|
Salt Fish posted:I hate to break it to you but all of the people discussing not having kids in this thread were themselves born to parents who had kids. 
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There's your problem. Climate change won't be solved by "average people, who want to stop climate change." So you're saying it can only be solved by, who, exactly? The intellectual elite? They've been talking about problem for some time now, to no avail. They have no real power. Capitalists? It goes against their lust for short term profit, and they've spent billions on keeping the status quo. Politicians, who depend on the capitalists for getting elected? Who?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
The problem with the "stop having kids" argument is that it's basically a suggestion to enter a genetic prisoner's dilemma on a global scale. Even if you yourself decide not to have kids, many people won't, and in the long run their genes will survive while yours will perish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:The problem with the "stop having kids" argument is that it's basically a suggestion to enter a genetic prisoner's dilemma on a global scale. Even if you yourself decide not to have kids, many people won't, and in the long run their genes will survive while yours will perish. Who gives a poo poo? e: I mean seriously, why should I care if my genes perish? Doubly why should I care if my genes perish as part of a choice I make to make the world slightly better for generations to come? The only people who truly, truly get upset by the thought of their "bloodline" or whatever disappearing are egomaniacs. ex2: or 
How are u fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
e: ^^^ Yeah I just tried to ignore that "your genes perishing" might have actually been put forward as a reason to have kids regardless.enraged_camel posted:The problem with the "stop having kids" argument is that it's basically a suggestion to enter a genetic prisoner's dilemma on a global scale. Even if you yourself decide not to have kids, many people won't, and in the long run their genes will survive while yours will perish. Regardless of your personal position on this, you make a really good point; the only people who apparently understand that reducing population is incredibly beneficial to reducing climate pressure can't pass genes for - what, basic logical deduction? - onto the next generation. We literally are screwed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Unless of course the Eco messiah is born
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:e: ^^^ Yeah I just tried to ignore that "your genes perishing" might have actually been put forward as a reason to have kids regardless. Instead of literal genes think of cultural knowledge - if leftists* (for example) collectively decide to stop having kids, then in a few decades there aren't any more leftists. *Or environmentalists, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:I'm still trying to work this one out myself. A tirade of false equivocation, lovely logic, projection and straw men. I wish people would just own up to their internal biases; it makes the conversation much easier and quicker if people just admit outright "I strongly desire children, and I want grandchildren, and great grandchildren". At least for me it has nothing to do with wanting children or not. It has everything to do with some posters seeming to treat children as a single derived negative number instead of a collection of variables, variables that can be both helpful and not. Because of that, simply giving "don't have children" as advice to just anyone feels like an enormous simplistic and pessimistic look at the footprint number of children. If you choose to go down such a blind and extreme route you're coming off as hypocritical to seemingly not advocate the other extremes just because they are in your comfort zone. Batham fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Instead of literal genes think of cultural knowledge - if leftists* (for example) collectively decide to stop having kids, then in a few decades there aren't any more leftists. Broad, over-arching concepts such as "leftism" and "environmentalism" are not so obscure that we need to worry about them dying out if potential parents don't have kids to pass them on to. I mean really, the children of tomorrow are going to be concerned with leftist thought and certainly environmentalism because that's the world they're going to inherit. Staggering income inequality and a seriously hosed up planet, you'd better believe they'll be environmentalists to a man.  what if environmentalists can't pass their secret tribal knowledge to the next generation???  e: god knows I wasn't taught anything like leftist thought or environmentalism from my parents. I was raised evangelical christian. I discovered that poo poo on my own, as a product of my environment. How are u fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
How are u posted:Broad, over-arching concepts such as "leftism" and "environmentalism" are not so obscure that we need to worry about them dying out if potential parents don't have kids to pass them on to. Surprisingly, most people gain their knowledge and values from their friends and family, not intense study.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Ah, more wonderful news:quote:Arctic sea ice peaked early this winter, and at its lowest maximum since record keeping began in 1979 — yet another sign that global warming is already wreaking havoc on the planet. It is possible that this is premature, however. The maximum has happened later in March. Unlikely, but possible. