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.
And no, "don't have kids" and "kill yourself" are really not actually the same.
“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.
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.
"Stop being an omnivore" is sound advice for the modern furless ape.
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)
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.
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.
But it would reduce your carbon output, even though as with all things someone else would just consume more to make up for it.