|
Nocturtle posted:Even if they're completely correct, anybody who's been outside recently would realize that is a complete non-starter and not worth discussion. Funny how this line of thinking just happens to pop up in this thread, isn't it?
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
TildeATH posted:Funny how this line of thinking just happens to pop up in this thread, isn't it? Not really? Most people are viciously opposed to anti-natalism, I've never had anyone respond positively to be honest. Goes against everything people believe in and poo poo, man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Not really? Most people are viciously opposed to anti-natalism, I've never had anyone respond positively to be honest. Goes against everything people believe in and poo poo, man. You don't get it, do you? "Even if they're completely correct... faaaart" is the same stupid quasi-realpolitik stance that people have taken to serious reform to halt or mitigate climate change for thirty-plus years. It's literally the reason why we're so hosed now. If someone is right about something, you should do it, whether it's about screwing the planet or screwing your partner. But yeah, keep wanking off to your sense of building coalitions and middle paths and respect for public opinion, it sure as poo poo has been doing a great job so far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:That article is disappointing as it only argues that having less children is ethical in the face of climate change without any suggestions for how to actually accomplish this. I realize the author is a philosopher and mainly interested in the ethical argument, but he must be aware that such a policy would be very difficult (or impossible) to politically implement on a wide scale. At least he's only arguing that people should have less kids (they clearly should), some posters in this thread have seriously argued for zero children with the expectation that people would take them seriously. Even if they're completely correct, anybody who's been outside recently would realize that is a complete non-starter and not worth discussion. I'm not an anti-natalist, but at some point we really need to stop saying "it's too hard" as a response to any non-technological solution to what is by definition a very hard problem. People are going to have to do or accept things that they really, really don't like. We can't keep saying that a particular solution might be correct, but welp, it's just too hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Are you mad at me or the other guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Are you mad at me or the other guy My point wasn't that it was funny that someone would come out against birth control but rather it was funny* that they would use the argument that has hosed up the environment. Then I got all soap-boxy and used you as a foil, just because you were the last person to talk. * Funny as in gently caress gently caress gently caress gently caress gently caress gently caress gently caress nice meltdown gently caress gently caress gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
I believe in the human race existing 100,000 years from now and that virtually anything is morally permissible if it clearly avoids our extinction. Obviously if you take that sentence, change a couple of nouns and place it back in, say, late 1930s Germany, the unsettling overtones of that line of thought become clear. But it's a bit like the laws of robotics, yes? Where I'm not going to kill another person, but what sort of actions are permissible to save the human race... and how can you be sure that is what you are doing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Anti natalism is legit retarded
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Anti natalism is legit retarded No you are
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Anti natalism is legit retarded Gonna have to give me more to go on than that. I find myself agreeing with the argument. (with the understanding that anti-natalism isn't an actual climate change solution.) Drunk Theory fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
So like if the rest of the world gangs up and threatens to nuke the usa, that would be fine given the seriousness of the problem?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
The human race must propagate endlessly cuz reasons. Imo antinatalists just basically don't believe that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm not an anti-natalist, but at some point we really need to stop saying "it's too hard" as a response to any non-technological solution to what is by definition a very hard problem. People are going to have to do or accept things that they really, really don't like. We can't keep saying that a particular solution might be correct, but welp, it's just too hard. Definitely. However the anti-natalist discussion is tiresome because it's obviously not going anywhere. At least with climate change mitigation there's some non-negligible fraction of the population that believes we should at least try to reduce carbon emissions to make life a little easier for people 50 years from now. There's at least some potential to get a carbon tax or ban coal or whatever. No significant fraction of the population is seriously going to sign on to the "no kids for anyone" movement. How would it even get into a political platform, and how many votes does it get? It's a proposal that could only be considered by a dictatorship, in that normal democratic processes make it impossible to implement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:The human race must propagate endlessly cuz reasons. the perspective I get is that new children will suffer, we want to reduce suffering, ergo don't have children i find that pretty dumb quite honestly considering our idea of suffering is entirely relative and our cushy little existences we think are required for a happy life haven't existed for 99.999% of the time humans have existed. unless you want to make the claim that the industrial revolution brought about our ability to feel happiness antinatalism falls a bit flat. seems more like depression-based anger
