|
Fasdar posted:Here's hoping they're too busy gutting something else to notice the paltry amounts of money they actually spend on climate change. The dude tapped to run the EPA is a suit stuffed with oil money.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:However it reeks of naivety to say other people shouldn't have kids because; as you put it "they can't assure their happiness or success." That's an ethical position, not an environmental position. Having kids is bad for the environment - this is the subject in question in "Climate Change: What is to be Done?", not whether it's bad for children to be born into a worsening world. GlyphGryph posted:Because a number of posters have given up not just on fighting climate change but on the future in general, and they feel the need to convince others to give up on the future as well at every opportunity (while ignoring the logical conclusions of their own arguments because it would personally inconvenience them) Not having children because to have children is bad for the environment is NOT "giving up" on fighting climate change or on the future in general; the idea is to benefit those living today and the unborn children of other people who don't care or don't understand the consequences of their decisions. Fangz posted:I would kinda point out that it's decidedly unstrategic, giving how we know children inherit their parents' viewpoints, to have all the dickhead selfish morons continue to breed while everyone who gives a poo poo removes themselves from the genepool. Purely thinking in terms of 'hey a future human will emit more than the lack of a human' is rather reductive. Maybe your child will persuade 100 others to reduce their emissions. Maybe your child will invent tech that will very literally save the world. The chance that YOUR child will cause a greater reduction in environmental and resource degradation than that generated by 100 others is extremely remote, and any number less than 1% is a net negative. If you think that a person is able to do such a thing, why can't it be you or one of the other 7 billion people already alive? Who in the world is already causing/influencing a net reduction in emissions that outweighs their own? (very, very few people, and why can't that be you?) How will a child born in nine months be able to "invent tech that will very literally save the world" when we need that now, not in 20+ years? Since modern science and tech is collaborative, the chance that an individual will "invent" such fanciful "world saving" technology, rather than it being an inevitable consequence of cooperative work is another remote possibility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
article in Financial Times on coral bleaching for your daily depressing news. https://t.co/vbpMDO2ttM
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You will learn a lot through a hands-on approach. As someone who has helped set up emergency makeshift levees, distributed rations and looked for people trapped in flooded areas, I can tell you that dealing with that poo poo while it's not yet happening to you is easier to cope with and helps you prepare for and deal with personal emergencies. Getting involved enough also gives you a hotline to the right people to get in touch with. This is such a quality post and exactly the kind of thing that should be encouraged heavily itt and elsewhere. Everyone can be useful, everyone can help in some way and disaster preparedness is both great for you personally and the people you care about. I'm sure it will bring some peace of mind to everyone overly angsting over climate change. We're going into a period of increasing natural disasters, and being prepared is going to be incredibly helpful and will minimize loss of life in disaster scenarios. The increased awareness from people getting serious about disaster relief will also be a very visible and highly recognizable thing for everyone on the fence politically: "Hey there's more natural disasters now and a lot of people are getting organized to help, this makes it abundantly clear that global warming and climate change is a thing because now a large group of people are doing more than talking about it". Or something like that. I hope. Possibly stupid question, but with the whole albedo thing: Could (in a perfect world) mandating painting most man-made structures/vehicles white be helpful in incresing the relative albedo of the planet, given the huge extent of human settlement? I mean, the total amount of man-made horizontal surface are must be utterly staggering at this point. Even a portion of it being high albedo might make a measurable impact, but I don't know if it would be worth the resource investment required.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:
I was exaggerating for effect. Actually I hope to think that my contribution as a scientist means that I am a net negative on global emissions over the course of my life. In any case if your claim is that per capita emissions can only increase then that's manifestly untrue. The marginal effect of having one more person (ignoring that the effect of various constraints and incentives in the economy would be that you not having a child would probably just increase the chance of someone else having a child) will be basically about a 1/billion increase in emissions. A small technological or political or cultural change can easily overwhelm that. As an educated person who gives a poo poo about climate change, statistically my offspring is dramatically more likely to do something about the future than the vast majority of humanity. Also I'm not sure why I should particularly give a poo poo about the future of humanity in this vision of a future solely populated by the children of the ignorant and the selfish. Edit: The worst case scenario is not IMHO human extinction. The worst case scenario is the heirs of ExxonMobile successfully genociding the majority of humanity, living in comfort in their ill-gotten gains, and getting away with it. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I was exaggerating for effect. Absolutely. Also, the no child policy bullshit is the worst derail. It's worse than tedious and probably the most unrealistic and ineffective way to combat climate change. Just give it a rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
