|
Conspiratiorist posted:And those people are in their right to be loving wrong because (aside from tangentially addressing the issue through QoL) population control policies are a dangerous slippery slope, that's true... but I'm still going to call out how it's loving wrong. Fine, I think adoption is good. quote:People coming into this thread talking about how it's fine to birth kids to pass on environmental ideas or because it's a basic human desire or whatever the gently caress, should be treated with the same kind of mockery - if not contempt - as those advising others to take trans-oceanic flights to go see the natural wonders that are disappearing. Or the idiots unironically proclaiming how you'll never take beef away from them. The flights to see reefs/rainforest/whatever is really funny in a deluded way. I am a big fan of Kevin Anderson and his lectures, and it gobsmacked me how another professor was REALLY offended at his suggestion that people need to take less, if no flights. The excuses she came up with were hilarious, SHARING CULTURE, blah blah blah. Like in the internet age we can't connect with people any other way. Either way, everyone tends to have some kind of sacred cow they would be afraid of giving up in the name of climate change. Some people it is travel, others meat, driving lovely cars, etc. I find it even more annoying when people won't even consider moderation which is at least a step towards improvement. quote:"But I want to pass on my genes!" That's just loving hubris. There is a degree of genealogy intertwined with culture that people sort of understandably get taken up in. Some people really give a poo poo about where their family lines come from and feel connected to the whole thing. There is a whole stupid show about rich people tracing their genealogy. I don't personally give a poo poo, but it is going to take a while for broader society to just let go of that. I mean an adopted kid can claim whatever line they want anyway since it is basically meaningless.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:we really should collab on some kind of OP update that represents some kind of summary-truce so we can stop going round and round *as* much Yeah but is the goal to save the environment or punish women for environmental ~sins~
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
^Oocc I think you are not a bad dude but you're not doing anyone any favors by trotting out your anti-woman strawman arguments as if that's what any of us are saying. poo poo's beneath you man.^ I mean at some point even to current deniers/optimists it's going to be pretty clear that you are damning your kids and grandkids to hellscape so you do you. I get that it's literally in our genetics to want to gently caress and create life but how much can you really love a kid that you are dooming to the resource wars of 2053 or whatever? Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
Everything I needed to know about MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE I learned from the Georgia Guidestones Birth control and female literacy all around, please In all seriousness, though, if we could benignly drop the population to a manageable level then we'd solve a lot of problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:we really should collab on some kind of OP update that represents some kind of summary-truce so we can stop going round and round *as* much Anyway, I think you're mixing up terms. The replacement rate is the number of kids women need to have to maintain the current population, not how many they're actually popping out. The number can't even get below 2, unless you've just done a Paraguay and now women are 3/4 of your population, though it gets very close in the most advanced countries. Obviously, having the replacement rate fall alongside the fertility rate is ideal for a smooth transition, and a low replacement rate in itself is evidence that living in your society is safe for women and babies alike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 08:17
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Everything I needed to know about MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE I learned from the Georgia Guidestones A Buttery Pastry posted:Anyway, I think you're mixing up terms. The replacement rate is the number of kids women need to have to maintain the current population, not how many they're actually popping out. The number can't even get below 2, unless you've just done a Paraguay and now women are 3/4 of your population, though it gets very close in the most advanced countries. Obviously, having the replacement rate fall alongside the fertility rate is ideal for a smooth transition, and a low replacement rate in itself is evidence that living in your society is safe for women and babies alike. so to rephrase: we need the fertility rate to go from 2.45 to like 1.8 or 1.9ish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:^Oocc I think you are not a bad dude but you're not doing anyone any favors by trotting out your anti-woman strawman arguments as if that's what any of us are saying. poo poo's beneath you man.^ Like we have such a good answer on how to reduce population. It works with 100% success rate and is win win for everyone. You just increase people's quality of life and particularly give women equal rights and education and the problem solves itself. It's a perfect solution. Like literally the only reason to not like it as a solution is that it "rewards" people with a better life instead of making people cry in a sad dark mud hut and reflect on their sins against the earth then solve it by paying penences.