|
Flashing Twelve posted:and buys everything individually-wrapped. This part reminded me of the packaging for a pair of romaine hearts at the store. They were in separated blister-like packaging, like a pair of goddamn phones. I've been looking up and down for a picture of the packaging, but to no avail. When you see vegetables being packaged like goddamn electronics, labeled "ARTISAN," you know that poo poo's hosed up. e: This, gently caress every last thing about it: 
FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Feb 7, 2012 |
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Flashing Twelve posted:This is the most absolutely depressing thing about the whole situation. You can unplug appliances when they're not being used, walk/cycle/bus everywhere you need to go, take short cold showers, recycle your food waste, and all that inconvenience and sacrifice doesn't matter one tiny bit because your neighbour hasn't turned off his TV in three years, drives an inefficient 4WD everywhere he goes, takes long hot showers twice a day and buys everything individually-wrapped. And then there's the people who have children, which is one of the most environmentally damaging things you can do in the long term. Fact is, being "green" as an individual really doesn't mean much. Society as a whole must change or there will be no change. And I hate to break it to you, we ain't gonna change. At least, not before we're already hosed beyond recovery. I'm not saying go ahead and leave your TV on when you're at work, because gently caress it. But realize that people are not going to be receptive to "you can't drive your car" or "stop having children", and even getting everyone to do something simple like turning the lights off when they're not in a room is probably an unrealistic expectation. People still don't believe global warming exists. Nobody's going to give up their conveniences, their TV, their transportation, or rethink their decision to reproduce if there is no immediate, tangible threat to their existence. Global warming doesn't present that kind of threat. It takes time. And by the time you reach oh-poo poo-we're-hosed-ville, reducing man-made carbon emissions to ZERO won't help. It's going to happen anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Av027 posted:And then there's the people who have children, which is one of the most environmentally damaging things you can do in the long term. Fact is, being "green" as an individual really doesn't mean much. Society as a whole must change or there will be no change. I don't necessarily agree with legislating people's reproductive decisions (that doesn't quite have a sterling history). I think if there is to be a solution it at least has to work around existing structures that give freedom. Eco-fascism would solve the problem handily, but is it preferable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 16:16
|
|
Av027 posted:And then there's the people who have children, which is one of the most environmentally damaging things you can do in the long term. Fact is, being "green" as an individual really doesn't mean much. Society as a whole must change or there will be no change. Nothing could be more counterproductive than this type of thinking.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:I don't necessarily agree with legislating people's reproductive decisions (that doesn't quite have a sterling history). I think if there is to be a solution it at least has to work around existing structures that give freedom. Eco-fascism would solve the problem handily, but is it preferable? I don't think anyone would suggest legislation against excessive reproduction (wherever you draw THAT line), and I certainly wouldn't. Unless, of course, you're China, but that's neither here nor there really. My point was that the very idea that having children is bad for the environment is not something the media, or politicians would touch with a 10 meter cattle prod, yet it has a huge impact on the environment nevertheless. Much larger than driving an inefficient SUV. I would say though that I firmly believe that nothing short of eco-fascist government intervention will sway us from our path to climate self-immolation. Nobody will give up their TV or SUV any more than they'd agree not to have more than one child if they wanted to have more. If left to everyone, the trend will not reverse until it's too late, if even then. If the decision was up to you, would you let 6-7 billion people die over the course of the next 50-100 years, or would you enact harsh, likely unpopular legislation to prevent it? Is an individuals television, SUV, and right to reproduce worth the lives of billions? Can we not live a comfortable lifestyle without heavy use of fossil fuels, disposable electronics, and wasteful practices, if we put in an actual effort to do so? I believe we can, we just choose not to. It's easier not to. It's more profitable not to. It's inconvenient that the climate might might not agree with us, and might just kill us off over it. It's no different than the economy. Immediate gain is necessary, and gently caress the long-term outlook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Eco-fascism would solve the problem handily, but is it preferable? Most likely, but only if you're comparing it to an alternative where billions of people starve to death as the crops fail year after year. It's lovely, reading about how there's apparently going to be a "legally binding" agreement on carbon emissions just as we get past the threshold of loving things up beyond the point of no return. Yet I keep seeing people still optimistic about the future because 'look at all the tech we have now!', completely ignoring that the problem is of population and how nowhere is fully embracing renewable energy sources and most likely won't be