It's less realistic than serial killing. Edit: Good presentation below! Accretionist fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
A presentation on why 2ºC is, pretty much, an impossible goal without radically changing societies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBtehlDpLlU
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:That's an ethical position, not an environmental position. It's one more than one person has made in this thread, so I agree, they should stop making it. Placid Marmot posted:Having kids is bad for the environment Discendo Vox posted:Climate Change: Take out as many people as possible, then do yourself
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Actually I hope to think that my contribution as a scientist means that I am a net negative on global emissions over the course of my life. If you are already a scientist who appears to claim to be working to reduce global carbon emissions, and who claims that "statistically my offspring is dramatically more likely to do something about the future than the vast majority of humanity", and you use yourself as an example, you are ignoring the thousands of people ("the vast majority of humanity") for every one like you who are not in such a rare position; this is a bad way to rationalize the concept that a child might generate a net reduction of emissions. If you personally educate and control your child to steer them to achieve your aim, then that might happen, but this is not representative of over 99% of people. I did not claim that "per capita emissions can only increase", and the idea that "you not having a child would probably just increase the chance of someone else having a child" is laughable and the opposite of reality - the more people choose to have fewer children, the less stigmatized childlessness will be. It is because our choices are representative of a fraction of society - whether it's the number of children, or riding a bike instead of driving - that such superficially "basically about a 1/billion" numbers add up to percentages of world emissions; each of us represents a part of the entire society, and while we each make contributions in the tens of millionths to billionths scale, these contributions sum up (whether positive or negative) when we look at everyone in society who makes similar decisions - this is culture. Similarly, your vote is not worthless because it is only a ten or hundred millionth of the total vote, as your vote is representative of other people who think like you, and these votes add up to political change*. *Except in countries with backward political systems where one person does not equal one vote You should "particularly give a poo poo about the future of humanity" because you will still be in it for several decades, if not because you are a social being with human empathy. Nice piece of fish posted:Also, the no child policy bullshit is the worst derail. It's worse than tedious and probably the most unrealistic and ineffective way to combat climate change. Just give it a rest. Is there really a misconception among readers of this thread that people are promoting a "no child policy"? I am promoting that having children should not be promoted, but I have not advocated any policy to actively reduce childbirth. People need to understand that you can't claim to care about your emissions and pollution if you also decide to have children, because every child you have undoes any reduction in environmental degradation that your thoughtful choices may have made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:People need to understand that you can't claim to care about your emissions and pollution if you also decide to have children, because every child you have undoes any reduction in environmental degradation that your thoughtful choices may have made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I was exaggerating for effect. This idea of Climate natalism where we need to outbreed the deniers is the stupidest thing. The vast, vast majority of people on earth have an apathetic rather than outright denialist stance towards Climate change at this point and that's subject to change as the effects of climate change become more obvious in the near future. It will be much easier and more effective to try and educate the rest of the populace over how Climate Change will effect them and what they might do to reduce their footprint rather than have a kid and wait twenty years before they can become a strategic asset in fighting Carbon Emissions (at which we'll likely already be too far gone). Even then there's no guarantee at all said kid won't just ignore what their hippie parents think and get a job in the corporate world to have a more comfortable life, at least for themselves. I also think having kids tends to intrude on the ability for people to really get proactive in fighting climate change. I'm not criticizing parents for that but its just an observation from what I've seen where lot of my older environmentally conscious friends who understandably have to change their way of living after starting a family (get a car, put a lot more focus on their work, travel much more, be a whole lot less conscious about what they buy and where they buy it from) and literally do not have the time of day to focus significant efforts on fighting climate issues due to the needs of family life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:If you are already a scientist who appears to claim to be working to reduce global carbon emissions, and who claims that "statistically my offspring is