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Maybe go back to that poster that wanted to be a super villain. Great acts of evil vis-a-via sterilization against some of humanity might be the only way we can actually survive. Of course then we get into eugenics and 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Maybe go back to that poster that wanted to be a super villain. Great acts of evil vis-a-via sterilization against some of humanity might be the only way we can actually survive. Of course then we get into eugenics and Yeah the simple "solution" to single actor climate change efforts is genetically engineering plagues, but that sounds as depressing as just watching Miami sink.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
I don't really see how massively reducing the population really makes dealing with climate change any easier. Like all this infrastructure we've built (which by the way cools the gently caress out of us via aerosols) needs people to run it and just killing 80% of them is going to drive the other 20% to do all kinds of horrific poo poo to survive, like burn the little remaining forests they have left or kill every wild animal for food. Put simply, the collapse of global civilization is likely to result in warming the earth, not cooling it
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Definitely. However the anti-natalist discussion is tiresome because it's obviously not going anywhere. At least with climate change mitigation there's some non-negligible fraction of the population that believes we should at least try to reduce carbon emissions to make life a little easier for people 50 years from now. There's at least some potential to get a carbon tax or ban coal or whatever. No significant fraction of the population is seriously going to sign on to the "no kids for anyone" movement. How would it even get into a political platform, and how many votes does it get? It's a proposal that could only be considered by a dictatorship, in that normal democratic processes make it impossible to implement. Yes, I'd also add that the moral gap between a policy decision that directly mandates your fertility and one that suggests maybe reducing your consumption is pretty clear at least to non-insane people. Not to mention the whole extremely inverse relationship between birth rates and CO2 emission rates by country. It's a bit of a facile comparison based on a huge set of living standards and development factors but at like 16 metric tons of CO2 per capita in the United States and oh let's pick... 0.33 metric tons of CO2 per capita in Cote d'Ivoire, reducing birth rates in countries where they are high enough to be reduced is a fuckin fart in a hurricane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:i find that pretty dumb quite honestly considering our idea of suffering is entirely relative and our cushy little existences we think are required for a happy life haven't existed for 99.999% of the time humans have existed. But that's not the fundamental argument? The argument is that you can't ensure an existence in complete bliss for a new life. It doesn't matter that our existence is 1000% more pleasurable than hunter/gatherer societies, creating life still causes harm. That said however. Nocturtle posted:However the anti-natalist discussion is tiresome because it's obviously not going anywhere. This is certainly true in thread context
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Drunk Theory posted:But that's not the fundamental argument? The argument is that you can't ensure an existence in complete bliss for a new life. It doesn't matter that our existence is 1000% more pleasurable than hunter/gatherer societies, creating life still causes harm. That said however. The problem with the whole "creating life still causes harm" is that anyone who actually believed this sort of poo poo would just kill themselves. What does "creating harm" even mean?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Could we begin seeing acts of environmental terrorism against fossil fuel companies, projects, and magnates? Or is this just fantasy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Could we begin seeing acts of environmental terrorism against fossil fuel companies, projects, and magnates? Or is this just fantasy? Eventually I'd say it would happen but not until people's lives are unequivocally affected by climate change. Once people are made homeless by the dick tip of Florida sinking we might start seeing some beyond hippies chaining themselves to bulldozers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Could we begin seeing acts of environmental terrorism against fossil fuel companies, projects, and magnates? Or is this just fantasy? The fact that we haven't had more than the paltry amount is kinda astounding to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Could we begin seeing acts of environmental terrorism against fossil fuel companies, projects, and magnates? Or is this just fantasy? Which is more likely for you personally: 1) Starting a suicidal campaign of violence against the most powerful organizations on this planet or 2) Continuing to post on an internet forum? Not saying that everybody in developed countries is just like you, but we have a really good system for keeping the population docile and entertained.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Wakko posted:Which is more likely for you personally: 1) Starting a suicidal campaign of violence against the most powerful organizations on this planet or 2) Continuing to post on an internet forum? Not saying that everybody in developed countries is just like you, but we have a really good system for keeping the population docile and entertained.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:It was a hypothetical question; would environmentalists in our country become motivated to act in such extreme measures? I'd place it between the likelihood of the next world war starting due to climate migration/stresses, and the aliens finally mercy killing our species.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:It was a hypothetical question; would environmentalists in our country become motivated to act in such extreme measures? What makes you think they aren't already out there? Truth is people who want to commit acts of industrial vandalism generally have a lot more other baggage that comes along with it, see: ELF
