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, @02:01PM
Even "upbringing" isn't immune to evolution, and no I don't mean memes. You are raised by a human with a personality that is largely under the influence of a genome that is subject to evolution. Parents who raise kids in ways that lead to grandkids will have their DNA propagate into future generations.
Aaaaaand this is where you go off the deep end, my friend. Be consciousness and free will an illusion in the end as they may, you seem to be making quite the fatalistic argument. Counterexample: my ex-parents are batshit white supremacists, while I find their views disgusting and have pretty much become a Democrat.
I also know where you're going with this, so let's just nip it in the bud right here. Next you're going to put forward the classical racist theory straight out of the 18th century that mooooooooslims and negroes Just Are™ inferior, because DNA. Probably also some variation on “with Jews you lose,” right? Go ahead and deny that's where you were headed. Both of us know better. And if you don't see why that's problematic, you're too far gone to the alt-right.
The reason I know better is because both of us know there's no point in establishing what's already known. People of African ancestry suffer different problems in different numbers, for example sickle cell anemia and cancer. This is common knowledge. Why would you go to the length to conjure up chows and golden retrievers to demonstrate this? No, that is not all you intend to say.
In your previous comment up there, you belie a superficial understanding of genetics. I had thought this stuff was quite basic information given to every high school student, even in the back assward US of A. But that is the power of the pseudoscience of the alt-right. You know just enough science to come across as empirical and reasonable. You're not being rational; you're rationalizing. Once you cherry pick the evidence you need to support your position, you reject all conflicting information.
That's not science, my friend. That sort of thinking makes you merely as good as a witch doctor in the Congo. Perhaps your ancestors weren't as evolved as you'd like them to be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:32PM
You're complaining that my argument has unpleasant social implications, so therefore it must be wrong. This is not how facts work.
Essentially, this is the liberal version of the creationist argument: evolution would deny God, so therefore it must be wrong. Your argument is every bit as broken.