anytime soon. This thread is pretty depressing to read, I never realised how completely screwed we were until recently. Ignorance is bliss, but the wake up call is going to be extremely rude and frightening for the majority of people who think of climate change as 'some thing that will happen well after I'm dead'. All we can really do is our little tiny bit and hope that our governments will pull their heads out of their arses and make some drastic changes for the good of us all (spoiler: they won't  ).Am I wrong in assuming the upcoming catastrophic climate change is going to cause some pretty bloodthirsty wars? I'm working off the assumption that there's going to be a huge amount of conflict over the last few pieces of arable land as more and more people starve to death or die of thirst. Anyone wanting to place bets on future battlegrounds? froglet fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Feb 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Nothing could be more counterproductive than this type of thinking. What, that people wouldn't be receptive to the suggestion that they give up their TV, their SUV, or their right to reproduce? You might want to go back and re-read what I posted. Human nature is what I'm talking about here. Change on a global scale is necessary. Change on an individual scale will not do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Av027 posted:*snip* having children is bad for the environment *snip* This is only true if humans aren't part of the environment and since we're only going to deal with climate change if we recognize that we ARE part of the environment, this is a fatal flaw in your reasoning. As others have said, you are the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Av027 posted:What, that people wouldn't be receptive to the suggestion that they give up their TV, their SUV, or their right to reproduce? Here's something I've often heard said (roughly) in social justice circles: we definitely need institutional and cultural change like nothing else, but you don't just walk in to congress and *bang* change the culture. It happens always on an individual basis--thousands and millions of conversations with individual people, getting them to think even a little bit differently. That's really all we can do on a day-to-day basis and without millions of dollars to throw around. The state, capital, patriarchy--they all want you to think it's impossible, that you can't do anything. It's all part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Here's something I've often heard said (roughly) in social justice circles: we definitely need institutional and cultural change like nothing else, but you don't just walk in to congress and *bang* change the culture. It happens always on an individual basis--thousands and millions of conversations with individual people, getting them to think even a little bit differently. That's really all we can do on a day-to-day basis and without millions of dollars to throw around. Granted, and again, I'm not saying that individuals should just say gently caress it, burn it down. I'm saying that you're going to need a whole lot more people on board than current before any meaningful impact is realized. There has to be a change in the culture or the culture is going to result in the deaths of billions. It really is that simple. Are you content to wait (and hope) for that culture to change organically? Will it occur? Will it occur in time? The clock is ticking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Av027 posted:There has to be a change in the culture or the culture is going to result in the deaths of billions. It really is that simple. Are you content to wait (and hope) for that culture to change organically? Will it occur? Will it occur in time? The clock is ticking. "Change organically" versus what, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
You can create a meaningful impact for yourself and the people around you. Are you going to be caught flat footed halfway through a McBurger when change arrives to you personally? Practice ecological, sustainable living as best you can, and you can make a gentler landing than everyone caught in the moment. The difference between a car crash and a controlled stop is time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:"Change organically" versus what, exactly? I assume "change organically" vs. change via political measures. And I agree, change that comes from the individuals' behaviour is the only reasonable answer to this. Deadlysherpa posted:You can create a meaningful impact for yourself and the people around you. Are you going to be caught flat footed halfway through a McBurger when change arrives to you personally? Practice ecological, sustainable living as best you can, and you can make a gentler landing than everyone caught in the moment. I couldn't have said it better. Disconnect from the system as much as you can, get local, organic food, stop being an idiot consumer and become an example for others. What the "a few people chaning their ways isn't enough" crowd doesn't understand is that a few people inspire a few more, they inspire a few more each, and so on - it's a snowball effect. Whereas, on the other hand, we don't have any large organizational body that has the will, or really any interest in dealing with this situation. All government is a function of rich fucks making money. Their aim is money, not sustainability or a healthy ecosphere. Thus, people taking matters into their own hands will be the only ones to make a change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Johnnie5 posted:This is only true if humans aren't part of the environment and since we're only going to deal with climate change if we recognize that we ARE part of the environment, this is a fatal flaw in your reasoning. As