I know it’s not always welcome to bring this up, but if we’re serious about taking immediate, meaningful action to help the planet, this is it. Shifting to a fully plant-based diet is one of the...
Exemplary
I know it’s not always welcome to bring this up, but if we’re serious about taking immediate, meaningful action to help the planet, this is it. Shifting to a fully plant-based diet is one of the most direct, pragmatic choices we can make.
For our future. For the generations to come.
UPDATE
For those who dismiss this as untenable behavior that should be decided on an individual basis, consider this: we're facing a crisis of the commons without any solution in sight.
To those who suggest reducing birth rates, this, too, is a solution—albeit even more radical.
We know our environment is worsening. Without some unifying commitment, we're in a race to the bottom where the bottom is a planet that will de facto reduce the population significantly through way of violent human-induced "natural" catastrophes—perhaps even during our lifetime.
I mean you can also just significantly reduce your meat consumption; it doesn't need to be all or nothing. I imagine there's a lot more people who would could easily cut meat consumption by...
I mean you can also just significantly reduce your meat consumption; it doesn't need to be all or nothing. I imagine there's a lot more people who would could easily cut meat consumption by 50-75%, but not drop it to zero. More people reducing their meat consumption is good, but framing the only meaningful level as 0 is unhelpful in my opinion.
I made large strides in reducing my meat consumption when most of the edible meat at the grocery store went from being 5-10 bucks a pound to being like 20+ in some instances. Like I enjoy a steak...
I made large strides in reducing my meat consumption when most of the edible meat at the grocery store went from being 5-10 bucks a pound to being like 20+ in some instances. Like I enjoy a steak from time to time but not that much. I eat almost exclusively chicken thighs and ground sausage now because it's still relatively affordable and it's always as a supplement to a larger dish (usually with lots of potatoes, carrots, rice, etc.)
I absolutely agree with this -- I think insisting on all-or-nothing approaches to meat consumption actually hinders reducing meat consumption among broader swaths of the population. I'm probably...
I absolutely agree with this -- I think insisting on all-or-nothing approaches to meat consumption actually hinders reducing meat consumption among broader swaths of the population. I'm probably never going to go fully vegetarian myself, and whether that makes me morally inferior or not, it's still better for the world to convince people like me to eat less meat. It's a lot easier to convince someone who eats meat for every meal to eat meat only once or twice a week than it is to convince them to give it up entirely.
This is a crisis of the commons. Solving this with opt-in behaviors is will not succeed without a miracle. Yes, others in other responses have brought up the growing population of the planet. Same...
This is a crisis of the commons. Solving this with opt-in behaviors is will not succeed without a miracle. Yes, others in other responses have brought up the growing population of the planet. Same root problem: the absence of collective action.
Now if we just had a benevolent tyrant conquer the planet and force us all to become plant eaters with families with <= 2 children who drive electric vehicles or ride bicycles or preferably only use mass transit and farm sustainably without pesticides and.... 😅😅😅
Yeah... My stance anymore is the only solution is civilization/societal collapse that forces us to resort to pre-industrial revolution ways of existing. The industrial revolution has been the...
Exemplary
Yeah... My stance anymore is the only solution is civilization/societal collapse that forces us to resort to pre-industrial revolution ways of existing. The industrial revolution has been the catalyst for so many of these environmental issues that it's hard not to see it as nefarious anymore. All in the name of advancing... science? Technology? What are we exactly working towards with our space-ships and faster cars? To break records and feed our ego & human hubris. The only thing left anymore to do is to basically be an observer of the mass extinction to come because we can't even decide if we should be vegans or vegetarians without a large debate.
The longer I pay attention to politics, the more I realize that it's just people arguing until we're all drowning and not actually fixing the problem lol. You won't get people to do choice-fully do all of these eco-friendly things because it's not fun or comfortable or whatever people need to feel fulfilled. We've lost touch with reality, aka Gaeia or Mother Nature, and have filled it with Technocracy and worshipping the computer.
