You suggested that
I thought my not having kids was a "noble sacrifice" - pointing out the err of your comment does not equate to "getting out of sorts."
Yes, having kids is one of the worst things you can do for the environment (because they procreate and their kids procreate, and so on). I *am* saying that. You can debate the folks cited in this article (and many others that are similar) if you believe differently:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...ad-earth-morality-suggests-we-stop-ncna820781. This is not a controversial position.
And, no, I'm not an environmentalist. I don't care how many kids you or anyone else has. But that doesn't change the fact that it's bad for the environment.
So, you see, it's all quite simple. Kids are bad for the environment. I don't care how many kids anyone has because I'm not an environmentalist. I don't have kids because I can't be bothered with the responsibility.
My choice happens, by complete accident, to benefit the environment. I find the source of your confusion with all of this somewhat baffling.
Read those two lines bolded together - that's the definition of a
humble brag. If you're going to drop in a mention about how your choice benefits the environment then you may not be saying it explicitly, but you are implying an altruistic motive to your choice. That's all I pointed out.
Citing the example of serial killers in portraying parental love (a strawman argument btw) and mentioning the benefits to the environment of not having children while claiming not to be an environmentalist, further evidences rationalizing a choice and virtue-signalling.
Back to my original point - people can have good (and bad) reasons for having and not having children; there is no inherent moral superiority to one nor is it simply a matter of evolutionary/cultural 'pressure' as you suggested. Individual choice and free will govern our actions, and regardless, we are responsible for the outcomes.
I never suggested to you or anyone that they should be having kids. I was responding to another poster offering my perspective on relative choices that I made which I'm happy with. You were the one that responded in a solipsistic way to the post. I wish you well. Take care!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a complete aside and a response to the issue of environmentalism that you brought up. Sorry for the length. But the topic is not as cut and dry as you made it out to be.
Yes, having kids is one of the worst things you can do for the environment..... This is not a controversial position.
This IS a controversial and contentious issue; there is nothing self-evident logically in this and it can be demonstrated quite easily.
For starters, if one were simply arguing for the sake of argument, why is the existence of such environmentalists themselves exempt when speaking of negative impact? Would an environmentalist consider ending their own life? Better yet, would they consider taking other lives too while at it? (if more people tomorrow is bad for the environment, then the logical opposite, i.e is fewer people today, should be 'good' for the environment right?)
While this is an abhorrent hypothetical and an appropriate response might say "Oh but we're already here. How is not making the problem worse by having kids (prevention) even in the same realm of possibilities as killing oneself?" it does bring up interesting philosophical arguments.
Is the
right to self-preservation of the currently living at a premium over the
right of a future person to exist? In other words do you or I have a greater right to have existed on this planet in the continuum of time simply because we're already here (not by our choice either) over that of another person who could potentially come into this world and their progeny?
Yes, having kids is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.....
In light of that, the statement above now goes from a questionable premise ethically even when applied to one's own self to
simply hegemonic when seen as a directive to others!
To add a further wrinkle, if we ventured into Eugenics, using what you said in the very first post -
What if I had had kids and they turned out to be little sh1ts and the only reason I loved them was this genetic bond? I would find that quite vexing.
Who gets to decide which little sh*ts gets to come into this world before we know they'll turn into little sh*ts (assuming it's all hardwired as you seem to suggest)? Anything other than self-selection, we start getting into territory that is seriously frightening in a dystopian way - controlled populations, preferred genetic traits etc etc
What this shows is that
beyond positing that a smaller human population in theory is better than a larger one when we say "better for the environment", how and where we draw the lines to achieve that are not straightforward or self-evident at all and problematic ethically; I'm assuming self-preservation figures somewhere in there when we talk about sustaining the 'environment' and so is procreation - because it would make no sense to 'save' the environment if say everyone on the planet alive right now decided NOT to procreate. Who would we save the environment for then? Just other species? Why discriminate against **** Sapiens alone? So then subjective and not-so-easy-to-answer questions come up - Do we simply not have kids, have fewer kids.. who should have kids? just the rich/smart/geographically lucky? etc.
To complicate things further,
the environmental impact of humans is not fungible either. There are poor countries that consume very little per capita but have humongous populations thus making a big dent on the environment even as there are rich(er) countries that consume way more per capita. Again, the data shows not all rich countries are the same. North America consumes the lion's share of the Earth's non-renewable energy. Saying people in advanced countries should stop having kids in fact penalizes human life that has a better chance at a good quality of life and thus greater potential to contribute positively to humanity in comparison to another born in a poor country.
So back to the original point you made stated in inverse - that NOT having kids is one of the best things that can be done for the environment -
Perhaps the holistic picture is not simply a matter of reducing populations but of
eliminating waste, building systems for sustainable and equitable consumption, while preserving individual freedoms, the rights of future generations, justice to the poor while also letting the self-directed system of evolution does it's thing?
Lots to ponder. Not an easy or straightforward conclusion by any stretch.
