[reidjs]

The irony of this is that the people who care about the wellbeing of the planet enough to question having children due to climate concerns are the ones who really should be having children. They are more likely to raise them to be conscious of issues like this, to look for solutions, and to minimize their impact.

[toss1]

And right there, you have the thesis underlying the plot for Idiocracy, a time-shifted documentary masquerading as a comedy, in which the value of t is claimed to be 500 years, but is actually unknown (and current data suggest far lower value).

[King-Aaron]

Such an underrated movie

[KennyBlanken]

Yep, and even worse: it's the super-religious loonies that are pumping out children like no tomorrow.

[obmelvin]

One would (likely) have the biggest impact on their own children as opposed to other children, but by volunteering for various organizations one can impact far more kids than the few in one's own family.

[cagenut]

On a long enough timeline I agree with your point, but your argument is one of the many many common examples we see now of people simply not understanding the timeline. 2050 is 29 years away. Kids born in the next few years will barely be out of school by the time we have to have this mostly solved.

[cmpb]

True, but odds are by 2050 we will not have this mostly solved and we will still be arguing with each other about what's important when it comes to preserving the current climate vs adapting to a changing climate. I think that on the short timeline it definitely makes sense to use progeny as a means to effect change according to ones own ideals.