dramatically more likely to do something about the future than the vast majority of humanity", and you use yourself as an example, you are ignoring the thousands of people ("the vast majority of humanity") for every one like you who are not in such a rare position; this is a bad way to rationalize the concept that a child might generate a net reduction of emissions. If you personally educate and control your child to steer them to achieve your aim, then that might happen, but this is not representative of over 99% of people. This statement is inconsistent with how you began. The point is that individual situations and worldviews are different. There's no way you can make the blanket viewpoint that 'if you care about emissions, you can't decide to have a child'. It depends on your assumptions. You are not speaking to 'thousands of people' here, you're talking to individuals and it's an individual choice. You also ignore the vast number of people for whom the reason they care about climate change to begin with is not some idea of saving human civilisation in the abstract but ensuring the lives of their descendants. khwarezm posted:This idea of Climate natalism where we need to outbreed the deniers is the stupidest thing. The vast, vast majority of people on earth have an apathetic rather than outright denialist stance towards Climate change at this point and that's subject to change as the effects of climate change become more obvious in the near future. It will be much easier and more effective to try and educate the rest of the populace over how Climate Change will effect them and what they might do to reduce their footprint rather than have a kid and wait twenty years before they can become a strategic asset in fighting Carbon Emissions (at which we'll likely already be too far gone). That's a strawman and a false dichotomy. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Get over it, dude. What exactly is it about global human civilisation that you're so invested in anyways? I care about scientific progress. I care about gaining more and more knowledge. I care about things getting progressively better which all of a sudden everyone is suddenly telling me was just a lie. I don't understand why I am considered such an outlier: I was born in an apparently anomalous era of unprecedented peace and prosperity and now I am facing all of that being taken away from me. Meanwhile my parents were born in a dictatorship and have seen everything go better their entire lives and will go peacefully to their graves without seeing that perspective challenged. I would trade places with them instantly if I could. Who cares if it's an anomaly? I was brought and raised to see this as truth and my brain cannot accept otherwise. I don't want to live in some village digging in the dirt for 12 hours a day to grow food. I don't want to talk to people about the weather or the latest bandit attack or whatever. I cannot stand what most people talk about 90% of the time, which is NOTHING ("How was your weekend?" "I went to a nice place on vacation" "Why do people keep repairing this street?"). And that is right now, imagine in the post collapse. Modern human civilization is 90% of the reason why I am still alive (other 10% is not wanting to cause grief to others by my death).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:This statement is inconsistent with how you began. The point is that individual situations and worldviews are different. There's no way you can make the blanket viewpoint that 'if you care about emissions, you can't decide to have a child'. It depends on your assumptions. You are not speaking to 'thousands of people' here, you're talking to individuals and it's an individual choice. If you care about emissions, you will know that to have a child will add about 50% of your emissions, and since you care about emissions, you will not want to make this decision. If your assumptions are different, you are wrong. As I said, each individual makes a variety of choices, and is representative of a fraction of the population. If you decide to bike to work instead of drive, you are representative of the 5% (made up number) of the population who have had that option and chosen to bike, as an example. When we promote cycling to work, the choices of individuals (thousands of them) will cause this number to increase as an aggregate and emissions will decrease. Most of human emissions result from the aggregate of individual choices; if people make better individual choices, emissions decrease. I don't want to "save human civilization" (and I did not make any such claim) - I just see that the choices I could make often have negative effects on other living beings, so I try not to choose such options when there are less damaging ones. This does not seem abstract to me, despite that I don't know the name of the person who will not become a climate refugee because I produced hundreds of tonnes less CO2e over my lifetime than the average Westerner. That's the same kind of abstraction that people fail to make when they handwave away their emissions because they are "just one person out of billions" - within the average person's lifetime, hundreds of millions or billions of people will suffer or even die because of the collective individual choices of average people today; will you be responsable for the death of 0.1 people or 10 because of your individual choices? (and I don't mean anyone reading this thread in particular, but "you" in general) If you want to "ensure the lives of your dependents" (I presume that you mean to ensure a better quality of life?), you must produce dependents, that's tautological. Unfortunately, if someone already has children, each extra that they produce will result in a degradation of the quality of life of their existing children, other people and their children. If someone does not have children, then they must degrade the quality of life of all people in order to produce a child...
