> Being not-bad is not the same as being good. Inaction is not the same as positive action. That's literally all I'm saying.
Well of course, I don't think anyone was suggesting that not having kids was all you had to do to become a good person and save the planet.
The person who avoids having kids is still probably doing more to reduce CO2 than the average superficially "eco-conscious" family. Positive action that actually makes a difference is really hard work; avoiding plastic bags, recycling, and driving a Tesla isn't going to do much.
Someone who has kids, and raises them to respect the environment, while also planting trees and actively working to improve the planet is far more "good" than someone who just sits around being lonely doing nothing.
Yes, if they do enough, they could have more of an impact on CO2 reduction than the average layabout with no kids. It's not impossible. It just takes a lot of work.