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:Clearly instead of targeting emissions, consumption rates, etc we should all just pour our efforts into not having kids. Checkmate you solved climate change, all of those scientists are so silly. I am glad that you aren't going to be procreating though, that gets an A+ from me. Also, there really isn't any certainty things are going to be a hell world, but hey whatever makes you feel good bro. You seem to be really into touting science. Have you read any of it recently? "Targeting emissions, consumption rates, etc" doesn't actually mean poo poo in a world where we're trending above RCP8.5 emissions without any hope of ever developing CCS. If you want to read what "all those scientists" are actually saying these days, have a look here (there are plenty of scientists and sources cited here): http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html Or you could also refer to the peer reviewed paper a few posts above this, the one saying that "if CCS existed and were nearly free it would require world peace to do". Can you point me to this science showing a fair shot at a good, habitable world for your kids? Or are you just an abusive parent that gets some sort of pleasure out of seeing their child's future die? Because it's hilarious how defensive you're getting about this - it certainly seems to be your so-called sacred cow. You'll notice that people that personally invested in having kids always turn around "I'm not having kids because I don't want to consign them to Hellworld" into "not having kids will solve climate change" because of the intense cognitive dissonance between knowing what the world will be like in 2060 or whatever and having a kid anyways. Our personal choices will not change the climate, but my choice will ensure that there are fewer suffering kids in the world. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like we have such a good answer on how to reduce population. It works with 100% success rate and is win win for everyone. You just increase people's quality of life and particularly give women equal rights and education and the problem solves itself. It's a perfect solution. I agree, it would be fair to do a massive wealth transfer from the first world to poor women globally. It would probably buy us some time. call to action fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:^Oocc I think you are not a bad dude but you're not doing anyone any favors by trotting out your anti-woman strawman arguments as if that's what any of us are saying. poo poo's beneath you man.^ Speaking of strawmen, you're heedlessly framing this as a hate against women thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
Question: If it's not possible to solve climate change in a socially just manner, should we solve it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
call to action posted:Question: If it's not possible to solve climate change in a socially just manner, should we solve it? yea, because murdering the rich is socially just. and the people who are poorer will be most affected by climate change anyways
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
call to action posted:Question: If it's not possible to solve climate change in a socially just manner, should we solve it? it's not a problem that can 'solved' like you can solve a math equation any attempt to address the issue will help mitigate the effects, the question is can we/do we have the ability or cultural will to mitigate the effects to a significant enough to degree to minimize loss of human life and biodiversity
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like we have such a good answer on how to reduce population. It works with 100% success rate and is win win for everyone. You just increase people's quality of life and particularly give women equal rights and education and the problem solves itself. It's a perfect solution. I never said I was against any of those things you're talking about though? Like I used to work at Planned Parenthood and directly lobbied government for legislation to increase access to birth control, sexual health education, and etc. I'm sorry that the science of climate change is making having kids look like an increasingly destructive and selfish choice, but that's not to say I think we need legislation to stop it or that it would even be effective. Potato Salad posted:Speaking of strawmen, you're heedlessly framing this as a hate against women thing No I'm not? Oocc was the one insinuating that anyone suggesting people stop having kids is obviously a monster that just wants to use the excuse of climate change to punish women. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:No I'm not? Oocc was the one insinuating that anyone suggesting people stop having kids is obviously a monster that just wants to use the excuse of climate change to punish women. Anyone that wants to remove or impede any woman's reproductive freedom in any way is a hosed up piece of poo poo. Anyone that wants to improve people's lives and through that reap the demographic changes that means that over a population women have less kids while still giving individual women more freedom is cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Anyone that wants to remove or impede any woman's reproductive freedom in any way is a hosed up piece of poo poo. You can support a woman's right to choose while still being realistic about what the world will look like for those kids in 50 years. Like I would never vote to impede anyone's reproductive rights but I can still hold the opinion that the person on my news feed who just popped out a 6th kid is an irresponsible idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:You can support a woman's right to choose while still being realistic about what the world will look like for those kids in 50 years. Like I would never vote to impede anyone's reproductive rights but I can still hold the opinion that the person on my news feed who just popped out a 6th kid is an irresponsible idiot. So like if a wizard solved all climate change or whatever you'd be way buddy buddy with this totally gender neutral person on your friends list that pops out children? And this isn't a preexisting opinion you hold about the number of children they chose to have that you are just using climate change as a convenient cudgel to attack?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So like if a wizard solved all climate change or whatever you'd be way buddy buddy with this totally gender neutral person on your friends list that pops out children? And this isn't a preexisting opinion you hold about the number of children they chose to have that you are just using climate change as a convenient cudgel to attack? Your ability to see the worst in people is certainly admirable. I've spent the greater part of my adulthood making lovely wages in order to improve the lives of others in my community but nah, the guy who burns carbon at an alarming rate to see loving cats all over the world has a moral leg up on me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Your ability to see the worst in people is certainly admirable. If I recall correctly this is the person who flew to multiple other continents to take pictures of cats
