|
Nobody is talking about "implementing" anything. Having a kid hurts the environment quite a bit more than most typical individual choices do. Yes, it's a dicey subject but maybe worth considering, esp. if you're on the fence about having a kid vs. adopting or something. It's not THE solution to climate change, it's just one of the many variables. Having/Not-having kids is itself a serious decision (right?) with a whole host of other issues and nobody is denying that. Maybe some people are kinda-sorta indicating it should be considered de facto immoral, but whatever that's in the seventh circle of forum discussion hell.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:Because it is a pie in the sky place to put effort. I would love to hear how you would implement it. katlington posted:You're really against a thing nobody has argued for and you're smug about it. katlington posted:a thing nobody has argued for katlington posted:a thing nobody has argued for Does trabisnikof have an actual position that anyone knows of other than "Whatever you said, that's poo poo and will never work"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Nobody is talking about "implementing" anything. Having a kid hurts the environment quite a bit more than most typical individual choices do. In addition it wasn't even brought up as a way to solve climate change but as a way to reduce the suffering of your own child. I'm not sure I would want to toss a new human into an increasingly uncertain world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Recommend me some books to read, please, on climate change specifically but I'm actually also curious as to books on climate dynamics and related topics. The OP is the length of a short book but doesn't mention any itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:Recommend me some books to read, please, on climate change specifically but I'm actually also curious as to books on climate dynamics and related topics. http://www.goodreads.com/genres/climate-change That is a good run down of a wide variety of books. You should be able to find something in there that appeals to you (ignore the quotes on the right), personally I am a fan of This Changes Everything, but you would probably want to read that after reading something like The Weather Makers or something like that but more recent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You don't. Then what is the point of the whole suggestion? I read the last few pages of people basically dancing around the idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:Then what is the point of the whole suggestion? I read the last few pages of people basically dancing around the idea. The true fact of "the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is not have children" was posted and people like you lost their minds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The true fact of "the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is not have children" was posted and people like you lost their minds. Actually, the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is to commit suicide: it reduces it to zero! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
As every edgy teenager loves to point out the single biggest thing you can do to help climate change is kill your family and then yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
I wonder how many idiots here are secretly part of the quiverfull movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 18:03
|
|
B-but it's so hard being white! Waaaaaagh!
|
enraged_camel posted:Actually, the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is to commit suicide: it reduces it to zero! Bah, you're rotting corpse will still be giving off Methane!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Actually, the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is to commit suicide: it reduces it to zero! Actually it would be to blow up a coal plant. Strangely there's a lot fewer ELF goons than childfree ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You don't. My position is that we must change our structures of resource consumption through institutional, civil, and social change to mitigate and adapt to climate change. We cannot do so without engaging the power structures that exist. Climate change isn't littering, it won't stop if we convince a bunch of people to take small steps. Also it's pretty amazing how people in this thread are trying to mock the very terms the IPCC uses. enraged_camel posted:Actually, the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is to commit suicide: it reduces it to zero! So if I don't have 50 kids, doesn't that make me 50x better than someone who chooses to only not have one kid?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Vaginapocalypse posted:I wonder how many idiots here are secretly part of the quiverfull movement. Would having a bunch of parachute accounts count?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The true fact of "the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is not have children" was posted and people like you lost their minds. The only true fact is that if you have children and don't raise them caring about the environment, that you then increase your carbon footprint. Future generations will have to continue to tackle the issue and improve technology to do so, so a child can make your carbon footprint smaller along with others (and he doesn't need to become a MLK to do so, like some suggested). But it's not a certainty and there are many factors at play. It's exactly why choosing to have a child or not, is a complex one and not one you can simply not recommend everyone to simply take. Even more asinine is stating that especially the first world shouldn't have any more babies, or at least less, since they are the only ones that'll have the means to solve the issue. The only real advice that you can give people for certain is to not breed like rabbits (which these days is even financially difficult to do) and not bother with kids if you aren't capable or willing to raise them being aware of the issues and that they should improve things rather than make them worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
You are right, eventually my decendants may evolve into a small forest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Batham posted:The only true fact is that if you have children and don't raise them caring about the environment, that you then increase your carbon footprint. Future generations will have to continue to tackle the issue and improve technology to do so, so a child can make your carbon footprint smaller along with others (and he doesn't need to become a MLK to do so, like some suggested). But it's not a certainty and there are many factors at play. It's exactly why choosing to have a child or not, is a complex one and not one you can simply not recommend everyone to simply take. You're an idiot. I don't think I realistically need to qualify this statement, perhaps other than requoting what you just said. Batham posted:The only true fact is that if you have children and don't raise them caring about the environment, that you then increase your carbon footprint. Future generations will have to continue to tackle the issue and improve technology to do so, so a child can make your carbon footprint smaller along with others (and he doesn't need to become a MLK to do so, like some suggested). But it's not a certainty and there are many factors at play. It's exactly why choosing to have a child or not, is a complex one and not one you can simply not recommend everyone to simply take.