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.
We should actually encourage castration for the climate doomers as a way to get rid of them from our society.
I'm from Bangladesh and most people aren't that worried about climate change. The government talks about it a lot in international forums so she can get more handouts from the West and that's it. The pundit class talks about it as well to feed the national victim complex.
This argument exposes the faulty system we are working with- while I have a child born a week before Trump was elected president if I had had ANY inkling that that could have happened and we would be in our present condition with the reemergence of social conservatism on top of everything I certainly would not have decided to have a child. The awfulness that she will see and possibly even experience in this life is a guilt I bear every moment. The flaw is that we call it “the gift of life” but gifts are given with no expectation. Here you state that our system is dependent on new life for production and you are even hanging the expectation of innovation on the unborn. Truly hateful. And the world bank quote that you mock is accurate- it is foolish to care more for economics that the environment because economics are a completely made up social construct.
The only thing that makes me sad for your daughter is that you’ll be feeding her such a defeatist and pessimistic vision of the world, one that lacks any sense of perspective or gratitude. Your guilt is misplaced, I’d bet your daughter will be glad she exists when she’s old enough to consider such questions and will appreciate that you put so much effort into raising her. What’s your argument for why I shouldn’t expect that future people will be productive? This has been empirically true so far so not really sure why I wouldn’t assume that if making projections… I’m also struggling to parse in what sense it is “hateful” to “hanging the expectation of innovation on the unborn”. If future people are out then who am I supposed to pin the hopes of the future of humanity on? As for the quote - I criticized the fact that they completely misunderstood and misstated the result of a paper that they referenced in a major publication - that is clearly deserving of criticism!
I don’t feed my daughter any vision of the future- pessimistic or otherwise. We agree I think that we are acting in aid of a future- and if the future someone envisions working toward is one of challenge, effort and risk, and said person finds these things thrilling or invigorating then the future and present probably look reasonably bright. If, as I have, a person was laboring in aid of a future of worldwide and universal comfort, luxury and pleasure- then it looks pretty bad. The problem of the expectation that future people’s will be productive and rise to challenges is that for a lot of people being productive and rising to challenges is unpleasant. It is painful. It can be damaging- maybe not everyone survives the challenge, maybe there is failure and waste of precious resources. No matter what strides we make in climate change my daughter will probably see the extinction of notable species in her lifetime- that concept is devastating to me- how strong and enduring are we requiring people to be?
Of course working toward a future of luxury, comfort and leisure is an attempt to escape (I’d say more like overthrow) natural, persistent “truths” of existence- is that not the entire point of human society and progress? And how much “challenge” are we requiring the average modern human endure? Whatever arises? Is that all we have to show for our modern civilization?
From what I have seen, that war has already been lost. If you want to see some interesting leftish racism, check out any of the "Coming Democratic Majority" books put out a decade ago or so. They all have this racially deterministic tone that is deeply disturbing, and I bet you a dozen donuts everyone of those writers defines him/herself as an "anti-racist," which from my observation of behaviors means something along the lines of "Guilty white person who is unaware of how racist (s)he is."
Thanks for this. Well done. Depopulation is a big problem. My concern is that we may turn to the state for policy remedies when the solution will be found in Free-enterprise. New babies will be more productive when free to produce. And if it is required, free people will find ways to thrive under difficult circumstances.
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.
The best way to improve upon the impact of marginal babies is to by only giving birth to exceptional babies.
We should actually encourage castration for the climate doomers as a way to get rid of them from our society.
I'm from Bangladesh and most people aren't that worried about climate change. The government talks about it a lot in international forums so she can get more handouts from the West and that's it. The pundit class talks about it as well to feed the national victim complex.
This argument exposes the faulty system we are working with- while I have a child born a week before Trump was elected president if I had had ANY inkling that that could have happened and we would be in our present condition with the reemergence of social conservatism on top of everything I certainly would not have decided to have a child. The awfulness that she will see and possibly even experience in this life is a guilt I bear every moment. The flaw is that we call it “the gift of life” but gifts are given with no expectation. Here you state that our system is dependent on new life for production and you are even hanging the expectation of innovation on the unborn. Truly hateful. And the world bank quote that you mock is accurate- it is foolish to care more for economics that the environment because economics are a completely made up social construct.
The only thing that makes me sad for your daughter is that you’ll be feeding her such a defeatist and pessimistic vision of the world, one that lacks any sense of perspective or gratitude. Your guilt is misplaced, I’d bet your daughter will be glad she exists when she’s old enough to consider such questions and will appreciate that you put so much effort into raising her. What’s your argument for why I shouldn’t expect that future people will be productive? This has been empirically true so far so not really sure why I wouldn’t assume that if making projections… I’m also struggling to parse in what sense it is “hateful” to “hanging the expectation of innovation on the unborn”. If future people are out then who am I supposed to pin the hopes of the future of humanity on? As for the quote - I criticized the fact that they completely misunderstood and misstated the result of a paper that they referenced in a major publication - that is clearly deserving of criticism!
I don’t feed my daughter any vision of the future- pessimistic or otherwise. We agree I think that we are acting in aid of a future- and if the future someone envisions working toward is one of challenge, effort and risk, and said person finds these things thrilling or invigorating then the future and present probably look reasonably bright. If, as I have, a person was laboring in aid of a future of worldwide and universal comfort, luxury and pleasure- then it looks pretty bad. The problem of the expectation that future people’s will be productive and rise to challenges is that for a lot of people being productive and rising to challenges is unpleasant. It is painful. It can be damaging- maybe not everyone survives the challenge, maybe there is failure and waste of precious resources. No matter what strides we make in climate change my daughter will probably see the extinction of notable species in her lifetime- that concept is devastating to me- how strong and enduring are we requiring people to be?
Of course working toward a future of luxury, comfort and leisure is an attempt to escape (I’d say more like overthrow) natural, persistent “truths” of existence- is that not the entire point of human society and progress? And how much “challenge” are we requiring the average modern human endure? Whatever arises? Is that all we have to show for our modern civilization?
If you yourself are smart, then be happy that you have contributed at least a little bit to the production of smart people for future generations.
Honestly, I’d advise you to have another child so that liberals can win the demographic war against conservatives.
From what I have seen, that war has already been lost. If you want to see some interesting leftish racism, check out any of the "Coming Democratic Majority" books put out a decade ago or so. They all have this racially deterministic tone that is deeply disturbing, and I bet you a dozen donuts everyone of those writers defines him/herself as an "anti-racist," which from my observation of behaviors means something along the lines of "Guilty white person who is unaware of how racist (s)he is."
Thanks for this. Well done. Depopulation is a big problem. My concern is that we may turn to the state for policy remedies when the solution will be found in Free-enterprise. New babies will be more productive when free to produce. And if it is required, free people will find ways to thrive under difficult circumstances.