[SamPatt]

>I can't in good conscious bring a child into a world that so many are focused on absolutely destroying.

Who is focused on destroying the world?

I don't think hardly any super villains exist. People might have a different assessment of what destroying the world means than you do.

[MSFT_Edging]

Many people think a well manicured lawn sprayed with pesticides is preferable to local wildflowers and shrubs.

They "have a different assessment" but they're still contributing to an extinction event. You don't need to be a super villain. You can simply be selfish. Once scaled to many many selfish people, you have a collective villain.

[forlorn_mammoth]

SamPatt, it isn't necessarily individuals making individual decisions. Yeah, very few supervillains.

But perhaps you've heard talk of things like "6th mass extinction event" or "global climate change"?

both of which are direct consequences of our industrialized society?

Look, I'm personally grateful for modern medicine and indoor plumbing, to name a few things. I don't want to go back to some idealized hunter-gatherer past (yes, I've tried it).

And regardless of the actual truth of ecological and climate collapse, or your particular views on the actual truth of these, enough people see enough convincing evidence that the parent poster's view is supported by enough people to matter.

We live in a blessed window.

[Larrikin]

People shutting down efforts to transition from fossil fuels because they can make more money from fossil fuels and will be dead before they experience any of the consequences are the typical example.

[Qem]

> I don't think hardly any super villains exist.

We have billionaries and LLCs, supervillains whose superpowers are based on being rich, don't worrying about the future much beyond the next quarter, and pretending personhood to hold rights like people, but without the possibility of getting arrested.