Puppies can’t vote, organise protests, develop technologies, or really do anything to help humans & the planet survive in the long-term. I love puppies but I don’t get your statement in the context of this article and the survey.
I didn’t comment the article. It’s in the same vein as saying somebody should have kids because they are empathetic. It’s not about votes or evolution but rather paying taxes, taking care of the old and so on. Since we are all getting older we need somebody to pay the bill. It’s depressing, but truth is I don’t need a car because I can’t afford it. I arranged my lifestyle to take public transports or a bike, because I can’t afford it. If I can’t afford a car, I probably can’t afford a bigger space for a family, and then the cost of raising a human, when i barely scrape by by myself. Get a better paying job - doesn’t work for everybody. Moving somewhere for another job - doesn’t work for everybody.
You can adopt children, which should be done if possible - there’s enough lost souls in the world.
See how climate change isn’t a factor for getting children? It’s all about them Benjamin’s
You’re not wrong. If one can’t afford, then it’s just not an option, and I agree it’s probably not going to be good for anyone to have a kid in that scenario (whether making a baby or adopting).
That’s not what the article is about though. Yes, technically it’s not about empathetic people either, but in that case I’ve assumed that people who want to save the planet are likely to be empathetic (they think & care about their surroundings). I don’t think that’s too far-fetched.
If you were in a situation where things were affordable, would you get a car?
Doesn’t matter if you can’t afford live. Adopt a puppy.
Puppies can’t vote, organise protests, develop technologies, or really do anything to help humans & the planet survive in the long-term. I love puppies but I don’t get your statement in the context of this article and the survey.
I didn’t comment the article. It’s in the same vein as saying somebody should have kids because they are empathetic. It’s not about votes or evolution but rather paying taxes, taking care of the old and so on. Since we are all getting older we need somebody to pay the bill. It’s depressing, but truth is I don’t need a car because I can’t afford it. I arranged my lifestyle to take public transports or a bike, because I can’t afford it. If I can’t afford a car, I probably can’t afford a bigger space for a family, and then the cost of raising a human, when i barely scrape by by myself. Get a better paying job - doesn’t work for everybody. Moving somewhere for another job - doesn’t work for everybody.
You can adopt children, which should be done if possible - there’s enough lost souls in the world.
See how climate change isn’t a factor for getting children? It’s all about them Benjamin’s
You’re not wrong. If one can’t afford, then it’s just not an option, and I agree it’s probably not going to be good for anyone to have a kid in that scenario (whether making a baby or adopting).
That’s not what the article is about though. Yes, technically it’s not about empathetic people either, but in that case I’ve assumed that people who want to save the planet are likely to be empathetic (they think & care about their surroundings). I don’t think that’s too far-fetched.
If you were in a situation where things were affordable, would you get a car?