We keep hoping... no, really, expecting that some future technology will save us. Like Godot, that savior will very unlikely arrive. This is a phase of grieving: bargaining. The hard truth is we...
We keep hoping... no, really, expecting that some future technology will save us. Like Godot, that savior will very unlikely arrive.
This is a phase of grieving: bargaining. The hard truth is we adapt or we die.
You are not really responding to the comment you are posting this reply to. Nor the comment above that. I suppose that in your mind you are, but at most you are doubling down on all or nothing...
You are not really responding to the comment you are posting this reply to. Nor the comment above that. I suppose that in your mind you are, but at most you are doubling down on all or nothing solutions even adding to it with something wishful about tyrants? It seems like you are reacting, but not responding to content.
I disagree that I was not responding. Also, yes, I am doubling down. And if it's alienating then it's because you find it alienating. I'm not here to appease you. I have my perspective. You don't...
I disagree that I was not responding.
Also, yes, I am doubling down. And if it's alienating then it's because you find it alienating. I'm not here to appease you. I have my perspective. You don't like it or how I express it? Ok.
The remark about tyrants was hyperbole yet also seemingly one of the few ways that global scale tragedies of the commons can be effectively resolved barring a miracle.
Yeah, vegetarianism is one of those things I have a hard time being convinced of pushing the last 10% of. I already rarely have meat twice a day and I've gone vegetarian for years at a time, but...
Yeah, vegetarianism is one of those things I have a hard time being convinced of pushing the last 10% of. I already rarely have meat twice a day and I've gone vegetarian for years at a time, but it would make my life objectively worse if I never had salmon or steak again. And having meat a few times a year is not meaningfully different from eating no meat a year.
I think people are aware that switching to a plant based diet would be meaningful action to help the (primarily, our survival on this) planet, they just really don't want to. Know what's something...
I know it’s not always welcome to bring this up, but if we’re serious about taking immediate, meaningful action to help the planet, this is it. Shifting to a fully plant-based diet is one of the most direct, pragmatic choices we can make.
I think people are aware that switching to a plant based diet would be meaningful action to help the (primarily, our survival on this) planet, they just really don't want to.
Know what's something that people really really don't like being brought up? That not having children is the most direct and pragmatic choice people can make.
Eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tons CO2e/yr saved)
Having one fewer child (58.6 tons CO2e/yr saved)
People are already having less children in the developed world. But also, I think the discussion of climate change is predicated on the implicit understanding that we’re preserving the human race....
People are already having less children in the developed world. But also, I think the discussion of climate change is predicated on the implicit understanding that we’re preserving the human race. For that we need to have children. And climate-minded humans need to as well.
Humans aren't going to collectively stop having children, so the argument against not having more children out of a fear or claim that humankind will not persevere is a flawed one. The top 10% of...
Humans aren't going to collectively stop having children, so the argument against not having more children out of a fear or claim that humankind will not persevere is a flawed one.
The top 10% of global earners (about $50k/year) account for 50% of global emissions, the bottom 50% of earners account for 8%. The top 1% ($140k/year) account for the same emissions as the bottom 66%. 77 million people at the top pollute as much 5.1Billion at the bottom. Top earners pollute enough in two weeks to account for the entire lifetime pollution of the poorest. [1] [2] [3] - Poor people having a dozen kids aren't the problem and aren't the ones that should stop breeding.
Rich people can afford to clean up after themselves. The issue is they don’t. We should mandate that instead of pounding the pavement as anti-natalists.
Rich people can afford to clean up after themselves. The issue is they don’t. We should mandate that instead of pounding the pavement as anti-natalists.
Then hop to, because looking at the numbers it seems like only one of the two options presented is actually happening/working and since developed nation birthrates are (thankfully) plummeting,...
Then hop to, because looking at the numbers it seems like only one of the two options presented is actually happening/working and since developed nation birthrates are (thankfully) plummeting, it's not the cleanup.