others have said, you are the problem. I'm not seeing your argument here. Even if we accept (correctly) that humans are part of the environment, we can still say that human beings increasing in number will tend to produce effects in the environment that are detrimental to the survival of that human part of the environment. Similarly, accepting that CO2 is part of the environment doesn't mean that having too much of it is no longer a problem. Do you mind clarifying your point? Because I don't think I'm getting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:"Change organically" versus what, exactly? Outside intervention. Legislation. Anything that prompts immediate change, or forces it. I'm not suggesting a course of action, I'm simply... observing the lack of motivation for the majority to take action. If they do not perceive a problem, they will not act upon it. In my opinion, waiting for the culture to change, on its own, over time, is a sure recipe for disaster. Those that are aware of the problem right now may make changes in lifestyle, but those that are not, or actively deny it, have zero motivation to change anything at all. I don't believe we have time to convince those people, because in the eyes of a denier, it doesn't exist, and in the eyes of a skeptic, it's always going to be "maybe it'll happen eventually" until it's too late. And let's not forget those that are completely uninformed. We have limited time to make these changes. Positive feedbacks will ensure the warming trend continues if we pass the point of no return (within a couple of decades I believe?). The longer we wait, the more severe the problem gets, and the faster we'd have to make those culture changes in order to avoid falling off the cliff, so to speak. We have a climate change denial lobby in the US. How many companies exploit the environment for profit, and would actively fight to continue doing so? China and India are ramping up fossil fuel use, and general standards of living. Recent events in Japan have shaken public and government faith in nuclear power (don't worry though, we have "clean" coal). We have jokes like Ethanol, and underdeveloped technologies like solar that realistically cannot meet current energy demands, period. There are forces actively working against climate change awareness, and we are to expect the culture to change for the better - on its own - before it's too late? Forgive me if I don't have that much faith in humanity at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm not seeing your argument here. Even if we accept (correctly) that humans are part of the environment, we can still say that human beings increasing in number will tend to produce effects in the environment that are detrimental to the survival of that human part of the environment. Similarly, accepting that CO2 is part of the environment doesn't mean that having too much of it is no longer a problem. Do you mind clarifying your point? Because I don't think I'm getting it. He didn't say "having too many kids is bad" he said "having kids is bad". Like he favors radical depopulation of the human race. Unless we are like 10x over the Earth's carrying capacity, that seems extreme.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
Johnnie5 posted:He didn't say "having too many kids is bad" he said "having kids is bad". Like he favors radical depopulation of the human race. Unless we are like 10x over the Earth's carrying capacity, that seems extreme. Reproduction is bad for the environment. You should take a look at this: http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf quote:"Table 3 compares the emissions attributable to an individual’s reproduction to the emissions that are avoidable through changes in household activities and transportation during the individual’s lifetime. Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle. For example, a woman in the United States who adopted the six non-reproductive changes in Table 3 would save about 486 tons of CO2 emissions during her lifetime, but, if she were to have two children, this would eventually add nearly 40 times that amount of CO2 (18,882 t) to the earth’s atmosphere." And for the record, the global population is unsustainable without fossil fuels (with current technology), unchecked global warming will result in climate change that causes massive depopulation, and I have been arguing against allowing said global warming to continue unchecked. In truth, I have been arguing for maintenance of population levels, not depopulation. Comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Yeah. Johnnie5, thank you for clarifying your point, and I agree that if he were arguing for radical depopulation then that would be distasteful. But that sort of policy decision isn't a necessary consequence of accepting that human beings contribute to the buildup of greenhouse gasses, so if you make more of the former then you contribute to the latter. You can believe that and also believe that human life is such an essential good that maintaining population, even with reduced standards of living, is more desirable than allowing billions to die to maintain a more luxurious lifestyle for the elite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Reproduction is bad for the environment. You should take a look at this: That math is completely disingenuous. If one of those kids grows up and helps invent viable fusion power, does he get credit for the theoretically infinite CO2 emissions he prevents in the future? What if we revert to hunter-gatherer tribes, how much CO2 will he emit then? The assumptions behind such calculations are so many and varied that anything coming out at the end is practically worthless. GIGO. quote:And for the record, the global population is unsustainable without fossil fuels (with current technology), unchecked