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
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 mean, is it ever ethical to have children?
