Discussion about this post

User's avatar
gregvp's avatar

The way that I tell whether someone is serious about their concern for climate change or is just using it as a rationalisation slash excuse, is to ask them if they have been on a plane in the last ten years, other than for life-saving reasons.

Nobody so far. Nobody cares enough to impose a material cost¹ on themselves. And that is what the real reason is: children are a cost, and unlike professing concern for climate change, they carry no compensating social status. You have rebutted a smokescreen. Selfish hypocrisy is the spirit of the age.

We already live in a gerontocracy. Do we want to dial it up to eleven, and watch as cities crumble around us? If not, we need to figure out a way to change society so that raising children carries a great deal of social prestige. All the practical difficulties will melt away if the prestige is great enough.

That's about the only way I can think of to improve matters,² given the zeitgeist. I have no idea how to go about it, but then I'm an INTP, barely a human at all. Maybe real humans will do better.

1. They are called "values" because holding to them can impose a material (significant) cost. Words are just words unless you are prepared to pay the cost. Carbon offset payments and the like are just modern indulgences: their cost is insignificant for most people using them, and they are lies that everyone concerned agrees to believe.

2. I have a long rejoinder to Mason Robin going into the several reasons why sub-replacement fertility in advanced countries is a bad thing, but the comments section on your essay is not the place for it. And as an INTP, I don't have the energy right now.

Expand full comment
Jonathan M. Weiss's avatar

The best way to improve upon the impact of marginal babies is to by only giving birth to exceptional babies.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts