[meepl]

Well, that sentiment entirely misses the point of all of this!

[natalyarostova]

I'm not so sure that it does. I would say the expected cost of climate change to the lives of children born today is still far far less then the expected cost in the past due to disease, war, famine (etc).

So the poster above is noting that if people were, or we would have, been okay with having kids in the past, then we still should today.

[NLips]

The question is phrased ambiguously, but the article makes it clearer that what is meant is:

"Is it still OK _for the planet_ to have kids...", not "Is it still OK _for the kids_ to have kids..."

EDIT: actually, I'm not sure which one of those the representative was getting at.

[rand0mbits]

"Is it still OK _for the planet_ to have kids..."

That's a strange question. The planet doesn't have feelings, so it doesn't really care whether or not we have kids.

Other living organisms on the planet may care. But the rock we're on surely doesn't.

[natalyarostova]

Thanks for clarifying.

[enraged_camel]

>> I would say the expected cost of climate change to the lives of children born today is still far far less then the expected cost in the past due to disease, war, famine (etc).

This is exactly why it misses the point. Having kids is a significant contributor to carbon emissions, and therefore climate change.

[umvi]

More significant than cows? I would rather cut back on meat and dairy consumption than be forbidden from raising children.

[natalyarostova]

I guess it depends if your kid is a vegetarian then :^)