Animals, plants and other beautiful things. Saving it for life in general does not sound too bad? If it goes between leaving a dead rock in space, or keeping this lively rock around albeit without humans, that does not sound too bad. You can turn your question upside-down. Why should there be humans around to enjoy it in order for it to be a thing to strive for?

Earth's gonna get hit by another big meteorite at some point. When we get to that point, any species that hasn't been lifted off the planet by humans (or whatever equivalent is around at that point) are gonna be wiped out regardless. We're the best hope for a continued existence in the long run, for all life.

And if the argument is that animals are happier without humans around, you should watch some nature documentaries. Nature is brutal.

Even without meteorite: 1 billion years from now the Sun will output enough energy to make it a lot less enjoyable.

5 billions years from now the Earth is no more.

So long term if you want Earth based life to endure you need it to start getting the fuck out and spread. At the moment it seems the best positioned for this are humans.

> Why should there be humans around to enjoy it in order for it to be a thing to strive for?

Advanced consciousness may be the key thing the universe has going for it.

For the people who don't give 2 shits.

I realize that sounds like a meme, but it's kinda true, isn't it?

Might be better to have kids so you can rease them as super-heroes that fight the planet-killers?

This is a very un-ycombinator feeling thread.

> Might be better to have kids so you can rease them as super-heroes that fight the planet-killers?

Please don't. While I understand that you might think that it is unfair to those people who decide not to have kids, they made the decision.

What you're suggesting is arguably worse. I certainly wouldn't want to be raised with onus of having to clean up the planet after the wild party of my parents.

I'm not suggesting it's the right thing to do. I don't decide on what's wrong or right. I'll let people that do on their own.

We are not our children. Though they might carry our genes, our ideas, and our appearance, we will absolutely still be dead one day.

Other peoples children are almost genetically identical to us, and to ours. Depending on how you live your life, people other than your children might carry more of your ideas forward. And in the scheme of things, all humans look like you, when compared to rabits.

Only caring about your own children seems like a strange place to start.

there is a certain selective pressure to tend to care a little bit more about your children than somebody else's children (as well as caring to a broader kin such as humanity vs rabbits).

it's not right or wrong, it's just an instinct that has been selected through evolution because apparently it favours carriers of such genes to outnumber those who don't.

It's essentially the same instinct that pushes you to have 12 children and clear a large swath of forest to create arable land to feed them. There is nothing superior about your children, and chances are you will find an underprivileged child you can support that is much smarter than the average offspring you could produce (not that it should matter).

Genes can be selfish without the individuals who carry them being selfish. Because genes are carried by a group, and the survival of the group means that the gene will survive, so self sacrificing behaviur can be selected for.

That isn't to say that people don't instinctively care for their own children. Although maybe there may be no such instinct and we are just taught from birth to do so by our own parents behaviur - which some may not learn. Maybe. A lot of things seem to be a mixture of nature and nurture I guess.

Just that, it is possible for behaviurs like the one we are discussing to be selected for.

Seems counter intuitive for a bunch of apparently smart people to write themselves out of the gene pool.

Those of us that think they're not so smart are quite happy with the net effect on the gene pool.

It’s almost like their attitude isn’t very smart at all. It’s a naive reaction to the issue.

Other people’s children?

Or your adopted children, you don't have to reproduce to have a child.

My guess would be for some imaginative, idyllic Eden where all animals are herbivores and all remaining humans sit around solar ovens getting high off their own hubris.

The solution is probably buried in the reasons people use to not have children. The “costs” to raise a child can easily exceed a family’s abilities. In the US, maternity leave, if offered at work, only lasts the first few months. But the child’s need to be supervised 24/7 doesn’t end for maybe even a decade after that. (I don’t know the real timeframe, but suffice to say it’s years.) A family needs to find someone or company to watch their child(ren) for years. That alone is a prohibitive requirement. I think society could solve two problems with one here, but clearly not with current market factors. Society could subsidize child care - thus increasing employment, GDP (ultimately), and family formation.

This is just a hypothetical example.

The kinda comment that shows how arrogant we are in thinking if there are no humans, the planet isn't worth saving.

Good question, assuming this does help the situation, who should have children and who shouldn't?

Does only human life have value? Or should other organisms exist as well?