21 points

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

permalink
report
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

I’d expect not having children would also solve the problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If someone has Stage 4 lung cancer, does stopping smoking solve anything?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Are you comparing Children to Cigarettes?

I don’t understand the analogy you’re putting forward.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Its not a next generation issue anymore. Its happening now ffs

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The future we are looking at is a lot bleaker than “lol in 30 years we’ll sort it out”

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

collapse of the old society

!collapse@slrpnk.net

Create post

to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying

Community stats

  • 863

    Monthly active users

  • 424

    Posts

  • 1.5K

    Comments