global warming will result in climate change that causes massive depopulation, and I have been arguing against allowing said global warming to continue unchecked. While I definitely agree on the second point and obviously agree with the need to mitigate the effects of climate change, I think the first statement is unsupported. From my readings, current estimates of our carrying capacity vary wildly depending on the initial conditions, modeling methods, and assumptions about the rate of technological advancement or its limits. What studies and what numbers are you basing your statement on? quote:In truth, I have been arguing for maintenance of population levels, not depopulation. Comprehension. But you said (like, in the same post) that "Reproduction is Bad". Not "excessive reproduction is bad", or "having more than 2 kids is bad", or even something as reasonable as "we need to work towards 0 population growth". No, you made a blanket statement which, in addition to not actually being what you meant, is needlessly inflammatory and counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Outside intervention. Legislation. Anything that prompts immediate change, or forces it. I'm not suggesting a course of action, I'm simply... observing the lack of motivation for the majority to take action. If they do not perceive a problem, they will not act upon it. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should "wait" for things to happen. I'm not sure what you mean by "outside intervention" but pretty clearly there isn't going to be political change with the structures we've got, even if we get a cultural shift. If you're genuinely worried about the effects of climate change there are dozens of different things you can be doing to improve the resiliency of your community, and I'm not talking about liberal capitalist "solutions" like recycling or driving a smart car or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Johnnie5 posted:That math is completely disingenuous. If one of those kids grows up and helps invent viable fusion power, does he get credit for the theoretically infinite CO2 emissions he prevents in the future? What if we revert to hunter-gatherer tribes, how much CO2 will he emit then? The assumptions behind such calculations are so many and varied that anything coming out at the end is practically worthless. GIGO. Um, that paper is research, not prophecy. Johnnie5 posted:While I definitely agree on the second point and obviously agree with the need to mitigate the effects of climate change, I think the first statement is unsupported. From my readings, current estimates of our carrying capacity vary wildly depending on the initial conditions, modeling methods, and assumptions about the rate of technological advancement or its limits. What studies and what numbers are you basing your statement on? The first statement is backed up by the study I linked (University of Oregon). Johnnie5 posted:But you said (like, in the same post) that "Reproduction is Bad". Not "excessive reproduction is bad", or "having more than 2 kids is bad", or even something as reasonable as "we need to work towards 0 population growth". No, you made a blanket statement which, in addition to not actually being what you meant, is needlessly inflammatory and counterproductive. All reproduction is technically bad for the environment, given current trends. If you refer to the study, you will see that obviously Americans have a larger carbon footprint than the Chinese individually. However, as the global population grows, overall human-generated impact on the environment increases. Again, this is not me saying "you should not have kids" this is me saying "having kids impacts the environment negatively". All kids. Not "well, the first 19,000 tons don't count, so go ahead and have 2. But if you have 3, whoa buddy, we got problems!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Again, this is not me saying "you should not have kids" this is me saying "having kids impacts the environment negatively". All kids. Not "well, the first 19,000 tons don't count, so go ahead and have 2. But if you have 3, whoa buddy, we got problems!" The thing is, this should be really really obvious to anyone with half a brain. The problem is that the debate is increasingly being framed in moralistic terms, where Helping The Environment is in of itself a moral good and Hurting The Environment is a moral wrong. Which is a problem for precisely this reason; it keeps us from rationally analyzing the effects that things have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:The thing is, this should be really really obvious to anyone with half a brain. The problem is that the debate is increasingly being framed in moralistic terms, where Helping The Environment is in of itself a moral good and Hurting The Environment is a moral wrong. Which is a problem for precisely this reason; it keeps us from rationally analyzing the effects that things have. Well, this was pretty much my point when this whole argument got started. Nobody is going to be receptive to the idea that the fact they have kids (or want to have kids) is hurting the environment. But it's obviously making a huge negative impact on the environment in the long term. Clearly you're not going to convince people to stop reproducing, nor should anyone try, really. But that doesn't change the bottom line - it's a bad thing from a global warming perspective. But what's the harm in presenting these facts? Those that might be on the fence about having kids, or environmentally conscious individuals unaware of the impact having a child has? Maybe they choose not to have children when presented with the facts. Less reproduction is still good for us while climate change is an issue, and if it's of your own free will, it's your business. Of course, it's