Then let’s go over your post, line by line.

“Bad for the environment” means “Bad for us humans”, nature will take care of itself, just not in a human scale lifespan. So not populating because of the environment doesn’t make sense.

That’s incorrect. Nature is an ambivalent unfeeling aspect of our reality. This is the hand waving comment I was referencing earlier. It amounts to “The Earth will be fine. Humans should only focus on the environment as much as it relates to humans.” I mean heavily disagree. Humans should focus on the environment to ensure that it remains in a state that sustains as much biodiversity and life for its own sake.

Why have a better environment for humans if there are no humans? I’m not saying we don’t need to look after the environment, on the contrary, we need to better ourselves and the environment because otherwise we go extinct anyway.

I believe I addressed this as well. This is anthropocentric thinking. “Human beings should only care about human beings” sort of thinking g. My argument is that the fight for a “better environment”, as you put it, is not for the sake of preserving human beings, but rather for the sake of leaving the Earth in a state that is better for biodiversity as a whole, that is a better world period, whether human beings go extinct or not.

Ultimately I hold human beings to a higher standard than the average person, I believe we are beings capable of great compassion for other living beings on this Earth, but most seem to think we are little more than a thinking animal. I am less concerned with preserving human survival, and more concerned with the legacy humans leave once we are gone, even if there is not a soul to appreciate it, it is still worth doing in my opinion because I believe that is the pinnacle of what humans are capable of, i.e. Compassionate Selflessness.

Now let’s address your latest comment:

So first you say: Don’t bear children. And now you’re trying to counteract my point by saying: think of the children…

Not having children is thinking of the children. Just think about it. If I tell you that having children will make the environment worse, and encourage you to not have children. Ultimately those children that do end up being born in that world with less people in it will inherit a world with an environment under less strain from less human beings.

I’m positive you didn’t even read beyond my first sentence.

Well I did read your post, and I standd by my initial response.

Cause I’m literally saying we need to get our shit together.

On that we are in agreement. The point on which we differ is on whether advocating for not having children is reasonable. I’ve made my case on this point, and unless you have anything to elaborate on, I don’t see how you’ve made a reasonable argument to the contrary. But of course, feel free to respond.

And also, in response to your separate name calling:

Oh no, I’m saying on a scale big enough micro plastics don’t matter. But you are missing my point, we DO need to take care of microplastics, because we want to repopulate… the poster I’m replying to is trying to convince us not to bear children. Edgy, but also quite stupid.

Another hard disagree. The human population is far beyond what it can sustain without oil. Oil goes into our fertilizers, our medications, our daily used plastic packaged products, etc. Without oil, we would not be able to feed and sustain the population we have now, the majority of which live in relative squalor. Repopulation is something touted by the rich to ensure a continuous supply of wage/literal slaves and armies for future nation states to hold dominance. Depopulation will be necessary in order to ensure the survival not only of the human race but also the majority of the currently existing life on this planet, as well as ensuring that the quality of life for those that do live in such a world can expected to be better than what we have today.

Edgy? Meh, your perspective. Stupid? Debate me.