China is pulling quite a lot of weight on this right now. Along with India they’re actually net removing coal/oil power. And they’re building the tech needed for green energy. Western countries...
China is pulling quite a lot of weight on this right now. Along with India they’re actually net removing coal/oil power. And they’re building the tech needed for green energy. Western countries are however much less impressive. Even if we did a 180 right now there will be disastrous consequences from climate change. But there is an end in sight. Do what you can personally and push your legislators to do more. We are sadly a minority on this. Most people aren’t doing shit.
Power generation is only one part of it. People still have to eat, commute/travel, wear clothing, build houses, consume goods... And the absolute best thing one can personally do? not have...
Power generation is only one part of it. People still have to eat, commute/travel, wear clothing, build houses, consume goods...
Do what you can personally
And the absolute best thing one can personally do?
not have children.
Edits since this got locked because you people really don't like being told you have to stop breeding so future generations can exist...
It is trivial to not have kids.
Having children being central to your identity is egotistical at best and asinine at worst. Having a child is the single most polluting thing the average individual can do and "because I wanna" isn't an excuse to do so any more than the coal rolling diesel bros belching soot from their trucks.
Oh no, not resentment! The planet will become uninhabitable and they'll be choking on the pollution while holding their children and watching them slowly die from starvation, but they'll have surely gotten me with their resentment.
And to the person that replied "Well, what about the economy?" Really?REALLY?
It’s fine if you don’t want to have kids, but can you at least acknowledge that for most people that sort of decision is a far more difficult and complicated one than choosing what to eat? You’re...
It’s fine if you don’t want to have kids, but can you at least acknowledge that for most people that sort of decision is a far more difficult and complicated one than choosing what to eat?
You’re making it out like choosing not to have kids is some trivial thing, but parenthood is central to many people’s identities and their life goals. Asking them to give that up is far less likely to be successful than suggesting that they eat less meat.
Would it have a greater impact on future climate change? Perhaps. It’s infinitely less likely to actually be successful, though, and in the meantime you’ll have created a lot of resentment against your cause.
In addition to this, the equation may not be as simple as fewer people == better. Surely it’s a positive thing if a greater share of parents are environmentally-minded? Families of such parents...
In addition to this, the equation may not be as simple as fewer people == better. Surely it’s a positive thing if a greater share of parents are environmentally-minded? Families of such parents are where you’re the most likely to find the next generation of researchers, scientists, engineers, politicians, and advocates who will be driving the cause forward once we’ve grayed and eventually departed.
Those who are indifferent or worse, actively anti-environmentalist certainly aren’t going to stop having children, and while it’s not impossible for those kids to make a radical departure from their parents and make an outsize positive impact, it’s a lot less likely, particularly for families who profit from environmental destruction.
We're starting to veer into some of the soft eugenics areas - this argument is very similar to some of those used by the "pro-natalists" that (IMO) pretend to be left wing, while speaking...
We're starting to veer into some of the soft eugenics areas - this argument is very similar to some of those used by the "pro-natalists" that (IMO) pretend to be left wing, while speaking alongside some really racist people. There's an issue in deciding any group is full of worthier parents than another. It can be twisted into any group being favored or discouraged for pretty much any reason.
Society should support people who have kids or who want to have them, regardless of the rest, because we're part of the same community. But we probably should never be in the business of deciding who should or shouldn't have kids unless it's ourselves.
Absolutely, this is something that gets really nasty really fast if you’re not careful. I would never ever support anything that strips people of freedom to make this intensely personal decision,...
Absolutely, this is something that gets really nasty really fast if you’re not careful. I would never ever support anything that strips people of freedom to make this intensely personal decision, and I do not hold up any particular group as being more worthy parents than anybody else.
All that I’m saying is that it’s not necessarily so cut and dry that deciding to not become a parent makes one a better environmentalist, and environmentally-minded people who choose to raise families shouldn’t necessarily be chided for that decision.