not like the media is going to pick that up and run with it. Nor the politicians. It's a recipe for instant pariah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Well, this was pretty much my point when this whole argument got started. Nobody is going to be receptive to the idea that the fact they have kids (or want to have kids) is hurting the environment. But it's obviously making a huge negative impact on the environment in the long term. Clearly you're not going to convince people to stop reproducing, nor should anyone try, really. But that doesn't change the bottom line - it's a bad thing from a global warming perspective. While you're musing about the ethics of having children we are willfullly engaging in large-scale industrial projects (ex: tar sands) that emit more Co2 than a child could ever hope to. Simply put, there are bigger (and much easier) fish to fry than having babies if you want to start talking about ways for society to reduce our emissions. Look, I support family planning initiatives, sex education, wide-scale distribution of birth control, assisted suicide and a whole host of other things that could ease global population growth. Ultimately "but having a child is bad for the environment" is a worthless statement that offers nothing towards a solution. It reads more like some kind of conservative zinger than it does honest discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Av027 posted:But what's the harm in presenting these facts? Those that might be on the fence about having kids, or environmentally conscious individuals unaware of the impact having a child has? Maybe they choose not to have children when presented with the facts. Less reproduction is still good for us while climate change is an issue, and if it's of your own free will, it's your business. I get what you're trying to say. However, there is a "harm in presenting these facts." The population discussion is always already racially and economically framed, because everyone knows which populations are producing the most children: poor and third world people. I won't go so far as to accuse you of blowing a dog whistle, because your intentions are good, but you can't present facts in a vacuum. Here's an analogy: you could of course say "Processed food is more environmentally harmful than local whole foods and its consumption should be discouraged." True, perhaps. But there's already a frame, which is that poor people eat disproportionately more of the processed food in America. Thus, when you say "X should be discouraged," you're saying (without even saying it) "we should stop [Oppressed Group] from doing X." On your second count, you're wrong unfortunately. The media in the US, for instance, regularly attacks "welfare queens" (read: people of color) for having too many children. Black women and Latinas, especially, are historically seen as hyperfertile, unable to control the amount of offspring they have. This has led to serious sterilization efforts in the past.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Look, I support family planning initiatives, sex education, wide-scale distribution of birth control, assisted suicide and a whole host of other things that could ease global population growth. Ultimately "but having a child is bad for the environment" is a worthless statement that offers nothing towards a solution. It reads more like some kind of conservative zinger than it does honest discussion. I mean, it is a zinger, against the ridiculous idea that we should stop doing anything Bad For The Environment. But the ridiculousness of that idea is important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I mean, it is a zinger, against the ridiculous idea that we should stop doing anything Bad For The Environment. But the ridiculousness of that idea is important. Agreed It's very frustrating to talk to like-minded people who are all too eager to reject technology and society in the pursuit of "nature" which many treat as if it were paradise. Even if nature ever was a paradise (it wasn't) it certainly won't be now, as we've locked in rapid climate change for at least a few thousand years, if not hundreds of thousands (more likely). a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
I have to be honest, if theres any good reason not to have kids, its because if the worst predictions are true, the kids are going to have every moral reason to lynch us by our neckties from whatever oak trees remain standing for the nightmarish mess we're leaving them. Hell, part of me thinks we ought have done this already to the baby boomers. Our generation have been total cunts and deserve whatever inter-generational justice comes our way. Look after a bunch of ageing generation X's who wrecked the planet for them? Why ought they.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 09:56
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Agreed What I'm worried about is if every single individual on the planet did their best to reduce their ecological impact would we still be able to fix the mess that's already been caused? Our industry and large societies may very well be our best tools in not only preventing but also reversing climate change, on top of cleaning up the other messes we've left in the environment. I don't understand why people demonize society and technology just because they're implicated in our current problem. It doesn't change the fact that these two things may very well be our greatest possible weapons against the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:What I'm worried about is if every single individual on the planet did their best to reduce their ecological impact would we still be able to fix the mess that's already been caused? Without a major technological breakthrough, no. We just don't have a way to get the carbon out of the