This topic is discussed in two videos of mine:
- Debunking Environmental Antinatalism - Not having children will NOT save the planet. (9 min) 26 Aug 2019
- Is it True? - One baby generates 9000 tons of carbon? (16 min) 30 Aug 2019. Responding to Bill Maher.
Both videos fail to concisely summarize my point. My compact response to environmental antinatalism is this (as published in the description of the 2nd video):
Carbon is the biggest component in global warming. Carbon is added to the atmosphere mainly through the burning of fossil fuels, which take carbon out of the ground and put it into the air. Simply having a child doesn't necessarily add to fossil fuel use, which depends more on other factors, like technology, regulatory policy and the amount of fossil fuels available. For example, if the baby lives in a society that uses renewable energy sources like hydroelectric and wind power, their fossil fuel usage could be very low. At the same time, children of environmentalists tend to be environmentalists themselves and can exert political pressure on government policy to reduce fossil fuel usage. Without them, the anti-environmentalists will rule the planet, and Earth will get trashed."Environmental antinatalism" was first defined in a tweet on 17 Aug 2019.
Also see my Instagram posts on Antinatalism.
Ironic point I failed to make in 2nd video: If your care about the amount of carbon humans generate, regardless of its source, then you should kill all the whales and elephants, because they breathe out a lot of carbon dioxide.