Fully agreed, I didn't think you were intending to go there, but there's enough weird eugenicist shit out there I wanted to say something before the convo could drift there. (The Niger comment in...
Fully agreed, I didn't think you were intending to go there, but there's enough weird eugenicist shit out there I wanted to say something before the convo could drift there. (The Niger comment in this comment section is still sitting in my head for example)
I suppose this is a reasonable argument from a purely carbon-based perspective, but what's the goal? Western countries die out and nomads in Niger are the last remaining humans, living the same...
Poor people having a dozen kids aren't the problem and aren't the ones that should stop breeding.
I suppose this is a reasonable argument from a purely carbon-based perspective, but what's the goal? Western countries die out and nomads in Niger are the last remaining humans, living the same way they have for thousands of years until smallpox kills them all?
Why would a small subculture of one African country be the only surviving humans on earth due to birth rates? And smallpox? I'm not exactly sure how you got here, can you elaborate?
Why would a small subculture of one African country be the only surviving humans on earth due to birth rates? And smallpox?
I'm not exactly sure how you got here, can you elaborate?
Niger has both the highest birthrate in the world and among the lowest carbon emissions - mostly because the country produces very very little - so I was responding to the notion that "it's not...
Niger has both the highest birthrate in the world and among the lowest carbon emissions - mostly because the country produces very very little - so I was responding to the notion that "it's not rich people that need to be having fewer kids" by asking what the logical extension of that thought process is. I'm not arguing that Nigeriens should have fewer kids.
You're right that the smallpox thing makes no sense though, sorry. My thought process was basically that a lot of our carbon emissions are due to effectively making the world better. Producing vaccines, cleaning water, and so on. Almost all of that currently happens in rich countries, for a variety of obvious and nonobvious reasons. So again I quesion what the goals of the idea "rich people need to have fewer kids and the global poor don't" will lead to. That needed way more explanation though so yeah, it was nonsensical.
I appreciate how you approached this. (At least in this post. Linking me to eugenicism in a different comment made me roll my eyes. ;) )
I don't agree with any sort of statements about who should and shouldn't have kids, down that road lies eugenics basically every time. But the connection you were trying to draw did not link for...
I don't agree with any sort of statements about who should and shouldn't have kids, down that road lies eugenics basically every time. But the connection you were trying to draw did not link for me either. I think @sparksbet and I were in the same headspace about the concerns we had over your post.
I don't think more explanation would have helped, personally, but even if "the west" or "the global north" stopped having children, the idea that that would result in a single ethnic group of nomads remaining in the world rather than much of the global south or whatever other division of the world one uses. If you truly intended just hyperbole, it wasn't clear to me that was what you meant.
But in this comment you frame the comment you were replying to both as:
I was responding to the notion that "it's not rich people that need to be having fewer kids"
and
So again I quesion what the goals of the idea "rich people need to have fewer kids and the global poor don't" will lead to.
Again I think both are bad, but that led me to quite a bit of confusion on this reply too.
...I don't know of a more polite way to say this, but this comment is really racist. I assume (and hope) you didn't mean for it to be, but you should really think of a different way to make...
...I don't know of a more polite way to say this, but this comment is really racist. I assume (and hope) you didn't mean for it to be, but you should really think of a different way to make whatever point you're trying to make, because it's (hopefully) not being communicated effectively.
Alternate take: there actually are nomads in Niger that have been nomads for millennia, and have routinely been devastated by smallpox throughout history. Or hell, if "nomads in Niger" makes you...
Or hell, if "nomads in Niger" makes you feel icky then take your pick:
Inuits in the arctic
Awa in the Amazon
Herders in Mongolia
There are dozens of different groups around the world that live vastly different lives from you and I, whose cultures are intertwined with their way of life, and have been living that way for centuries.
Let's chill out, and be a little more charitable to each other.
In full seriousness, in what way is it racist? I find the concept of "poor people aren't the ones that should stop breeding" to be way more distasteful - and distastefully phrased - than an...