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Batham posted:It has everything to do with some posters seeming to treat children as a single derived number instead of a collection of variables, variables that can be both helpful and not. This now smacks of endowment effect. Do you have children? We're not talking about existing people, maybe that's where all the idiotic "kill yourself" arguments are coming from. We are literally talking about people that do no exist yet, that yes, can be equated to simply an impact on the environment, because that is the context in which we are discussing it. There are no variables at play here that can lessen that equation to the extent that "child = huge carbon impact" is no longer pertinent because, am I'm going to have to presume here as you didn't give an example, that all your variables are relevant to the person themselves as a human being. That is to say, external to their impact on the environment, which was the original point. This is why everyone who understood this point was confused by the suicide comments. Batham posted:Because of that, simply giving "don't have children" as advice to just anyone feels like an enormous simplistic and pessimistic look at the footprint number of children. If you choose to go down such a blind extreme route you're coming off as hypocritical to seemingly not advocate the other extremes just because they are in your comfort zone. To describe the simple concept of not having children as "extreme" actually says more than you realise. Then you're just projecting after that, presumably trying to equivocate the previous suggestion to not use a computer to not having children. You may not like the idea of not having children, which is fine, but at least take the approach that, for example, Naomi Klein does in This Changes Everything, which is to acknowledge that having a child is a huge impact on the environment, but that she did it anyway because she wanted to. Trying to argue a simple fact is just exasperating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:So you're saying it can only be solved by, who, exactly? The intellectual elite? They've been talking about problem for some time now, to no avail. They have no real power. Capitalists? It goes against their lust for short term profit, and they've spent billions on keeping the status quo. Politicians, who depend on the capitalists for getting elected? Who? Climate change must be changed by the powers that be. So yes, intellectual elite, capitalists and politicians. So if we're going to address the issue, we must refine our tools, methods and means to influence those groups. And you're wrong about all of those points btw. The intellectual elite is the only reason we're discussing climate change at all, most intelligent capitalists are actively responding to climate change with both mitigation and adaption (see the Insurance industry, the MIC, tech and 6 sigma), and politicians depend on money but some politicians have actually responded to climate change (AB 32, Kyoto signatories). If anything, we need more work from the so-called intellectual elite to give politicians and capitalists more ways to adapt and mitigate climate change without destroying themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Climate change must be changed by the powers that be. So yes, intellectual elite, capitalists and politicians. So if we're going to address the issue, we must refine our tools, methods and means to influence those groups. And no, I'm not wrong about capitalists spending billions of dollars to maintain the status quo and politicians being heavily beholden to capitalist interests. You can't just hand-wave things away that don't fit with your world view.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:Okay but what if the kid you have is the one that leads the eco-revolution, that seems like a pretty good carbon negative impact This is a line of thinking that could lead to some pretty screwed up side effects. "We should ban abortion so we don't kill the next martin luther king". "We should ban condoms because" etc etc. And of course the kid could be the next Koch brother, Hitler or just some poor schmuck who dies in a ditch after the ecosystem collapses. The thing about potential is, its not actually real (yet).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
duck monster posted:This is a line of thinking that could lead to some pretty screwed up side effects. "We should ban abortion so we don't kill the next martin luther king". "We should ban condoms because" etc etc. No, see, that just means we need to maximize population growth in order to increase our chances of getting a Great Person. With two Great People we can enter a Golden Age or use them to speed research the tech we need to win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The thing about potential is, its not actually real (yet). This was my attempted point, and I think that it's going hand in hand with people making specific reference to say, a child they know, as opposed to the arbitrary concept of "a new human being".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
If we start blood sacrificing people we can pump our Growth Dominion, and perhaps if we claim the Throne of Fortune we can add some Luck to it. Climate Change solved!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:The fact that you're toting "Kyoto signatories" as a significant response to climate change is rather enlightening. I have no idea how you think insurance companies, MIC, and "tech" is in any way even slowing climate change. Insurance companies changing rates due to future climate risk, tech companies switching to more sustainable processes and MIC investment in new energy technology has already done more to mitigate and adapt to climate change than a select few global-rich citizens choosing not to have kids ever will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
You mention insurance which is pretty interesting, because in the US it's Federal flood insurance that allows these loving morons to keep building on the seashore and then rebuilding every time their god drat houses and condos get hosed to death by a mega-storm. The Free Market in this case has been propped up by the lack of political will to face facts. I can't see this changing any time in the next decade, so that idiotic Florida building boom is going to continue until it all ends in hilarious, awful, eminently avoidable tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Insurance companies changing rates due to future climate risk, tech companies switching to more sustainable processes and MIC investment in new energy technology has already done more to mitigate and adapt to climate change than a select few global-rich citizens choosing not to have kids ever will. The only thing that reduces carbon more than insurance companies changing rates due to future climate risk and MIC investment in new energy technology is insurance companies changing rates due to future climate risk and MIC investment in new energy technology and people choosing not to have children. Also which energy technologies has the MIC researched and deployed to civilians, besides nukes? Genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