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I just see that the choices I could make often have negative effects on other living beings, maybe stop pretending like a bug's life is worth a human's than? we should be stewards of the environment, not beholden to it maybe you missed it but for all of the last 400 years humanity's impact on the earth's climate was negligible, humans are not synonymous with environmental damage existence is not a zero-sum game and if it were the only ethical thing to do would be kill yourself (or at least stop posting) since you're just making all of our lives worse NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:maybe you missed it but for all of the last 400 years humanity's impact on the earth's climate was negligible, humans are not synonymous with environmental damage uhhh try the last 20000 years, for everything except climate
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:05
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
NewForumSoftware posted:maybe stop pretending like a bug's life is worth a human's than? we should be stewards of the environment, not beholden to it Uh, for the last 40000 years humans have had massive impacts on their environment. We're obviously neither beholden nor stewards to the environment, pretty much our only notable interaction with have varying levels of exploitation. Which is normal for any creature of course, but just don't have any illusions. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
i'm sorry but the impacts have been negligible in the context of the greater earth system, yes we probably put major pressure on larger land animals and hastened their decline via hunting but ecosystems were fine and more than able to recover before the advent of the industrial revolution but like I said, if you really believe humans are just a plague on the earth the least you could do is stop posting about it seeing as your existence is just making the rest of ours worse
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Aaand back to climate change news. That's no meteorite crater, its a puddle quote:A "crater" in Antarctica once thought to be the work of a meteorite impact is actually the result of ice melt, new research finds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Don't have children because they might end up being selfish assholes like newforumsoftware or aceofflames
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Not having a kid, or just having less kids, is a teensy bit different from hanging yourself in the shed unless you think condoms have resulted in an unimaginable genocide. It's getting funny how quickly I can spot someone whose about to liken not having a kid to suicide at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:i'm sorry but the impacts have been negligible in the context of the greater earth system, yes we probably put major pressure on larger land animals and hastened their decline via hunting but ecosystems were fine and more than able to recover before the advent of the industrial revolution Even prior to the invention of agriculture humans probably had the single greatest impact on the earth's environments of any single multicellur species ever. Also any ecologist will tell you that the removal of those large animals could have significant knock on effects that modified the environment, ever hear of 'mammoth steppe'?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Even prior to the invention of agriculture humans probably had the single greatest impact on the earth's environments of any single multicellur species ever. And? Again, we should strive to be stewards of the environment, not view ourselves as inherently destructive "don't have kids because they'll just destroy the environment more" is stupid, full stop
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
For reference the deglaciation section from the 2007 IPCC report:19.3.5.2 Deglaciation of West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets posted:The potential for partial or near-total deglaciation of the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets (WAIS) and associated sea-level rise (Jansen et al., 2007 Sections 6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3; Meehl et al., 2007 Sections 10.6.4, 10.7.4.3 and 10.7.4.4; Alley et al., 2005; Vaughan, 2007), is a key impact that creates a key vulnerability due to its magnitude and irreversibility, in combination with limited adaptive capacity and, if substantial deglaciation occurred, high levels of confidence in associated impacts. Ice sheets have been discussed specifically in the context of Article 2 (O’Neill and Oppenheimer 2002; Hansen, 2005; Keller et al., 2005; Oppenheimer and Alley, 2005). Near-total deglaciation would eventually lead to a sea-level rise of around 7 m and 5 m (***) from Greenland and the WAIS, respectively, with wide-ranging consequences including a reconfiguration of coastlines worldwide and inundation of low-lying areas, particularly river deltas (Schneider and Chen, 1980; Revelle, 1983; Tol et al., 2006; Vaughan, 2007). Lakes appearing in the middle of antarctic ice sheets might indicate we live in a world where they disintegrate before the average antarctic summer temperature exceeds 0C. edit: On the bright side the obviously melting ice-caps will help make the political case for starting large-scale climate change adaptation ASAP. It's pretty hard to ignore the antarctic glaciers distintegrating. