This was not an abusive statement, and I’m sorry if you feel that it was. I don’t believe that choosing not to have children because of climate change was made with a lot of deliberation, but because it’s the laziest choice. Children are tough. Fighting for change is tough. Convincing other to give a fuck about the environment is tough. It’s easier just to keep on keeping on and when the world breaks at least I didn’t create another soul who is going to go through pain.
This attitude doesn’t help fix the current situation and I believe that the apathy such a decision makes encourages people to be inactive on climate change.
Not having children is one of the easiest ways to contribute to solving climate change, which is exactly why we should encourage it regardless of whether the person is also taking other steps to solve it (which we don’t know). Not having a child also saves 58 tons of CO2 emissions per year, so it’s one of the most effective things you can do to fight climate change too, so that simple action does a lot to fight for a better world.
You don’t know this person. And you don’t know anything about what they’re doing to combat climate change, or are capable of doing to contribute to combating climate change.
You don’t even know whether this was the only consideration in choosing not to have kids.
You know nothing about them, but the way your comment reads suggests that you’re essentially insinuating that their choice to not have kids is illegitimate by nature of the motives you presume they have (which isn’t a kind thing to do) and also that they’ve made that choice out of laziness. All based on assumptions you’ve made from the single sentence comment they left on a Lemmy thread.
It’s possible that was intended as a sincere question, but it reads as SUCH a heavily loaded question that it will be understood to be an accusation by pretty much anyone who reads it, which is why I call it abusive. And you can tell that that’s what it’s communicating by the fact that my comment saying as much has been upvoted repeatedly in the short period it’s been up. The question mark reads as rhetorical, and even if you meant to ask in order to get them to reflect, it’s unlikely you know them well enough or expressed that intention well enough for it to not just read as someone being a jerk on the internet
I can absolutely empathize with the idea that it is easier to check out and want to live small than to fight. And I can certainly understand wanting to fight back when you perceive that others are doing that, because our future is all on the line. I just left a long comment about it on another thread where I shared some quotes I found validating or poinant with respect to my struggle to keep fighting for things bigger than myself when I can barely function.
I get that it’s important for people to fight, but what you said to them kinda sucks, and isn’t a good way to engage with someone you don’t know at all.
Edit: adjusted to reflect the fact I also made assumptions in the initial version of this comment. Apologies if parts feel out of sync, I’m editing this while fairly sleep deprived.
You’re a good person who seems able to see both points of an argument. Thank you. You’re right, I don’t know the person who said they wouldn’t have children. They had a quick quip and I had a quick quip too and didn’t really want to get into my argument.
Comments like “That’s why I’m not having children” get positive upvote and attention, but it could have been “And that’s why I’m ready to fight for climate change so that there’s a future for humanity”. To me it is a statement of surrender and being proud of essentially waiting for the end of the world, which tells me a bit more about the person making the statement.
Anyway, I didn’t realize my initial comment would come off that negatively and I’ll try to be more respectful.
Thank you for being willing to consider my perspective, I appreciate it :)
And I can understand the frustration. I try really hard to make choices, even when small, that support the issues I care about. I have a lot of friends that think those issues matter, but won’t make changes to support the changes they wanna see in the world, and it definitely frustrates me sometimes, though I choose not to be overly judgey about it because I think it’s counterproductive.
I have a friend who is extremely politically minded and further left than I am on many issues, but she still insists on using twitter, a platform who’s value is derived from everyone using it, and who’s owner is bankrolling the election of a fascist to the highest elected office in the US. Even if she doesn’t wanna use Mastodon, like bluesky is RIGHT there 😅. I can’t say I really understand, but then again, she’s a different person from me with a different perspective, and the cost benefit analysis for her must be different.
Its frustrating to feel like people won’t make choices to support the things we wish were better about the world.
Regardless, I hope you have a good day today, take care :)
Not having children is obviously not a societal change that everybody can do, otherwise humanity would fail. I’m not saying everybody should be having 10 children, but there’s nothing wrong with having a couple.
