Hacker News Reader

Comment by patatino | Hacker News Reader

I have a 4 month old daughter and looking a the history I‘m pretty glad she is born today and not 50 or 100 years ago.

Yes, the question is in the context of climate change, not other variables.

At first I was afraid, i was petrified, kept thinking I could never live without stable climate by my side But then I spent so many nights thinking how my lifestyle did no wrong, and I grew strong, and I learned how to get along. And so they're back, from outer space -I just walked in to find them here with that nihilistic look upon their face. I should have avoided that foolish thread, I should have made those defeatists leave their key, if I'd known for just one second they'd be back from the eighties to bother me Go on now, go, walk out the door Just turn around now 'Cause you're not welcome anymore Weren't you the one who tried to hedonistically accept the long goodbye Do you think I'd crumble Did you think I'd lay down and die? Oh no, not I, I will survive Oh, as long as I know how to love, I know I'll stay alive I've got all my life to live And I've got all my love to give and I'll survive I will survive, hey, hey

> Yes, the question is in the context of climate change, not other variables.

I don't think you can just separate out climate change from everything else that's going on in the world—and even if you could, the result would be meaningless.

Well, that sentiment entirely misses the point of all of this!

I'm not so sure that it does. I would say the expected cost of climate change to the lives of children born today is still far far less then the expected cost in the past due to disease, war, famine (etc).

So the poster above is noting that if people were, or we would have, been okay with having kids in the past, then we still should today.

The question is phrased ambiguously, but the article makes it clearer that what is meant is:

"Is it still OK _for the planet_ to have kids...", not "Is it still OK _for the kids_ to have kids..."

EDIT: actually, I'm not sure which one of those the representative was getting at.

Thanks for clarifying.

"Is it still OK _for the planet_ to have kids..."

That's a strange question. The planet doesn't have feelings, so it doesn't really care whether or not we have kids.

Other living organisms on the planet may care. But the rock we're on surely doesn't.

>> I would say the expected cost of climate change to the lives of children born today is still far far less then the expected cost in the past due to disease, war, famine (etc).

This is exactly why it misses the point. Having kids is a significant contributor to carbon emissions, and therefore climate change.

More significant than cows? I would rather cut back on meat and dairy consumption than be forbidden from raising children.

I guess it depends if your kid is a vegetarian then :^)

what makes you so sure about that? We are only at the beginning of what could be a plastics apocalypse (among many other issues.) [0]

50 years ago was the golden age to be born in the West imo.

[0]https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero

> 50 years ago was the golden age to be born in the West imo.

I disagree. The western world was more violent, racist, and less tolerant of women/minorities 50 years ago. Average life expectancy was also ~10 years lower. None of these are 'perfect' today, but they are much better overall than they were during your 'golden age'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com