Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:12AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:35PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:35PM (#401379) Journal

    He's right, however, that we need to change our economy so that it doesn't need continuous growth.

    The thing is, our economy doesn't need continuous growth now. The basic function of the economy, making sure people have the stuff they need, works pretty well whether or not there is continuous growth of some sort. But it'll need to grow in some ways, if we want to improve ourselves, our lives, and fulfill any number of ambitions many of us have.