• Umbrias@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Willful extinction” is not a productive way to end climate change.

          You won’t convince people, so it’s DOA, but it’s also philosophically weak in the face of alternative views. Alternatives which also theoretically have humans in them and don’t obliterate the environment exist, meaning you are on the back foot here to justify an anthropocentric philosophy.

          “Why do you think people should exist?” Can be an interesting discussion, but as an argument it’s not a great one.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You won’t convince people

            I don’t have to. Birth rates in the developed world are plummeting.

            And unless I’m mistaken, you are the one trying to convince people right now. Edit: I was, in fact, mistaken.

            • Umbrias@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Birth rates are plummeting to maintain what will probably be around 13 billion. That’s wildly distinct from willful extinction.

              I… What? You made a post saying people should do x, I responded. Yeah we’re both trying to convince people of a thing, I’m not sure I see how that is actually relevant.

            • n_emoo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Birthrates are not plummeting to zero, if thats what youre implying. As people get more educated, they tend to have fewer kids. No one is considering having “fewer” kids because of the childs lifetime GHG emissions