Why downvoted? Maybe two reasons. First, it's off topic. You look like you're trying to find a way to sneak your hobbyhorse into the discussion, even when it doesn't really fit.
Second, by the same logic, the best thing you could do for the environment is go on a murder spree and then commit suicide.
That should appall you. You should respond "No, because..." (If you don't, seriously, please get help rather than committing suicide.)
But what's the reason for your "no"? Because the murder spree is immoral? (It is.) Because suicide would hurt too many people around you? (It would.) Or is it because, despite the environmental cost of your continued existence, you feel that you could make a positive (net) difference with the rest of your life?
Boy, must have been a fun ride down the slippery slope from don't have kids to go on a murder spree.
> despite the environmental cost of your continued existence, you feel that you could make a positive (net) difference with the rest of your life?
I definitely do not feel that. I recognize that essentially every person is a net negative on the world (especially myself). But I have already been born and there's nothing I'm willing to do to change that at this time.
I mean I get that people like having kids, but at least acknowledge how stupid it is to have one and then recycle or whatever like it makes some difference.
This is not off topic at all by the way. The article is on the cost parents pay to give birth. But ignores the fact that parents are getting an unbelievable discount by offloading the environmental costs to the rest of the world. If we were serious about combatting climate change, having a child would be all but prohibitively expensive.
That's not quite a slippery slope. I didn't say that people like you are going to become murderers. I said that, by the standard you are using to choose to not have kids, that would be a good thing to do (and therefore maybe your standard is less reasonable than it appears to you to be). But you seem to find it comforting to have a glib dismissal to use, rather than actually interacting with the point.
Now, you did kind of answer it in a way. The only way my murder point actually makes sense is if reducing the population (or the environment) is your only value. You obviously have other values as well (as you should). But just as those other values rule out murder and suicide (though that might benefit the environment), they could also allow a child.
And if those values allow a child, they could also allow living in a huge house, flying in airplanes, generally being wasteful, and well, look where that's got us.
Basically do whatever the fuck you want because your value system has allowed you to justify it to yourself.
Second, by the same logic, the best thing you could do for the environment is go on a murder spree and then commit suicide.
That should appall you. You should respond "No, because..." (If you don't, seriously, please get help rather than committing suicide.)
But what's the reason for your "no"? Because the murder spree is immoral? (It is.) Because suicide would hurt too many people around you? (It would.) Or is it because, despite the environmental cost of your continued existence, you feel that you could make a positive (net) difference with the rest of your life?
But if you can, so can your child.