“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.
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
Well… I mean I’m not having kids either, but someone has to to continue the species, nobody needs to eat meat.
Why?
“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.
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.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