atmosphere. The icesheets in Greenland and W. Antarctica are melting. There are methane plumes a kilometer across in Russia. Your grandchildren won't know of a time where there was ice in the arctic during the summer. Meanwhile emissions are only increasing and governments are looking less able to collaborate on this problem than ever. "Fixing" the mess shouldn't be a goal any more, surviving it should be. quote:Our industry and large societies may very well be our best tools in not only preventing but also reversing climate change, on top of cleaning up the other messes we've left in the environment. I don't understand why people demonize society and technology just because they're implicated in our current problem. It doesn't change the fact that these two things may very well be our greatest possible weapons against the problem. They are our only real weapons against climate change. They are also one of the major drivers of this problem, which I suspect is why people reject them so quickly. We are doing this to ourselves, it's only natural for individuals who can identify this to eagerly reject our own society once they understand how threatening its actions are. Saying that they are "implicated" really ignores our responsibility in this, which is near 100%. We are the reason the planet is undergoing the 6th largest extinction event. We not only have to embrace technology, science, and nature but we have to collectively understand them at a much deeper level than we do know and recognize their limitations/weaknesses and do what we can to compensate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:I get what you're trying to say. However, there is a "harm in presenting these facts." The population discussion is always already racially and economically framed, because everyone knows which populations are producing the most children: poor and third world people. I wouldn't dispute that, but the report I linked differentiates between the impacts in various countries, based on standards of living. So where they say: quote:under the constant-emission scenario, an extra child born to a woman in the United States ultimately increases her carbon legacy by an amount (9441 metric tons) that is nearly seven times the analagous quantity for a woman in China (1384 tons) You can extrapolate that births to poor families have less impact than those to privileged families in the same country. So not only would they be assholes for framing it racially, they'd be scientifically incorrect. deptstoremook posted:I won't go so far as to accuse you of blowing a dog whistle, because your intentions are good, but you can't present facts in a vacuum. Here's an analogy: you could of course say "Processed food is more environmentally harmful than local whole foods and its consumption should be discouraged." True, perhaps. But there's already a frame, which is that poor people eat disproportionately more of the processed food in America. Thus, when you say "X should be discouraged," you're saying (without even saying it) "we should stop [Oppressed Group] from doing X." I won't argue that there wouldn't be a racial dialogue if "kids=bad" was shouted from the rooftops. Someone would undoubtedly become the mouthpiece for "them coloreds are ruinin' our evironment!" I think it's important to note, however, that average emissions per capita vary widely in each country, and it's easy to identify the source of the issue (it's not race): code:deptstoremook posted:On your second count, you're wrong unfortunately. The media in the US, for instance, regularly attacks "welfare queens" (read: people of color) for having too many children. Black women and Latinas, especially, are historically seen as hyperfertile, unable to control the amount of offspring they have. This has led to serious sterilization efforts in the past. Yes, I'm aware of the US's sordid history regarding covert sterilization, and I do realize that "welfare queens" would be the obvious target if this were actually discussed in the US media. It isn't, however, because the subject is distasteful - that was more my point than anything. I think it's interesting that having children makes a huge negative impact on the environment, and we're not willing to acknowledge it (as a population), because it's not what we want to hear. a lovely poster posted:While you're musing about the ethics of having children we are willfullly engaging in large-scale industrial projects (ex: tar sands) that emit more Co2 than a child could ever hope to. Simply put, there are bigger (and much easier) fish to fry than having babies if you want to start talking about ways for society to reduce our emissions. Look, you can argue that there are easier, more acceptable changes (like driving a Prius instead of an Escalade), but having a child has a bigger impact. And you can argue that industry has a bigger impact than anything your average individual does in his life, including having a child. It doesn't change the fact that having a child is one of the biggest negative impacts an individual can have on the environment. You could poo poo up the atmosphere by tying two Escalades together for your 400 mile daily commute for 50 years, and you wouldn't cause as much damage. (If you ask me for proof of this, I will internet punch you in the head) Sure, any "green" improvement at an individual level is helpful, but some have a larger impact than others. It just so happens that choosing not to have children is one of, if not the biggest. By a large margin. Also, are you arguing that shutting down large-scale industrial projects is "easier" fish to fry? Because 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Look, you can argue that there are easier, more acceptable changes (like driving a Prius instead of an Escalade) This is not what I'm talking about quote:, but