politics

I think you missed the point OP was, I hope, trying to make.

The truth here is that JD Vance is absolutely trying to red herring and manipulate anyone with children, or who can empathize with parents, into sympathizing with his backwards world view. JD is painting this nice little picture about how nice it is for a parent to have kids, how nice it is for a grandparent to have grandchildren, all while purposefully ignoring the elephant in the room, and the real issue behind why some people are hesitant to have children given the current state of things.

The real reason people are hesitating is not for them, but for the child. They want to spare a potential child from growing up in an America that looks like "The Book of Eli" or "The Road". They're holding off because they don't want their kid dying in super wild fires. They don't want their kid drowning in their home when the worst hurricane anyone has ever seen hits a coast. They don't want their kid getting murdered for their supplies, and left to bleed out under an irradiated sky, ash falling on them as they go limp.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say, "of course people should have kids, mine have made me so happy!"; it takes far more character to say, "I can understand why someone might be hesitant nowadays."

Now, I'm not even sure JD Vance meant to red herring here, and demonize people with very real concerns. For all we know his gross narcissism cannot even allow him to really feel for his children beyond an extension of himself. However, I know JD Vance is smart. Because of that, I'm willing to bet he answered that question so that people like you can say, "I absolutly agree with that response", and not even recognize that he completely red herringed the issue, ignored the subtilty, gathered sympathy for his shitty world view, all while grifting into oblivion.

I couldn't disagree more. But that’s me, and it’s not like we can put kids back, so. It just means we either need to move to sustainable industries sooner, or there’ll be more suffering involved. Solutions exist, we’re just not pursuing them with anything like an appropriate amount of effort. So it’s likely to be the latter.

And this article lists traits of sociopaths. You’re saying you agree with JD Vance that one’s concern for the environment such that one feels they shouldn’t add to the human-created problems indicates they have these traits?

Hey friend. I don't have kids for many reasons. I have fun playing with kids, I have more fun with my niece and nephews than with the rest of the family. But things are fucked up. My wife and I worry about the world they will live in. Am I going to be able to help them?

I mean, if it comes to it, are they going to be able to get here or somewhere safe where I can defend them with firearms? I'm not a great shot.

The world is in a fucking terrifying place. I'm going to buy a rifle.

You don’t have kids do you? I think he’s terrible but absolutely agree with that response.

I do, and I agree with him about kids but disagree with him that it's the only valid viewpoint to have. What's "transformatively positive" for me may still have external impacts that someone else chooses not to inflict on the world, or may still be a choice someone chooses not to make because of general concern for the state of the world those children would be born into, or may not be "transformatively positive" for someone else for a host of other reasons.