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:If I recall correctly this is the person who flew to multiple other continents to take pictures of cats Yeah, I mentioned that in the very post that you quoted. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
My wife and I are currently doing the IVF thing with adoption as the backup plan. I myself had the VHEMT website bookmarked in the mid-90's, but that biological urge in women is real. It was weird seeing it happen and then once you actually start taking hormones for IUI/IVF it gets so much worse. It's absolutely selfish, unjustifiable and creating a new human will hands down be the worst possible thing I ever do to the environment. But devastating my wife and denying myself fatherhood isn't an option. I'd much rather hurt the planet and ask forgiveness from the next generation on my deathbed. I guess I can justify it kind of like eating meat. It's horrible for the environment so I make efforts to eat less meat than most people, but I still eat some because why should I have to bear 100% of the Earth's burden myself? I'd rather we abandon freedom and just start sterilizing people after having one kid than for me to voluntarily not have any.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Cats are great and I'm one of the only humans who has ever lives in all of history that has petted a cat on every continent that has a cat. But I haven't had children either, and it didn't take a gun to my head or anyone insulting me. Give people options and people will find their own things to do. Restrict people's options and people will pick among the few that are open to everyone regardless of if it's what they wanted. Give everyone on earth a good standard of living and some people will find they want a family with children and some people want to see some cats or run a goat farm or live in a boat or whatever. I did what you wanted: not have kids. But it didn't require punishing me or looking down at me (which wouldn't have happened as much because I'm a man anyway). But it's bad because I also took like 10 international flights instead of crying in a corner and deciding to forgo children in a self deprecation sort of penance way. give people options and some people will pick kids and some people won't and statistically it works out to be less than replacement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:No I'm not? Oocc was the one insinuating that anyone suggesting people stop having kids is obviously a monster that just wants to use the excuse of climate change to punish women. "I'm not making a strawman out of this, now let me explain to you why a gender neutral issue is actually about mysogyny." http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/rights/ [quote="The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo (ICPD) defined reproductive rights "] '...reproductive rights embrace certain human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other relevant United Nations consensus documents. These rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence as expressed in human rights documents. In the exercise of this right, they should take into account the needs of their living and future children and their responsibilities towards the community.' (ICPD Programme of Action 1994, para 7.3) [/quote] You are trying very hard to shoehorn OOCC's out-of-mainstream opinion on population policy as a sex/gender hatred issue. It isn't. You need deprogramming, whether that's a couple deep breaths or alteration of your media diet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
OOCC has some massive problems; there's no need to make this more difficult by intentionally and ham-handedly misframing this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"I'm not making a strawman out of this, now let me explain to you why a gender neutral issue is actually about mysogyny." You misread my initial post. I am claiming that oocc is strawmanning my position as misogynistic hate, his position is very clearly not misogynistic in any way and I never said as much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah but is the goal to save the environment or punish women for environmental ~sins~ DrNutt posted:You misread my initial post. I am claiming that oocc is strawmanning my position as misogynistic hate, his position is very clearly not misogynistic in any way and I never said as much. gently caress my broken brain for crossing those wires halfway down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Cats are great and I'm one of the only humans who has ever lives in all of history that has petted a cat on every continent that has a cat. I love cats but I work locally to help companion animals and the people in need who care for them rather than fling myself across the globe in order to satisfy some selfish desire. You are woefully naive and optimistic about what how society will weather climate change and we will never be able to offer the rest of the world the high standard of living that you or I currently enjoy barring some sort of miracle breakthrough in energy production. E: also I'm sure my carbon footprint sucks poo poo too but I'm not going to be god drat moralized at by the guy who flew across the world multiple times to see cats. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:You misread my initial post. I am claiming that oocc is strawmanning my position as misogynistic hate, his position is very clearly not misogynistic in any way and I never said as much. I don't know if you personally are misogynic, who knows. I do know that attacks on women for having "too many children" in a frame of them being morally bad is a thing and that people use that to reframe lots of different topics into cover stories on ways to attack sinful women who "pop out" children. As being slutty or assumed to be poor or somehow using money that the speaker thinks should be theirs or whatever. Like on stuff like that people are just using stuff like environmentalism as a cover, if a wizard fixed environmentalism they'd still be equal amounts mad about those women and just move on to some new 'neutral' reason why they hate them. To people like that some answer that gave those women even more stuff, and a better standard of living is seen as bad, they didn't even pay penance for their sins, they just got more wealth/education/whatever without having to suffer at all for their "crimes". To anyone else more options is a win win for literally everyone involved. You get sub replacement population growth, women retain their choice to have children, no draconian law need to be enacted and the women have a better quality of life. It's a perfect solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
