Hacker News Reader

Comment by charliesharding | Hacker News Reader

One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your children could help to radiate that message outwards and may even become scientists that help to reverse it! Of course there's no guarantee that they'll adopt your views but if you fundamentally believe the world is capable of saving then it's worth a shot :)

View on HN

Yes, though if I were to have kids I would adopt, then, and not create one.

"Could", yes. The overwhelming odds, however, are that they'll grow up to be upper-middle class consumers who don't do anything outstanding other than hoover up huge amounts of resources and make the problem worse.

Unless you're assuming the socioeconomic class of the original poster to be upper-middle class and that that will extend to their offspring, then you are incorrect. Most people are not upper-middle class, so the odds are against any random person being an upper-middle class consumer.

Most people don't comment on HN. It is an assumption, but not an unwarranted one.

There are many non upper-middle class people here so I would say it is an unwarranted assumption.

The likelihood of a child becoming such a climate messiah is astronomically smaller than that of a mere additional exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint.

You're better off trying to impress eco-friendly memes on the offspring of people who insist on breeding no matter what. The notion of having kids to fight climate change is silly at best.

There are obviously many options between "climate messiah" and "exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint". People can create value in multiple dimensions.

Even if you only look through the lens of offspring's ability to impact climate, then having children is essential unless you think changing the climate can be done in a single generation (the current one).

But you having children is not essential. It's a given that the masses are plowing ahead with their insistence on having several children regardless, so a shortage of future generations, scientists, activists, etc. will not be the problem--at least not until the climate becomes the limiting factor!

Until then, the decision for fence-sitters is whether or not to shrink the window. Encouragement toward them should be in the direction of not to.

People should not be making personal reproductive choices based on encouragement. It's no one's place to judge whether or not someone should have children.

And there we have the problem: collectively, we know we'd be better off with a lower birthrate, but it's unthinkable to infringe on individuals' right to reproduce.

Genes that predispose people toward selfless, bigger-picture thinking will snuff themselves out while genes that promote selfishness proliferate.

Low birthrates cause many problems, look at Japan. They have a massive labor shortage and a ballooning elderly population with not enough people to take care of them.

I don't think it's clear at all that a lower birthrate is a good thing.

Japan is a bit of an extreme example. A manageably low(er) global birth rate would be better for the climate, among other things.

Japan isn’t that different from most other first world countries:

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-r...

Japan is indisputably a demographic outlier. It's the oldest country, meaning even without having the absolute lowest birthrate, its population poised to shrink at one of the fastest rates on earth. Combined with its conservative immigration, low birth rate is only part of the picture.

Yes, but encouraging a lower birth rate in first world countries will quickly put them in the same position as Japan currently is in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com