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:And? Again, we should strive to be stewards of the environment, not view ourselves as inherently destructive Its just that most of the time we change that environment and some or many species are going to go extinct. I'm not really trying to moralise here, its just what life does (see the effects of invasive species almost everywhere), but I don't really know if stewardship is a particularly meaningful goal if we don't really take steps to reduce pressure on environmental systems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:And? Again, we should strive to be stewards of the environment, not view ourselves as inherently destructive I contend that it is in fact not stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:I contend that it is in fact not stupid. Stop arguing on this forum, go out and found the "Don't Have Kids Party" or try to get anti-natalism included in the Republican/Democrat/Green/Rhinoceros party platform. Report back on your electoral success. In case it's not clear, the point is that you have no chance of actually convincing people on a large scale that they shouldn't have kids. It's stupid to discuss because it's a policy that simply can't be implemented in a democracy. Most people figured this out already and understand it's not worth discussing, why can't you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Stop arguing on this forum, go out and found the "Don't Have Kids Party" or try to get anti-natalism included in the Republican/Democrat/Green/Rhinoceros party platform. Report back on your electoral success.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Just to play devil's advocate for a second here, you don't have to be strictly anti-natalist or support things like a one/no child policy to try to convince people to have fewer kids. From a policy standpoint, you can push the importance of adoption and the resource costs associated with having children in a first world nation. Basically, try to make it more socially acceptable to not have kids rather than pushing the idea that having kids is a bad thing. Edit- To be clear, I'm not saying this is a good idea or something we have to pursue, especially since a lot of developed nations are below replacement anyway. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Well the only way for humanity to exist while not having any effect at all on our environment is to live in outer space. Perhaps in a thousand years we will do just that and Earth will just become this great nature preserve that we orbit and enjoy looking at through our O'Neill cylinder windows. Beyond that then the best humans can do it attempt to be stewards of our environment. To do so we need more technological advancement, and the political will mold our culture into one that places priority on stewardship. That culture will consist of our children and their children, because we probably ain't making that great of a change in this lifetime. So you have to either believe that somehow humanity will find a way through this great challenge or it won't. If you honestly think there is no hope, well I feel great sadness for you, and wish my words would give you hope. If you choose not to have kids then that is completely fine by me, but saying that one can't have children while still caring about the way humanity treats the planet is just nonsensical. I will do the best I can to raise my children to care for their environment, and if many others do as well then those exact 1/billion children will start to add up and their aggregate effect may indeed just solve this great challenge. People saying that any children being born today are guaranteed a Mad Max existence, are just as naive as any climate denialist that believes any sort of liberal government will lead to forced re-education camps. edit: ^ There are also some very practical concerns with a reduced fertility rate in western countries regarding the impending demographic crisis. I contend that we need more young people in this country who have the desire and motivation to fix our shithead problems as even our generation is quickly growing old and starting to not give a poo poo anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Marijuana Nihilist posted:Don't have children because they might end up being selfish assholes like newforumsoftware or aceofflames A reason we can all get behind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Climate Change: What is to be Done? Green Abortions
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Just to play devil's advocate for a second here, you don't have to be strictly anti-natalist or support things like a one/no child policy to try to convince people to have fewer kids. From a policy standpoint, you can push the importance of adoption and the resource costs associated with having children in a first world nation. Basically, try to make it more socially acceptable to not have kids rather than pushing the idea that having kids is a bad thing. A thing people forget is that its not really about bringing in one-child policies or cutting off people's balls. Its doing basic and surpringly simple things like making contraception or abortion widely available, educating women and making it clear to them that their worth isn't based on reproduction. A surprising amount of people don't really want kids but circumstances and cultural pressures can force their hands. And its not like this