The point I’ve been trying to make is that I’m worried that people who see that not having children is the easiest thing you can do to lower your carbon footprint will not care about doing anything else to help save the planet. You’ve done your part, so why not drive that gas guzzler for a little longer. Probably not gonna hurt you too much. I think more people will think this way than people who responsibly have children and have a physical reminder of why they’re trying to care about the future.
And thanks for labelling me in an out group. Be careful, you’re probably very suseptible to extremism.
You’re accusing others of extremism in the same breath as you make one of the silliest slippery slope arguments I’ve come across. You think those who choose not to have children due to climate concerns are sitting back, over consuming resources, and thinking they’ve done enough? That’s not an extreme assumption?
Be careful, you’re treading awfully close to hypocrisy.
The very slippery slope of content people will remain content? Have you never heard of Panem et Circenses? The Roman proverb of Breads and Circuses that entertainment and material comforts will keep the population content?
Having children is tough. You will live an easier life if you don’t have children. That’s not an extreme assumption. And if you’ve got yours, and you’ve got nobody to fight for since you’ll be dead in a few years anyway (as everybody seems to believe since society will collapse with climate change as indicated in the linked article) why are you going to give a fuck and give up your comfort to save the future? So yes, I think that people who choose not to have children will sit back thinking they’ve done their part, and the really dangerous part of that is that change needs momentum and being stationary is going to sap the momentum needed for change.
I sincerely feel sad for you that the concepts of a broad sense of empathy and deep connections with others who don’t share half your DNA seem like such difficult mental exercises, and that you assume those who choose not to act against their values are somehow less moral or caring about society. I don’t know who failed you, but it was certainly someone important.
Ok, this shows that you have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about my family or descendents at all. I’m talking about people’s motivations in general. I like the phrase “Individual behaviours are impossible to predict. Groups behaviours are easier to predict”.
I general, I believe that people with children will as a group fight harder for the future, and that the childfree movement while good intentioned may be harmful to generating societal will to enact the change necessary to combat climate change in time.
I’m glad you think most people care about society because when I look around and see that climate change hasn’t even been a top issue in the US election, and that a candidate who obviously has no clue about anything is a coin flip away from winning…well I don’t see the world with your toxic positivity.
This was not an abusive statement, and I’m sorry if you feel that it was. I don’t believe that choosing not to have children because of climate change was made with a lot of deliberation, but because it’s the laziest choice. Children are tough. Fighting for change is tough. Convincing other to give a fuck about the environment is tough. It’s easier just to keep on keeping on and when the world breaks at least I didn’t create another soul who is going to go through pain.
This attitude doesn’t help fix the current situation and I believe that the apathy such a decision makes encourages people to be inactive on climate change.
Not having children is one of the easiest ways to contribute to solving climate change, which is exactly why we should encourage it regardless of whether the person is also taking other steps to solve it (which we don’t know). Not having a child also saves 58 tons of CO2 emissions per year, so it’s one of the most effective things you can do to fight climate change too, so that simple action does a lot to fight for a better world.
Source: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
You don’t know this person. And you don’t know anything about what they’re doing to combat climate change, or are capable of doing to contribute to combating climate change.
You don’t even know whether this was the only consideration in choosing not to have kids.
You know nothing about them, but the way your comment reads suggests that you’re essentially insinuating that their choice to not have kids is illegitimate by nature of the motives you presume they have (which isn’t a kind thing to do) and also that they’ve made that choice out of laziness. All based on assumptions you’ve made from the single sentence comment they left on a Lemmy thread.
It’s possible that was intended as a sincere question, but it reads as SUCH a heavily loaded question that it will be understood to be an accusation by pretty much anyone who reads it, which is why I call it abusive. And you can tell that that’s what it’s communicating by the fact that my comment saying as much has been upvoted repeatedly in the short period it’s been up. The question mark reads as rhetorical, and even if you meant to ask in order to get them to reflect, it’s unlikely you know them well enough or expressed that intention well enough for it to not just read as someone being a jerk on the internet
I can absolutely empathize with the idea that it is easier to check out and want to live small than to fight. And I can certainly understand wanting to fight back when you perceive that others are doing that, because our future is all on the line. I just left a long comment about it on another thread where I shared some quotes I found validating or poinant with respect to my struggle to keep fighting for things bigger than myself when I can barely function.