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You're an idiot. I don't think I realistically need to qualify this statement, perhaps other than requoting what you just said. It's not my fault that you're super small minded and cynical when it comes to children. Sorry that having to entertain the idea that future generations, which children are, can have a positive influence in the world and shouldn't unquestionably be written off as having a definite negative impact, upsets you. Batham fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You are right, eventually my decendants may evolve into a small forest. Yeah it's really unfortunate that your decendants are unable to plant a small forest, since they won't exist. Placid Marmot posted:You're an idiot. I don't think I realistically need to qualify this statement, perhaps other than requoting what you just said. At least you're willing to admit that you can't respond to a rational and well laid out argument, except by calling people names.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So if I don't have 50 kids, doesn't that make me 50x better than someone who chooses to only not have one kid? If you want an answer to the question of "What is the best thing I can do to lower future emissions personally?" then not having kids is that answer. Add up changing from incandescents to LEDs or CFLs, moving to a more efficient car and using solar for as much of your personal energy use as possible and not having any kids will still result in less future warming than having a kid. It also reduces the potential for future suffering: a Buddhist solution. (If you have a few billion sitting around, buy Amazonian rainforest and ensure it doesn't get razed to raise cattle; that would be great)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
It's pretty adorable how I'm lambasted as lazy or unwilling to sacrifice for thinking activism is largely poo poo when it comes to changing climate policy, yet the same characters are squealing that someone choosing not to have a child isn't having any appreciable effect so you shouldn't bother.Batham posted:It's not my fault that you're super small minded and cynical when it comes to children. Sorry that having to entertain the idea that future generations, which children are, can have a positive influence in the world and shouldn't unquestionably be written off as having a definite negative impact, upsets you. No the reason you're an idiot is because you think that it's possible for a net new human to have an overall negative carbon impact. I'm not saying you can't teach your children to be hippies or whatever, but even monks have a carbon impact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:I'm hoping it's just trolling at this point, 'cause otherwise I've got to figure there's a black hole in there. This is just not true. Not having kids does absolutely nothing to mitigate or adapt to climate change in a meaningful timeframe. Especially without the government forcing people to not have kids. Radbot posted:It's pretty adorable how I'm lambasted as lazy or unwilling to sacrifice for thinking activism is largely poo poo when it comes to changing climate policy, yet the same characters are squealing that someone choosing not to have a child isn't having any appreciable effect so you shouldn't bother. Actually people can have net negative carbon impacts, in fact it's an important part of reducing emissions. We need to change our systems, not just have some global elites decide that all they have to do is not have a kid and they get to feel good. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is just not true. Activism does absolutely nothing to mitigate or adapt to climate change in a meaningful timeframe. Especially without the government forcing people to be activists. Fixed for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Fixed for you. I mean, I do agree that governments are key actors in addressing climate change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually people can have net negative carbon impacts, in fact it's an important part of reducing emissions. We need to change our systems, not just have some global elites decide that all they have to do is not have a kid and they get to feel good. I completely understand that you'd rather phonebank for Obama or whatever handwavey activity that literally does nothing to ameliorate climate change instead of actually reducing CO2 emissions, you've made that position very clear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Radbot posted:No the reason you're an idiot is because you think that it's possible for a net new human to have an overall negative carbon impact. I'm not saying you can't teach your children to be hippies or whatever, but even monks have a carbon impact. Only future generations will solve this issue, sorry that you can only think one step ahead (or only until tomorrow). Your reasoning only makes sense if you believe in a technological static world where people can only ever be passive or disruptive. It's called being a pessimist. Batham fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Batham posted:Only future generations will solve this issue, sorry that you can only think one step ahead (or only until tomorrow). Your reasoning only makes sense if you believe in a technological static world where people can only ever be passive or disruptive. Thinking that your child will be the one true key to unlocking the cure to climate change is very optimistic, so I guess I'd agree with being a pessimist in that respect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I completely understand that you'd rather phonebank for Obama or whatever handwavey activity that literally does nothing to ameliorate climate change instead of actually reducing CO2 emissions, you've made that position very clear. The way we reduce emissions isn't by phone banking or smugly counting future theoretical non-emissions as real progress. The way we reduce emissions is by switching our energy infrastructure, making carbon costs internalized and changing the ways we use resources and evaluate their use. It's better to go to your local PUC meeting than it is to declare you won't have kids.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Thinking that your child will be the one true key to unlocking the cure to climate change is very optimistic, so I guess I'd agree with being a pessimist in that respect. Why does he or she need to be the one true key (and why does there need to be one true key) to have a positive impact?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Batham posted:Why does he or she need to be the one true key (and why does there need to be one true key) to have a positive impact? 