• 420clownpeen [they/them,any]
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    You can do all of these and still recognize that the situation is dire enough that any potential new source of emission (and in developed countries, a newly born person will emit quite a lot during his life) is not a great idea

    Again, this is nothing more than consumer choice. I choose not to have children. I choose to buy a hybrid. Maybe if enough people make this choice, it would solve the problem! Inadequate and ineffective. I do not criticize your choice, but I do criticize your reasoning.

    Moreover, I’m not convinced the planet can support so many people without ongoing ecological damage.

    Maybe. Hard to really assess when capitalist societies have done almost nothing but make the problems worse for their entire existence.

    A more valid reason to me these days, though, is the fact that putting a kid in the world right now means they’ll likely suffer immensely and won’t live past 30 due to the impending ecological catastrophe.

    But if they never exist, then who is being saved from suffering? And presupposing that this child-who-never-was still has some sort of moral weight, how can you be sure you possibly know what the sum total of their life-that-never-was would be? I'm growing more and more sure that people who make this argument just feel bad saying that they're saving themselves trouble. Which, y'know, I get it. It makes you sound like a dick to put it that way, but it's much more morally consistent and probably correct. Kids are a liability in the best of times.

    • TheCaconym [any]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      Maybe if enough people make this choice, it would solve the problem

      I haven't said that, of course the problem is systemic.

      I’m growing more and more sure that people who make this argument just feel bad saying that they’re saving themselves trouble. Which, y’know, I get it. It makes you sound like a dick

      I'm absolutely not trying to defend my choice to not have kids under a guise of environmental protection or preventing suffering, if that's what you're saying. Personnally I don't want kid because I've never seen the point, even if I had some I'm convinced I wouldn't have the free time to raise him properly, and finally I don't want to decrease the aforementioned - and already limited - free time I have for something that seems pointless to me. I also don't think it makes me sound like a dick, to each his own. But I still believe there's still good reasons even for people that want them to not have them today.

      how can you be sure you possibly know what the sum total of their life-that-never-was would be

      I can't. One can make a reasonable guess, though. Modern civilization as we know it is on its last legs, and what's coming won't be pretty.

      • 420clownpeen [they/them,any]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        I haven’t said that, of course the problem is systemic.

        Then don't bother with the ecological pretense. That's all I'm really saying.

        I’m absolutely not trying to defend my choice to not have kids under a guise of environmental protection or preventing suffering, if that’s what you’re saying. Personnally I don’t want kid because I’ve never seen the point, even if I had some I’m convinced I wouldn’t have the free time to raise him properly, and finally I don’t want to decrease the aforementioned - and already limited - free time I have for something that seems pointless to me. I also don’t think it makes me sound like a dick, to each his own. But I still believe there’s still good reasons even for people that want them to not have them today.

        Okay, so you just don't want to have kids because you don't want to have kids. That's fine. And for the record, I should have put more emphasis on "sound like a dick". I think it's perfectly okay to look at the future and reason that having children will make it harder to survive, fight, and harder to protect the people you already care about right now. That argument does not require any big leaps of logic or even really a commitment to a particular philosophical notion of "good" and "suffering".

        I can’t. One can make a reasonable guess, though. Modern civilization as we know it is on its last legs, and what’s coming won’t be pretty.

        Okay. Some people will still have kids though and some of them will be lucky--eh y'know what if I keep this up I'll wind up arguing myself full circle into a moral responsibility to have kids, which is not what I believe.

        • TheCaconym [any]
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 years ago

          Then don’t bother with the ecological pretense. That’s all I’m really saying.

          Again, there is a valid ecological reason: maintaining a population of billions of people is potentially impossible no matter the system they exist under, not without long term environmental damage and resources exhaustion. I think it is now likely impossible given the damage that's already been done (and I'm not talking about climate change here, more like ecosystems destruction). It's not a pretense.

          Okay, so you just don’t want to have kids because you don’t want to have kids.

          Yes, and I still think there are potentially valid reasons to want to avoid promotion of natalism / to promote antinatalism under a leftist lense. That's all I'm saying.

    • GravenImage [none/use name]
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 years ago

      if they never exist, then who is being saved from suffering?

      All of the potential combinations of sperm and egg