Hacker News Reader

Comment by justplay | Hacker News Reader

huh? No children because you want to save environment, sorry to be cynical.

As I stated, I made a decision to not have kids for other reasons, not because I want to save the environment. But the decision to not have kids will have more of a positive net effect towards saving the environment than any other lifestyle changes I can make right now.

If you're mathematically oriented, you could look at it this way: Global population is one of four terms in the [Kaya identity][0]. A lower population equals less emissions, especially in countries with high GDP and energy intensity. It seems logical enough to me that choosing not to have children is an indirect but sane way to limit one's emissions.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity

I have also made the same decision. What do you want to know?

that's not cynical. this is cynical: http://www.vhemt.org/

I also have made the same decision for the same reasons. There are too many of us.

please enlighten me!

less humans means less human impact on the planet

I guess the reasoning is because humans are the worst thing that have ever happened to the environment, therefore by producing less humans, we produce less environmental damage.

Now I'm neither of the parents (comment parents) here, but I'm myself torn on the issue.

On one hand, having children will contribute to the overall higher consumption, meaning the environment eventually will suffer from the increase in population.

On the other hand, having children and raising them as good as you can, can offset the impact (or even have a better impact on climate change as a whole, even though the increase of consumption) other people have on the environment, if you "train" your child(s) to care for the environment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com