[jjj123]

I don’t think we should hold people to “the logical conclusion” of all of their beliefs. We are not robots. We are capable of believing something without willing to go to the ends of the earth to be consistent with that belief.

For example, I believe it’s good to go to protests for causes I care about. However, I don’t go to even a fraction of the protests near me. Does this mean I don’t actually believe protests are a good thing?

[Zababa]

We can believe something, and believe that this belief influences our actions, but that doesn't mean that it's true. For example, I don't heat my appartment. I could say that it's for the planet. But the reality is that it's not for the planet, it's that I don't need to heat my appartment for it to be at a confortable temperature for me. The consequences are still good for the planet, but this is a consequence, not a reason.

If you think children are a massive pain and your rationalization for that is that it's for the planet, there's nothing wrong with that. That may be also a thing people say so they won't get asked too much questions. I've heard that people can put a lot of pressure on other people to make children, the planet argument might be a good justification/counter to avoid being constantly questioned.

> We are capable of believing something without willing to go to the ends of the earth to be consistent with that belief.

I think my point here is that there's a notion of "intensity" or "importence". Having children is a strong belief in many people, and to counter it, you often seem to need a strong belief of the type "climate change is very important", instead of a less strong believe in the type of "I just don't want to".