pie in the sky thinking, all over the world birthrates have plummeted for precisely these reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Just to play devil's advocate for a second here, you don't have to be strictly anti-natalist or support things like a one/no child policy to try to convince people to have fewer kids. From a policy standpoint, you can push the importance of adoption and the resource costs associated with having children in a first world nation. Basically, try to make it more socially acceptable to not have kids rather than pushing the idea that having kids is a bad thing. NIH posted:Developed countries tend to have a lower fertility rate due to lifestyle choices associated with economic affluence where mortality rates are low, birth control is easily accessible and children often can become an economic drain caused by housing, education cost and other cost involved in bringing up children. Higher education and professional careers often mean that women have children late in life. This can result in a demographic economic paradox.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:A thing people forget is that its not really about bringing in one-child policies or cutting off people's balls. Its doing basic and surpringly simple things like making contraception or abortion widely available, educating women and making it clear to them that their worth isn't based on reproduction. A surprising amount of people don't really want kids but circumstances and cultural pressures can force their hands. In an attempt to moderate my attitude, I'll say that many of these simple things you mentioned are indeed a great thing. Having children beyond your ability to care for them, or simply because you don't have the option not to due to education or social constraints is a bad thing. I believe that a global replacement fertility rate is something humanity should strive for, and honestly is already practically at. However I ask you this, do you see any of the potential issues that a sub-replacement rate could cause? What happens if humanity swings to far? The coming demographic crisis in western nations(and some non-western) is a real thing, and could very well lead to even worse outcomes for our environment and our species.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Just to play devil's advocate for a second here, you don't have to be strictly anti-natalist or support things like a one/no child policy to try to convince people to have fewer kids. From a policy standpoint, you can push the importance of adoption and the resource costs associated with having children in a first world nation. Basically, try to make it more socially acceptable to not have kids rather than pushing the idea that having kids is a bad thing. Frankly the inexorable march of global capitalism is doing a pretty great job discouraging child births already. Uncertain employment for younger workers, declining wages and increasing health care costs are making children unaffordable, no further policy required.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:In an attempt to moderate my attitude, I'll say that many of these simple things you mentioned are indeed a great thing. Having children beyond your ability to care for them, or simply because you don't have the option not to due to education or social constraints is a bad thing. I believe that a global replacement fertility rate is something humanity should strive for, and honestly is already practically at. Secondly we'll probably also see ever greater extensions to human lifespan as medical technology gets more sophisticated especially genetic engineering. If people are aging slower and dying way later then the need to replace them will continuously decrease. I just don't think the incoming world will have much need for high birthrates at this rate. I know a lot find this whole thing creepy and unpleasant to think about but like global warming its probably inevitable. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Stop arguing on this forum, go out and found the "Don't Have Kids Party" or try to get anti-natalism included in the Republican/Democrat/Green/Rhinoceros party platform. Report back on your electoral success. I'm not trying to "get everyone to become atheist", I'm not trying to "get everyone to not eat meat", I'm not trying to "get everyone to be fans of the LA Kings". Because you can be things and have opinions without said opinions being widely accepted by a major government or hell even your roommate. Honestly, why do you assume if someone personally is against bringing more kids into this world because of climate change they have to make it their life cause that they champion at major political party conventions or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Frankly the inexorable march of global capitalism is doing a pretty great job discouraging child births already. Uncertain employment for younger workers, declining wages and increasing health care costs are making children unaffordable, no further policy required. yeah birthdrates in first world are declining quite a bit and the population explosion is from developing countries who don't contribute much in c02. There's an interesting ethical question of whether you should not have kids as the future will be bad, but it seems unrelated to emissions. Having less kids isn't really a factor for reducing emission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:17
|
|
