heard of Panem et Circenses? The Roman proverb of Breads and Circuses that entertainment and material comforts will keep the population content?

        Having children is tough. You will live an easier life if you don’t have children. That’s not an extreme assumption. And if you’ve got yours, and you’ve got nobody to fight for since you’ll be dead in a few years anyway (as everybody seems to believe since society will collapse with climate change as indicated in the linked article) why are you going to give a fuck and give up your comfort to save the future? So yes, I think that people who choose not to have children will sit back thinking they’ve done their part, and the really dangerous part of that is that change needs momentum and being stationary is going to sap the momentum needed for change.

        • GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I sincerely feel sad for you that the concepts of a broad sense of empathy and deep connections with others who don’t share half your DNA seem like such difficult mental exercises, and that you assume those who choose not to act against their values are somehow less moral or caring about society. I don’t know who failed you, but it was certainly someone important.

          • Albbi@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            with others who don’t share half your DNA

            Ok, this shows that you have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about my family or descendents at all. I’m talking about people’s motivations in general. I like the phrase “Individual behaviours are impossible to predict. Groups behaviours are easier to predict”.

            I general, I believe that people with children will as a group fight harder for the future, and that the childfree movement while good intentioned may be harmful to generating societal will to enact the change necessary to combat climate change in time.

            I’m glad you think most people care about society because when I look around and see that climate change hasn’t even been a top issue in the US election, and that a candidate who obviously has no clue about anything is a coin flip away from winning…well I don’t see the world with your toxic positivity.