SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-harness-the-children's-energy dept.
Travis Rieder has defended his assertion that families should consider having less children to lessen the impacts and suffering caused by climate change:
Earlier this summer, I found myself in the middle of a lively debate because of my work on climate change and the ethics of having children. NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden profiled some of my work in procreative ethics with an article entitled, "Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?," which summarized my published views that we ought to consider adopting a "small family ethic" and even pursuing fertility reduction efforts in response to the threat from climate change. Although environmentalists for decades have worried about overpopulation for many good reasons, I suggest the fast-upcoming thresholds in climate change provide uniquely powerful reasons to consider taking real action to slow population growth.
Clearly, this idea struck a nerve: I was overwhelmed by the response in my personal email inbox as well as op-eds in other media outlets and over 70,000 shares on Facebook. I am gratified that so many people took the time to read and reflect on the piece. Having read and digested that discussion, I want to continue it by responding to some of the most vocal criticisms of my own work, which includes research on "population engineering" – the intentional manipulation of human population size and structure – I've done with my colleagues, Jake Earl and Colin Hickey. In short, the varied arguments against my views – that I'm overreacting, that the economy will tank and others – haven't changed my conviction that we need to discuss the ethics of having children in this era of climate change.
Consider reading the article before commenting, or turning off your computer to conserve energy.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:14AM
Most DINKs I know are worse when it comes to impactful spending
In the present, sure. Children, however, usually outlive their parents, and may have children of their own, etc. DINKs stop polluting when they die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @12:52PM
yes -- a dink's damage may be great, but so is nearly everyone elses. Should others have kids, their kids (whether they become dinks or have kids of their own) contribute to the problem.
Making more problems that contribute to the problem seems more damaging than the dink's described impactful spending, and the dinks that I personally know didn't opt to not have children because they wanted to waste money on the latest thing. They didnt want kids. They dont buy disposable diapers and the latest brand name fashions for themselves, either.
Perhaps it does really amount to education and outlook rather than simple stereotypes.