Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamrezich | Hacker News Reader

recommendations for others to not procreate will never sit well with me. I understand that not everyone wants to have kids, but for people like me, whose life goals amount to little more than "attain financial stability to the point where I can start a family and continue to provide for it," the idea that I should be discouraged from doing so comes across as basically offensive, in a way that I believe most people suggesting as much do not fully understand.

View on HN

Having children is then worst you can do for the environment.

Side note: being able to control basic, primitive instincts like reproduction is what distinguishes us from animals. Career and goal oriented individuals who opted out from having children are the ones driving progress, are the ones who you need to thank for your pleasures and leisures in modernity.

Investing decades of your live into driving society upwards (as opposite to catering to your offspring, which, statistically speaking, has a very high chance of becoming a consuming one, one that habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return) is not for everyone, of course, but those who decided to reproduce should have an awareness of what they are doing a who for.

Most of the parent's list comes across as "don't live your life, basically", which is not going to convince a majority of people. It could have read as a recommendation to reduce your environmental footprint. "Eat less meat, fly less often, drive an electric car if you can afford to, or bike when you can", etc. But everyone isn't going to just give up all that and go live in a small apartment in the big city.

> But everyone isn't going to just give up all that and go live in a small apartment in the big city.

Some people are going to have to make decisions like the ones I've laid out (it's how I chose to live my life, but not for environmental reasons).

If not, that's fine too, but then enjoy the next 50ish years before things get real bad.

The reality is that people are still going to do those things on a global scale regardless of what some people do. Solutions have to take human behavior on a that scale into account. 50 years of thinking about the problem while technology improves and society adapts is reason for hope. Maybe in that time a lot more people will adopt a standard of living you suggest as part of that adaptation (with cities adapted to suit that lifestyle), while renewable energy completely replaces fossil fuels, and things like carbon capture become a reality, along with tree planting initiatives and other ideas being tossed around know to mitigate climate change.

As I said in my original post:

> Whether you choose to do them or rationalize a way to not do them doesn't matter that much

My point is that there is no meaningful solution. I present the best individual actions the average HN reader can take. Either do them or don’t.

The world 50-75 years from now is going to be unimaginably ugly for a huge number of people who just don’t think it can happen to them (or their kids/grandkids). This is regardless of whether I get on a plane again (I won’t) or whether we start planting trees.

Besides which we end up in The Marching Morons situation. All the smart, caring people stop having kids while the conspiracy theorists proliferate. What kind of future does that create for us? None that we'd want to live in.

Like I said, there's always plenty of great ways to rationalize not taking action. But that doesn't change the outcome which is a world that's going to be a lot less fun for nearly all the kids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com