How are u posted:I can't see this changing any time in the next decade, so that idiotic Florida building boom is going to continue until it all ends in hilarious, awful, eminently avoidable tragedy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klgp_qDiRhQ&t=200s
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:The problem with the "stop having kids" argument is that it's basically a suggestion to enter a genetic prisoner's dilemma on a global scale. Even if you yourself decide not to have kids, many people won't, and in the long run their genes will survive while yours will perish. Lookit this guy who think genes are important when GMOs are already a thing. Also, https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption. It's perfectly possible to raise a child that you weren't involved in conceiving, something that seems to have escaped Trabisnikof and the rest of the Drax Cosplay Circlejerk Circus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:This was my attempted point, and I think that it's going hand in hand with people making specific reference to say, a child they know, as opposed to the arbitrary concept of "a new human being". Okay, I admit I misunderstood your point then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Batham posted:At least for me it has nothing to do with wanting children or not. It has everything to do with some posters seeming to treat children as a single derived negative number instead of a collection of variables, variables that can be both helpful and not. This is wrong and why people are making fun of you. Hello Sailor posted:Lookit this guy who think genes are important when GMOs are already a thing. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Insurance companies changing rates due to future climate risk, tech companies switching to more sustainable processes and MIC investment in new energy technology has already done more to mitigate and adapt to climate change than a select few global-rich citizens choosing not to have kids ever will. Please provide evidence for how these organizations are slowing or stopping climate change. I'm especially interested in how insurance company rate changes based on risk actually reduces emissions. You can start with this, which shows a 5% increase in emissions since 1990. Remember, we need to try and stay below 400ppm CO2 to avoid catastrophic warming: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Please provide evidence for how these organizations are slowing or stopping climate change. I'm especially interested in how insurance company rate changes based on risk actually reduces emissions. Awkward..... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Awkward..... Which axis is insurance company activism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Awkward..... Yup! Hence why piecemeal incremental improvements in efficiency and half-assed political promises backed by anemic action are useless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Yup! Hence why piecemeal incremental improvements in efficiency and half-assed political promises backed by anemic action are useless. And thus the solution is something slower and even more prone to being counteracted by non-participating forces!  edit: and you better not try and study how to implement massive infrastructure change or social restructuring! Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And thus the solution is something slower and even more prone to being counteracted by non-participating forces! Are you going to actually try to defend any of the absurd positions you've taken, or just keep finding ways to avoid responding?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Are you going to actually try to defend any of the absurd positions you've taken, or just keep finding ways to avoid responding? Apple or Google using renewables is far better for the environment and the climate than some goons deciding they won't have kids. That's a fact. Military funded research into batteries and biofuels will have a greater positive impact on adaptation and mitigation than any number of goons not having kids. Plus, no one has exactly explained how a minority not having children because of climate won't be subsumed by larger social trends. Not having children is both an unworkable policy and fundamentally not a solution to our systems of resource consumption.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
The whole not have children thing is pretty hilarious, even by D&D standards. Do you guys live in the real world? Sure, some people will not have kids willingly, for a number of reasons related or not related to climate change. Good luck convincing a sizable amount of the population to follow suit. You have everything from societal norms, to religion in your way before you can hope to get anywhere. Greedy or unreasonable as it may be to some of you, many people put a fairly enormous value on passing their DNA on, a lot of evolutionary bits there. Again for emphasis, people are not logic processors who will just see not having kids as some simple logical solution to a long term problem. Remember, this is a problem many are not even aware of the severity of which. Hell, many simply refuse to believe it. I sympathize with the posters who think the future generations will have a miserable time of things, I agree. That is enough of a reason for myself to be hesitant, but that is a minority view most will not seriously consider. Edit: if you want a miracle fix that is almost equally dillusional, figure out and implement a framework to shift international government policy towards carbon neutrality irregardless of cost to wealthy nations. unlawfulsoup fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Frankly I don't see many people taking the drive less, bike to work, vegan diet, no flying, separating your recyclables prescriptions, let alone the route calling for people to ignore the variety of factors which drive the choice (and non-choice) to have a child. Whether its bad for the environment or not, at the end of the day most people just don't care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Apple or Google using renewables is far better for the environment and the climate than some goons deciding they won't have kids. That's a fact. etc No. Apple, Google, a coal power plant, any business, is not an individual, but a service for many, and the number people who choose to use that service determines the environmental