I get that it’s important for people to fight, but what you said to them kinda sucks, and isn’t a good way to engage with someone you don’t know at all.
Edit: adjusted to reflect the fact I also made assumptions in the initial version of this comment. Apologies if parts feel out of sync, I’m editing this while fairly sleep deprived.
You’re a good person who seems able to see both points of an argument. Thank you. You’re right, I don’t know the person who said they wouldn’t have children. They had a quick quip and I had a quick quip too and didn’t really want to get into my argument.
Comments like “That’s why I’m not having children” get positive upvote and attention, but it could have been “And that’s why I’m ready to fight for climate change so that there’s a future for humanity”. To me it is a statement of surrender and being proud of essentially waiting for the end of the world, which tells me a bit more about the person making the statement.
Anyway, I didn’t realize my initial comment would come off that negatively and I’ll try to be more respectful.
Thank you for being willing to consider my perspective, I appreciate it :)
And I can understand the frustration. I try really hard to make choices, even when small, that support the issues I care about. I have a lot of friends that think those issues matter, but won’t make changes to support the changes they wanna see in the world, and it definitely frustrates me sometimes, though I choose not to be overly judgey about it because I think it’s counterproductive.
I have a friend who is extremely politically minded and further left than I am on many issues, but she still insists on using twitter, a platform who’s value is derived from everyone using it, and who’s owner is bankrolling the election of a fascist to the highest elected office in the US. Even if she doesn’t wanna use Mastodon, like bluesky is RIGHT there 😅. I can’t say I really understand, but then again, she’s a different person from me with a different perspective, and the cost benefit analysis for her must be different.
Its frustrating to feel like people won’t make choices to support the things we wish were better about the world.
Regardless, I hope you have a good day today, take care :)
Removed by mod
Not having children is obviously not a societal change that everybody can do, otherwise humanity would fail. I’m not saying everybody should be having 10 children, but there’s nothing wrong with having a couple.
The point I’ve been trying to make is that I’m worried that people who see that not having children is the easiest thing you can do to lower your carbon footprint will not care about doing anything else to help save the planet. You’ve done your part, so why not drive that gas guzzler for a little longer. Probably not gonna hurt you too much. I think more people will think this way than people who responsibly have children and have a physical reminder of why they’re trying to care about the future.
And thanks for labelling me in an out group. Be careful, you’re probably very suseptible to extremism.
You’re accusing others of extremism in the same breath as you make one of the silliest slippery slope arguments I’ve come across. You think those who choose not to have children due to climate concerns are sitting back, over consuming resources, and thinking they’ve done enough? That’s not an extreme assumption?
Be careful, you’re treading awfully close to hypocrisy.
The very slippery slope of content people will remain content? Have you never heard of Panem et Circenses? The Roman proverb of Breads and Circuses that entertainment and material comforts will keep the population content?
Having children is tough. You will live an easier life if you don’t have children. That’s not an extreme assumption. And if you’ve got yours, and you’ve got nobody to fight for since you’ll be dead in a few years anyway (as everybody seems to believe since society will collapse with climate change as indicated in the linked article) why are you going to give a fuck and give up your comfort to save the future? So yes, I think that people who choose not to have children will sit back thinking they’ve done their part, and the really dangerous part of that is that change needs momentum and being stationary is going to sap the momentum needed for change.
I sincerely feel sad for you that the concepts of a broad sense of empathy and deep connections with others who don’t share half your DNA seem like such difficult mental exercises, and that you assume those who choose not to act against their values are somehow less moral or caring about society. I don’t know who failed you, but it was certainly someone important.
Ok, this shows that you have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about my family or descendents at all. I’m talking about people’s motivations in general. I like the phrase “Individual behaviours are impossible to predict. Groups behaviours are easier to predict”.
I general, I believe that people with children will as a group fight harder for the future, and that the childfree movement while good intentioned may be harmful to generating societal will to enact the change necessary to combat climate change in time.
I’m glad you think most people care about society because when I look around and see that climate change hasn’t even been a top issue in the US election, and that a candidate who obviously has no clue about anything is a coin flip away from winning…well I don’t see the world with your toxic positivity.