"Bad ancestors"

This article asks: Does the climate crisis violate the rights of those yet to be born? which immediately raises two thoughts for me. First, what about the rights of those of us who already exist and would like to continue living? Can't we fix the earth for ourselves, rather than for some imaginary future people? It always pisses me off when people talk about "our children and grandchildren." No. Us. All people currently alive. I'm quite happy to see young people mobilizing on their own behalf, but future generations are not an inevitability and are becoming less and less of a good idea. Our rights to continue living trump the "right to be born" (which does not exist) of people who haven't even been conceived.

Second, it's interesting that natalists are capable of conceptualizing one of the tenants of antinatlism, that being born (into certain circumstances) might constitute a violation of rights, yet are incapable of extrapolating beyond the climate crisis to the general laws of life.

And, typical of breeders, they want collective responsibility for the violation of the rights of people not yet born, without holding the people who breed them into this shitty world to be held personally accountable for the decision that led to the future person experiencing life on earth. "It takes a village" is now supposed to extend into the hypothetical?

Most of the article isn't about the question posed by the headline, but about climate change in general. It's really irritating, as someone who generally agrees with the science which says we need to take drastic action (and it's probably too late anyway), to have it wrapped up in all this natalist bullshit.

Quote

future generations are not an inevitability and are becoming less and less of a good idea. Our rights to continue living trump the "right to be born" (which does not exist) of people who haven't even been conceived.

I read stuff like this and have a similar WTF? The "right to be born" concept is utterly baffling to me.

As best as I can tell, there are religious people, usually Fundies, who believe Gawd is up there in the sky in some kind of human Pez factory, stamping out souls and waiting to transport them into waiting uteri and a certain quota MUST BE FULFILLED?

Wouldn't a truly omniscient Gawd realize we have too damn many people on this rock, and we can cut the quota now? And aside from that, Gawd gave humans these things called BRAINS which theoretically gives one the power to self-regulate with regard to population?

But we won't if the majority of ignoramuses embrace concepts such as "the right to be born."

Humans are as God sent as rats.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

Quote
bell_flower
I read stuff like this and have a similar WTF? The "right to be born" concept is utterly baffling to me.

As best as I can tell, there are religious people, usually Fundies, who believe Gawd is up there in the sky in some kind of human Pez factory, stamping out souls and waiting to transport them into waiting uteri and a certain quota MUST BE FULFILLED?

Except those people aren't usually keen environmentalists, so I have to wonder: who are these people who care about the environment, yet talk about the rights of people who might never be conceived if people alive now make different choices? Maybe if you don't believe in free will and think the whole of time is already happened, but in that case you'd presumably see the futility in trying to change the future of the planet.

I don't know how people can believe that reproduction is inevitable but climate change is not. Both depend on human choices, and therefore both could be altered.