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:Yes, I'd also add that the moral gap between a policy decision that directly mandates your fertility and one that suggests maybe reducing your consumption is pretty clear at least to non-insane people. "Maybe reduce your consumption" isn't actually a viable strategy, though. If you want to mitigate climate change through reduced consumption then that's something that needs to be actively enforced through policy. Forcing people to drive less, use less electricity, buy less poo poo (or buy poo poo other than the poo poo that they want), etc. is going to read as insane to most people. And again, I'm not trying to make an argument in favor of anti-natalism here. All I'm saying is that a particular policy being completely unacceptable to most people is probably not a useful measure since most viable mitigation strategies are not going to be acceptable to most people. We missed our chance to solve this problem in a way that's not painful by several decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:We missed our chance to solve this problem in a way that's not painful by several decades. I think it's more fair to say we missed our chance to solve this problem by several decades. We're just along for the ride at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:It was a hypothetical question; would environmentalists in our country become motivated to act in such extreme measures? You live inside the most powerful surveillance apparatus ever invented. Good luck spiking a tire on an Exxon semi once and then enjoy federal rape me in the rear end prison with the minor drug convicts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:"Maybe reduce your consumption" isn't actually a viable strategy, though. If you want to mitigate climate change through reduced consumption then that's something that needs to be actively enforced through policy. Forcing people to drive less, use less electricity, buy less poo poo (or buy poo poo other than the poo poo that they want), etc. is going to read as insane to most people. I understand your point, and it's a good one, because we're in a whole new world of hurt nowadays and nobody really understands the pain that's coming vs. their immediate comfort. All I'm saying that there's a world of difference between a set of policies that, say, adds the carbon offset costs into the consumer's sticker price for durable goods and another set of policies that says "you can't have children". Of course, control of fertility itself is a human rights issue as much if not more than a climate change issue, and making progress in women's control of their own fertility yields emissions progress organically. However that's another place where wealthy/low birth-rate countries diverge from poor / high birth-rate ones. You hit a big inflection point once you move from the affirmative "help women give birth only when they want" side of progress to the "government dictates when women give birth" side of scary authoritarianism. Gunshow Poophole fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Double-posting to add a bizarre bit of trivia digging through UN fertility and emissions data: Trinidad & Tobago, of all places, has the goddamn worst ratio of emissions to fertility, their carbon footprint is (reported) at 37 tons per capita and generic fertility of 1.8 ? Low total population and highly industrialized fossil-fuel dependent commercial sector apparently. T&T outstrips even all the hilarious oil guzzling emirates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:Double-posting to add a bizarre bit of trivia digging through UN fertility and emissions data: How does emissions from tourism factor in? If tourists take planes or boats to/from there, does that count against the per capital emissions for the nation? Presumably emissions from resorts etc count against the locals even though the users are mostly foreign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How does emissions from tourism factor in? If tourists take planes or boats to/from there, does that count against the per capital emissions for the nation? Presumably emissions from resorts etc count against the locals even though the users are mostly foreign. I noticed the trend with other island nations / tourist hubs as well, Aruba, Reunion and New Caledonia are up there for sure. I dug around the Millennium Development Goals website for a bit but I can't find in a quick search how the total CO2 tonnes is measured, but I suspect you are correct. also it me, I have been the tourist in Trinidad and Tobago 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Anti-natalism works from a philosophical standpoint that we may destroy all life on the planet and it would be better if some species survived over the human race. Basically the viewpoint that the human race is not special and all life on the planet has more worth than humanities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Anti-natalism works from a philosophical standpoint that we may destroy all life on the planet and it would be better if some species survived over the human race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
I think we're pretty special (though not necessarily unique) but we can't survive without other species so it's kind of a Hobson's choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
If only there was some kind of middle ground where both the human race and all other animal species don't go extinct
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
It's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. I don't particularly agree with it, however I am a cosmicist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Grouchio posted:Could we begin seeing acts of environmental terrorism against fossil fuel companies, projects, and magnates? Or is this just fantasy? Major population displacements are about the only thing that will cause violent terrorism vs private industries within the US. It's been mentioned over and over in the threads, but you need an exceptional amount of anger boiling across a large swath of demographics, with grievances that can be pinned to a target, in order to trigger that kind of response. And even then, it's almost as likely the anger will be directed towards the government for not taking necessary steps or warning people enough about this, than against corporations themselves. Thread also tends to make a big deal about how on the ball US intelligence agencies are on domestic terrorism, but all you need is 1-3 sufficiently insane/motivated people and that's a mass shooting or bombing, multiplied by whatever level of civil unrest is happening at the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:09
|
|