having a child has a bigger impact. And you can argue that industry has a bigger impact than anything your average individual does in his life, including having a child. It doesn't change the fact that having a child is one of the biggest negative impacts an individual can have on the environment. You could poo poo up the atmosphere by tying two Escalades together for your 400 mile daily commute for 50 years, and you wouldn't cause as much damage. (If you ask me for proof of this, I will internet punch you in the head) It's not though. Having a child is just not that bad for the environment. It's bad because our society emits a lot and you're lumping together all our emmissions/energy usage and going "see, we use too much per capita" quote:Sure, any "green" improvement at an individual level is helpful, but some have a larger impact than others. It just so happens that choosing not to have children is one of, if not the biggest. By a large margin. Yes, shutting down large-scale industrial projects is going to be easier (not easy) than convincing people not to procreate. Welcome to reality. I'm not some advocate for green industry, trust me. I think it's an absolutely terrible way to go about changing, but not as terrible as the ideas you're putting forth in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:This is not what I'm talking about I know that, I should've said "one can argue" rather than "you" for that particular sentence. However, it's been argued several posts prior, so it's a valid point. a lovely poster posted:It's not though. Having a child is just not that bad for the environment. It's bad because our society emits a lot and you're lumping together all our emmissions/energy usage and going "see, we use too much per capita" It is, because you can't separate humans from their carbon footprint. We're directly responsible, regardless of how large that footprint is - even if global warming were magically eliminated tomorrow, carbon footprint is still a thing. Also, that study focuses on average individual contribution to carbon footprint, and the impact per child, not the impact per mother with child: quote:From the point of view of this paper, which focuses on the consequences of an individual’s reproductive behavior, it is useful to compare the carbon emissions added per child, rather than the emissions of females having the average number of children, among the different countries. a lovely poster posted:Yes, shutting down large-scale industrial projects is going to be easier (not easy) than convincing people not to procreate. Welcome to reality. My whole point was that convincing people not to procreate is an impossibility, despite the impact. You should probably read my posts before responding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
So we seemed to have skipped winter in most of America. Wonder if that'll make people think more about what the hell is happening with climate change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Flashing Twelve posted:
I think being green would have lot more support if people stopped believing and secretly hoping that statements like this are true. I don't believe that even in the worse case, that being rich compared to the rest of the world is unsustainable. Further I can totally envision a world where the first-world lifestyle is identical, the only difference Green Energy, Nuclear, Solar, etc is the standard, and as a result the First-world has eliminated most of it's emissions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:So we seemed to have skipped winter in most of America. Wonder if that'll make people think more about what the hell is happening with climate change. I'm in Canada and people were saying it sure is nice to be warmer. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
This one winter was a random fluctuation that has happened before, it's not evidence of global warming. Hopefully it wakes a few people up though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Further I can totally envision a world where the first-world lifestyle is identical, the only difference Green Energy, Nuclear, Solar, etc is the standard, and as a result the First-world has eliminated most of it's emissions. It can't happen, at least not in the foreseeable future. The seldom-spoken (for rhetorical reasons) truth of the sustainability movement is that these alternative energies (with the possible exception of nuclear) will all have a much smaller output than the current structure. Thus, we will be required to reduce our consumption one way or another. Barring some sort of fantasy science discovery, "green" energy will mean less energy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:It can't happen, at least not in the foreseeable future. The seldom-spoken (for rhetorical reasons) truth of the sustainability movement is that these alternative energies (with the possible exception of nuclear) will all have a much smaller output than the current structure. Thus, we will be required to reduce our consumption one way or another. Barring some sort of fantasy science discovery, "green" energy will mean less energy. Or it will just mean a backbone of nuclear power, with all the accompanying horrors of people loving it up due to cutting corners. Or a relatively larger energy infrastructure industry. I mean as long as we can do around 8:1 or so EROI it won't be too horrible. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:This one winter was a random fluctuation that has happened before, it's not evidence of global warming. Hopefully it wakes a few people up though. True, but I have a faint hope that combined with last year's clusterfuck of weather catastrophes, that the dangers of global warming might make a dent in the mass consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 20:33
|
|