99% or more of new children will not become scientists who contribute to relevant fields, and 99% or more of scientists in relevant fields will not produce major impacts on climate change. There is more than a 99.99% chance that each new child will have a large negative impact on the environment, and nobody at all in this thread, in the last few days, at least, has advocated nobody having children, so the people religiously raving against the people who advocate reduced fertility are screaming at shadows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:99% or more of new children will not become scientists who contribute to relevant fields, and 99% or more of scientists in relevant fields will not produce major impacts on climate change. There is more than a 99.99% chance that each new child will have a large negative impact on the environment There are always risks, I never denied that (as you can read a few posts back). But some posters in this thread act as if a negative outcome is a given and not a possibility. While I'm well aware of your exaggeration, I again want to point out that he or she certainly doesn't need to be "the key" or be a scientist to help out and eventually contribute to solving the issue (which would inadvertently also mean you're helping out with solving the issue). Placid Marmot posted:and nobody at all in this thread, in the last few days, at least, has advocated nobody having children, so the people religiously raving against the people who advocate reduced fertility are screaming at shadows. I don't think you're really clear on what's being discussed here, or at least what I am discussing. Someone asked "So uh, what can one do to really prepare for a future full of poo poo?", and was told "Don't reproduce". I'm seriously contesting that it's the best advice you can give to just anyone, nor that it is a clear cut thing to do. Batham fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
What single thing can a person do, short of suicide because that's really drat hard (feel free to try if you don't believe me - getting the dose right on any combination of medications is also hard and you're more likely to just make yourself puke or cause damage short of death and it's easy to think that you could totally cut your wrist that'll change once there's some blood), that will have the biggest impact on future contributions to climate change due to their actions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Batham posted:There are always risks, I never denied that (as you can read a few posts back). But some posters in this thread act as if a negative outcome is a given and not a possibility. While I'm well aware of your exaggeration, I again want to point out that he or she certainly doesn't need to be "the key" or be a scientist to help out and eventually contribute to solving the issue (which would inadvertently also mean you're helping out with solving the issue). You can do all of those things by adopting or fostering children without generating any new children of your own, who would unequivocally contribute to the amount of CO2 generated by humans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The way we reduce emissions isn't by phone banking or smugly counting future theoretical non-emissions as real progress. The way we reduce emissions is by switching our energy infrastructure, making carbon costs internalized and changing the ways we use resources and evaluate their use. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I think reducing carbon emissions is more important than talking about reducing carbon emissions, but that's just my opinion. Batham posted:There are always risks, I never denied that (as you can read a few posts back). But some posters in this thread act as if a negative outcome is a given and not a possibility. While I'm well aware of your exaggeration, I again want to point out that he or she certainly doesn't need to be "the key" or be a scientist to help out and eventually contribute to solving the issue (which would inadvertently also mean you're helping out with solving the issue). You're completely right, it's not a given that a child will be a net addition to carbon emissions, it's just 99.999% percent certain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:What single thing can a person do, short of suicide because that's really drat hard (feel free to try if you don't believe me - getting the dose right on any combination of medications is also hard and you're more likely to just make yourself puke or cause damage short of death and it's easy to think that you could totally cut your wrist that'll change once there's some blood), that will have the biggest impact on future contributions to climate change due to their actions? I think the honest answer is that there isn't one thing that is always the best for all people. The best things to do are ones that can help change ideas, narratives, policies or choices about climate change. If you work with kids, instill them with an understanding of close looped systems and sustainability. If you're a decision maker, make climate part of your decision making process. If you can blow the whistle on practices damaging the environment do so. Engage in your community at the lowest levels and make sure that your local organizations, institutions and stakeholders know that climate impacts matter and impact them too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Let's just pump sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and be done with it. The most American of solutions This is what I work on. It's becoming terrifyingly more plausible every day. markgreyam posted:Recommend me some books to read, please, on climate change specifically but I'm actually also curious as to books on climate dynamics and related topics. I think Jim Hansen's The Storms of my Grandchildren is a pretty good layperson overview. If you're looking for something more about the practice of modeling, there's a great book by Paul Edwards called A Vast Machine. For a somewhat more technical (but still accessible) comprehensive overview of things like climate dynamics, I'd recommend The Complete Guide to Climate Change by Dawson and Spannagle. DoctorDilettante fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I think reducing carbon emissions is more important than talking about reducing carbon emissions, but that's just my opinion. I actually think reducing carbon emissions is more important than talking about reducing carbon emissions. Not having kids does not reduce current emissions it only reduces theoretical future emissions. That's why its such an ineffective idea to impact climate change. First, the offset from not having kids is only truly an offset if you were actually going to have kids but didn't because of climate, so if you make the pledge but are gay, you're not actually helping at all. Second, even if you are granted responsibility for all your children's emissions, the timeframe on actually seeing those offsets are far into the out years, when we're well into adaptation hell and the benefits of those offsets are dramatically reduced. Third, as we make the required changes to our climate impacts, the marginal benefits from not having children get lower. In 50 years if we don't have smaller carbon footprints, we're all hosed regardless of how many fewer babies some privileged people chose not to have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:I'm hoping it's just trolling at this point, 'cause otherwise I've got to figure there's a black hole in there. Wrong. You can join ELF and blow up a coal plant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
DoctorDilettante posted:This is what I work on. It's becoming terrifyingly more plausible every day. Would it actually work? Because it's going to be the solution used if it does, no question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Wrong. You can join ELF and blow up a coal plant. Just make sure to use emessionless explosive and clean up the place afterwards 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:34
|
|