Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Because children are people and people by necessity must displace natural ecosystem fixtures to survive.

Does this mean the natural ecosystem fixtures are more valuable than people?

The problem is that our current pace of ecosystem destruction in order to satisfy people is not sustainable.

Does deciding not to bear children solve this problem?


Every child that's born is a child that will eventually need their own shelter. Will probably drive their own car. Will need food.

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is to not have children.


But doesn't that lead to the extinction of the human race? What good is it for mankind to save the environment if it sacrifices itself in the process?

If everyone stopped having children, well yeah. But you and I both know that that's not going to actually happen.

All I'm saying is that our current population growth is unsustainable and we're killing the environment. Until we adapt to only consume renewable resources, or at least sufficiently reduce our consumption of non-renewables, and stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the best thing to do is slow down reproduction.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact