> I exist and am human and don’t have any need to commit suicide.

But it would reduce your carbon output, even though as with all things someone else would just consume more to make up for it.

I don’t have the goal of reducing my carbon output. As I have already explained I don’t need to.

My carbon footprint, or footprint of other kinds, doesn’t constitute a blip on the radar, because mine ends between now and a few decades from now, and doesn’t grow at all into the future, much less geometrically.

Might as well lock and close the thread, with that reductive made-up assertion. It's not like there's a fixed budget of carbon credits distributed amongst the world's population.

And no, "don't have kids" and "kill yourself" are really not actually the same.

Well put.

“I’m gay”

Hn: so what, everybody’s something

“I’m an atheist”

Hn: yes and?

“I embed sensors under my skin”

Hn: cool!

“I’m childfree”

Hn: why don’t you just kill yourself then?

Tongue in cheek: obviously not all of HN. But this is one of the few alt views / lifestyles that HN doesn’t easily rally behind.

I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I'm 100% fine with people not wanting to have kids. I also think people who aren't fine with it suck. Let people do whatever if it doesn't hurt anyone, obviously.

What I object to is the suggestion "just don't have kids" is a viable political path forward on the question of the environment. It isn't a viable path of any kind, political or otherwise.

"Don't have kids, especially if you're poor or emotionally unstable" is a non-starter, contrary to our basic human nature.

"Stop being an omnivore" is sound advice for the modern furless ape.

For what it's worth, I don't feel it's appropriate to dictate or even advise others on child-rearing decisions, but I don't understand how humanity has a chance if we all throw our hands up in the air and say: there's no way we'll get Americans to give up their cars, meat, or 2.5 babies.

I'm not really advocating anything here, just lamenting the seeming (and somewhat assumed) immutability of it all.

(random but I really appreciated these subthreads, definitely some good stuff for me to chew on)

> I don't feel it's appropriate to dictate or even advise others on child-rearing decisions

Why not? It's appropriate to dictate and even advise on lots of things that are personal/private.

We have laws and social norms to keep people from being horrible to their own children, even behind closed doors, but only after those children are born.

My suggestion is for those bits of advice, backed by the government's monopoly on force, to kick in just a year earlier than that.

I'm a big fan of reproductive freedom and I'm not sure how to reconcile that with my thoughts about natalism, so I try to at least stay out of direct advice/condemnation for individuals.

I also wouldn't tell individuals how to live. I'd support society-level mores and laws though.

Well, I'm not saying that modification of behavior is impossible, just that "don't have kids" is practically a non-starter. Stiff tax penalties for more than 3 kids is probably something which might become possible if things get pretty bad, for example (I'm sure conservatives would object strongly, however).

Carbon taxes/credits are probably possible. Huge public works (build enough solar panels and energy storage station to meet most of our power needs). Big taxes on carmakers for making high emission vehicles, etc. There are lots of policies which can work, and I think the market will, eventually, also probably get there eventually. But just telling people not to have kids is silly.

They aren't the same but they are both extreme solutions to the problem of climate change that are unlikely to win a significant number of adherents.

The reasoning applies to both, hence the point.