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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:51AM
That's brilliant! Except for it plays into the Idiocracy Theorem where those that care the most about what type of world they are living for the kids probably won't have them. Guess what that does to total consumption for those that do (disclaimer- I work with people who average 4 kids between them)?
If you aren't going to have the kids, someone else will. The total number of single mothers continues to rise in a fashion proponents of climate change should easily recognize.
You aren't going to hand-wave this away with more education and appeals to reduce consumption.
No snowflake ever feels responsible for the avalanche.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:40AM
Idiocracy is not a theorem, it's a movie. Hollywood. Fiction. Not real.
That's completely unrelated. A single mother with two kids does not contribute more to the numbers of future humans than a married mother with two kids.
If I am going to have kids, that other person will, as well. It's not as if that person would first check out whether I have kids, and only decide to get some if I don't.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @12:48PM
Idiocracy may only be a film, but it is a fine example of life imitating art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:04PM
[[Citation needed]]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:02PM
Idiocracy is an idea expressed through a movie. If there is a discussion about limiting the number of children, who should breed, and "population engineering"; you do understand how it applies, right? Or do you need a venn diagram to explain it?
That's completely unrelated
How droll! You do realize that single motherhood tends to be self-perpetuating, right; which means more kids in total? Otherwise the totals would remain relatively stable.
Not to mention kids from single mothers tend to experience lower rates of education and higher rates of poverty, so if someone is discussing education and increasing affluence as a means to reduce population, single motherhood is front and center.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:06PM
The thing about Idiocracy is that it claims that the society of retards is the result of natural selection and genetics. So it's wrong in a pedantic way. I still think it's ultimately correct because culture can change that rapidly, and it's culture that gets passed down. Culture can also spread. We are on the verge of embracing anti-intellectualism on a dangerous scale. Instead of Idiocracy, it's entirely possible that the West is headed for another dark age.
A single mother with two kids does not contribute more to the numbers of future humans than a married mother with two kids.
You are correct. Some single mothers make a mistake with a guy, even involving marriage some times. I don't press for details because it's none of my business, but just what I hear. Those tend to be happy with just the one kid since they realize that's more than enough for one person to handle.
However, what you underestimate is career mothers. We have a perverse welfare system that will take care of you 100% as long as there's a baby under some cutoff age in your home. So, what's a career mother to do? Can't stop the tykes from growing up. The answer is to keep popping out babies about once every 2 years to keep the benefits coming.
In the latter case, mothers actually teach their daughters how to become career mothers and many actually expect that the daughter will follow in their footsteps. It's quite horrible, but I don't know how to help it without suggesting eugenics. It wouldn't even need to be race-based eugenics (not directly). Just require an income of 70,000 for each child license. You make 140,000? You get two children. Maybe there would need to be some kind of escrow requirement, too. That will never fly.