cost of the company. Google provides a service for about a billion people, so Google's emissions are the product of the will of a billion people, each of whom is responsible for an average of one part in a bilion of Google's emissions; therefore, any increase or decrease in Google's environmental impact is divided by a bilion, throughout the people who choose to use Google. Since Google generates 2,000,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per year, if you choose to use their services, then their decrease in carbon intensity by 20% (say) will decrease your carbon footprint by 0.8kg per year, which is 0% of the 20,000kg carbon footprint the average American. Now compare that to you instead chosing not to have a child, which will produce its own 20,000kg of CO2e per year, and it's clear that a small fraction of the population choosing not to have children will have a greater effect than anything Google or Apple could do. Well... unless we move to full renewables/nuclear and take back the gigatonnes of CO2e that will continue our proud march past +2 degrees, even if we stop emitting today...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:The whole not have children thing is pretty hilarious, even by D&D standards. Do you guys live in the real world?    I utterly adore the complete lack of self-awareness in this comment, this is wonderful.If "people don't want to consider it" is a cogent argument then this thread should instead just be a circling-the-drain apocalyptic circle-jerk instead of actually discussing approaches and ideas, cause those gosh darn corporations (who are actually people, dontcha know?) certainly find most suggestions rather distasteful, let alone normal people. It wasn't presented as an instant solution, or something that everyone will magically gravitate to. No one argues that everyone will immediately want to consider it. It is an utterly simple concept, completely pertinent but acknowledged in every discussion about it (and utterly proven here) as the thing that no one wants to talk about; the elephant in the room. Real world paper if you're interested: http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/2/150.long Real world discussions on it that I Googled in 30 seconds because I don't think this argument deserves  anymorehttp://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/the-climate-change-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/ http://thebubblechamber.org/2014/04/children-are-not-the-future/ http://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2014/nov/13/sea-level-stories-population-climate-change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWJRcGbuIBA (You've got to ignore Bill Maher here; he is awful, but the author is relevant)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:The whole not have children thing is pretty hilarious, even by D&D standards. Do you guys live in the real world? Sure, some people will not have kids willingly, for a number of reasons related or not related to climate change. Good luck convincing a sizable amount of the population to follow suit. You have everything from societal norms, to religion in your way before you can hope to get anywhere. Greedy or unreasonable as it may be to some of you, many people put a fairly enormous value on passing their DNA on, a lot of evolutionary bits there. You're really against a thing nobody has argued for and you're smug about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
I've often said that if the news truly reflected what was actual critical knowledge and true threats that the public really needs to know, every newspaper would just be swamped with CH stories. Welp... Climate change: why the Guardian is putting threat to Earth front and centre quote:The climate threat features very prominently on the home page of the Guardian on Friday even though nothing exceptional happened on this day. It will be there again next week and the week after. You will, I hope, be reading a lot about our climate over the coming weeks. quote:One reason for this is personal. This summer I am stepping down after 20 years of editing the Guardian. Over Christmas I tried to anticipate whether I would have any regrets once I no longer had the leadership of this extraordinary agent of reporting, argument, investigation, questioning and advocacy. quote:We will look at who is getting the subsidies and who is doing the lobbying. We will name the worst polluters and find out who still funds them. We will urge enlightened trusts, investment specialists, universities, pension funds and businesses to take their money away from the companies posing the biggest risk to us. And, because people are rightly bound to ask, we will report on how the Guardian Media Group itself is getting to grips with the issues. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
katlington posted:You're really against a thing nobody has argued for and you're smug about it. Because it is a pie in the sky place to put effort. I would love to hear how you would implement it. markgreyam posted:
Abolishing all coal firing plants is a simple solution we have known about for decades, yet we are still stuck with how many. The list goes on, because we are not even willing to give up on our cheeseburgers and trinkets yet. You can discuss whatever you want, and all the power to you if you can convince people to not procreate for the environment. I still, think it is unfeasible and goes against what a majority of people would probably consider to be a core right. unlawfulsoup fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Apple or Google using renewables is far better for the environment and the climate than some goons deciding they won't have kids. That's a fact. Military funded research into batteries and biofuels will have a greater positive impact on adaptation and mitigation than any number of goons not having kids. You seem to be confusing the things I've said with the things other people have said. I am not one of the posters advocating for "less kids" as a solution to climate change. I did make one throw-away joke, which might have confused you. So again, are you actually going to defend the dumb things you've said with evidence? Also, I keep noticing the words "adaptation and mitigation" in your posts. Are you aware that without actually reducing our carbon emissions to near zero, climate effects will continue to get worse?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:20
|
|