The planet has never been, is not and probably won't be in any near future in peril. Humanity is. Humans disappearing is the concern of ecology. The planet will adapt just fine with or without us, and species disappearing will be replaced in time by new ones.

Not having children is not effective at perpetuating the human race, and thus not usually considered as an ecological solution.

That being said, you don't have to have children to be an ecologist either, but you certainly should realise that your efforts are directed towards future humans, not towards the planet which does just fine anyway.

The point here is that it isn't black and white and furthermore, whether you like it or not, taking care of earth is a political problem in the most basic literal sense that you have to get people to do it.

Unless you are cooking up ideas on how to wipe the human race out like some kind of mad scientist, and presumably kill yourself afterward, the fact is, people need to be convinced to modify their lifestyle/culture somehow. Telling them to simply die without children ain't gonna do it.

> "Biological imperative" at the peril of the planet.

I essentially don't care about the state of the planet if there are no humans around to enjoy it.

The larger long-term risk to sentient life is that anti-energy people get their way, humanity never reaches the productive output required to become spacefaring, and we get wiped out by an engineered virus or something.

I find this attitude to be pretty weird. Like merely from an aesthetic point of view, I'd prefer a world with a healthy earth than one without, regardless of the question of human beings. If rational/advanced consciousness is the issue, a healthy earth is more likely to spin up a new intelligent species if we go extinct than a dead one.

You can start by letting the dust accumulate in your own house, and later allow vegetation to grow freely.