davebo posted:I guess I can justify it kind of like eating meat. It's horrible for the environment so I make efforts to eat less meat than most people, but I still eat some because why should I have to bear 100% of the Earth's burden myself? I'd rather we abandon freedom and just start sterilizing people after having one kid than for me to voluntarily not have any. What a weird post. Not eating meat or not having children is certainly not bearing 100% of the Earth's burden yourself. It's merely doing a part of your part by not actively making certain things worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
gently caress off thread derailer, nobody said poo poo about denying women access to education or healthcare, nobody attacked "women", stop making GBS threads up the thread because you've made choices that make our carbon clock tick faster. Literally all I've seen is "kill first worlders", quote something else or eat poo poo. This is literally the Bernie Bro narrative applied to climate change. call to action fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I do know that attacks on women for having "too many children" in a frame of them being morally bad is a thing and that people use that to reframe lots of different topics into cover stories on ways to attack sinful women who "pop out" children. As being slutty or assumed to be poor or somehow using money that the speaker thinks should be theirs or whatever. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like on stuff like that people are just using stuff like environmentalism as a cover, if a wizard fixed environmentalism they'd still be equal amounts mad about those women and just move on to some new 'neutral' reason why they hate them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't know if you personally are misogynic, who knows. Well I'm sorry but a wizard did not fix climate change and having lots of kids is a selfish and immoral choice in 2018. I am not advocating for legislation to stop people from doing so but I reserve my right to judge them for being selfish. Especially davebo and his wife what the gently caress. Adopt you selfish fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
I gotta admit though, it's a very effective tactic. The Koch brothers use it a lot - they engage with community organizations and churches that primarily represent PoC, and push the narrative that fighting climate change is racist because it takes resources away that assist poor people with their bills. Is taking money away from heating assistance racist? Probably, yeah. Is it a false dichotomy? You'd better believe it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:But having children is morally bad. no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:What a weird post. Not eating meat or not having children is certainly not bearing 100% of the Earth's burden yourself. It's merely doing a part of your part by not actively making certain things worse. Sorry if I worded that oddly. I mean in their respective categories, not eating meat would be 100% as opposed to eating a hamburger once a year might be considered 99%? I just don't consider it a binary difference between vegetarians and carnivores, but rather Trump eating McDonalds and KFC every day is say 75% worse than someone who has a turkey sandwich now and then. DrNutt posted:Well I'm sorry but a wizard did not fix climate change and having lots of kids is a selfish and immoral choice in 2018. I am not advocating for legislation to stop people from doing so but I reserve my right to judge them for being selfish. Especially davebo and his wife what the gently caress. Adopt you selfish fuckers. No one is bringing up the real selfishness here, which is that rear end in a top hat wizard refusing to fix the climate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
We literally have more children than we have adults willing and able to raise children, how in the world could creating more children be considered not morally bad?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:We literally have more children than we have adults willing and able to raise children, how in the world could creating more children be considered not morally bad? You must be a blast at parties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:You must be a blast at parties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:
Okay, hypothetically what evaluation would you make? Because if the answer is not a real simple "well in that case, I'd not have any problem at all", then you may discover you actually are just using environmentalism as a cover for your awful opinions about women having children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, hypothetically what evaluation would you make? Because if the answer is not a real simple "well in that case, I'd not have any problem at all", then you may discover you actually are just using environmentalism as a cover for your awful opinions about women having children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
twodot posted:Ah the rare school of philosophy that derives moral structures from what makes someone a blast at parties. WOOOOO-ism is it? Man, if there was a school of philosophy founded by the eminent Ric Flair I’d join it in a heart beat! I think calling someone morally bankrupt for having children is a hard pill for a lot of people to swallow, but I agree that the government should meet somewhere closer to the middle and give tax breaks to people who choose not to have children or to adopt ones already born. While we are making policy I also wish that there was a way to streamline that process, there are so many agencies out there with so many different policies that it just makes perspective parents give up before they start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:42
|
|