If antinatal advocacy was effective, wouldn’t it make sense to pursue on animal welfare grounds? Aren’t most new humans extremely net negative?
I have a 3YO so hold fire!
Most new humans will likely consume hundreds (thousands?) of factory farmed animals over their lifetime, creating a substantial negative impact that might outweigh the positive contributions of that human life
Probably of far less consequence, the environmental footprint of each new human also indirectly harms wild animals through habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change (TBH I am being very speculative on this point).
If antinatal advocacy was effective, wouldn’t it make sense to pursue on animal welfare grounds? Aren’t most new humans extremely net negative?
I have a 3YO so hold fire!
Most new humans will likely consume hundreds (thousands?) of factory farmed animals over their lifetime, creating a substantial negative impact that might outweigh the positive contributions of that human life
Probably of far less consequence, the environmental footprint of each new human also indirectly harms wild animals through habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change (TBH I am being very speculative on this point).
Some people are going to say that destroying nature is a positive impact of new humans, because they think wild animals have net negative lives.
ooft, good point.