In full seriousness, in what way is it racist? I find the concept of "poor people aren't the ones that should stop breeding" to be way more distasteful - and distastefully phrased - than an acknowledgement of Niger's demographics. For context, Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world and also has the world's highest birthrate. I brought it up as it most specifically responded to the post in question.
Having fewer children is bad for the economy and most first-world countries are actually facing demographic problems of not having enough children. If we're okay with damaging the economy, then a...
Having fewer children is bad for the economy and most first-world countries are actually facing demographic problems of not having enough children. If we're okay with damaging the economy, then a heavy carbon tax will be far more cost-effective.
That's valid, but if we're comparing then I think we need to include what these things give us. Beef: familiar taste Having children: a biological imperative that many people experience, and...
That's valid, but if we're comparing then I think we need to include what these things give us.
Beef: familiar taste
Having children: a biological imperative that many people experience, and continuation of our selves
I think the most pragmatic would be the immediate annihilation of our species, but I haven't seen the second season of The Last of Us yet.
I don't think that is a very constructive response. It's hard to tell from your tone if you're interested in a conversation or if you're hinting that I should peace out. My point is that if your...
I don't think that is a very constructive response. It's hard to tell from your tone if you're interested in a conversation or if you're hinting that I should peace out.
My point is that if your only metric is carbon impact, which is the only metric you used in your reasoning, then there are more effective solutions than going extinct over the next generation. Immediate annihilation is a rhetorical suggestion - the absurdity is the point.
Offtopic: @mycketforvirrad, before you change the climate policy tag to policy.climate (like I almost did) it's worth mentioning that it's actually a reference to the scientific journal called...
Offtopic: @mycketforvirrad, before you change the climate policy tag to policy.climate (like I almost did) it's worth mentioning that it's actually a reference to the scientific journal called Climate Policy where the researchers published their findings. ;)
I know it’s not always welcome to bring this up, but if we’re serious about taking immediate, meaningful action to help the planet, this is it. Shifting to a fully plant-based diet is one of the most direct, pragmatic choices we can make.
For our future. For the generations to come.
UPDATE
For those who dismiss this as untenable behavior that should be decided on an individual basis, consider this: we're facing a crisis of the commons without any solution in sight.
To those who suggest reducing birth rates, this, too, is a solution—albeit even more radical.
We know our environment is worsening. Without some unifying commitment, we're in a race to the bottom where the bottom is a planet that will de facto reduce the population significantly through way of violent human-induced "natural" catastrophes—perhaps even during our lifetime.
We have to act or die.
I mean you can also just significantly reduce your meat consumption; it doesn't need to be all or nothing. I imagine there's a lot more people who would could easily cut meat consumption by 50-75%, but not drop it to zero. More people reducing their meat consumption is good, but framing the only meaningful level as 0 is unhelpful in my opinion.
I made large strides in reducing my meat consumption when most of the edible meat at the grocery store went from being 5-10 bucks a pound to being like 20+ in some instances. Like I enjoy a steak from time to time but not that much. I eat almost exclusively chicken thighs and ground sausage now because it's still relatively affordable and it's always as a supplement to a larger dish (usually with lots of potatoes, carrots, rice, etc.)
Who can afford to eat all this meat these days?
I absolutely agree with this -- I think insisting on all-or-nothing approaches to meat consumption actually hinders reducing meat consumption among broader swaths of the population. I'm probably never going to go fully vegetarian myself, and whether that makes me morally inferior or not, it's still better for the world to convince people like me to eat less meat. It's a lot easier to convince someone who eats meat for every meal to eat meat only once or twice a week than it is to convince them to give it up entirely.
This is a crisis of the commons. Solving this with opt-in behaviors is will not succeed without a miracle. Yes, others in other responses have brought up the growing population of the planet. Same root problem: the absence of collective action.
Now if we just had a benevolent tyrant conquer the planet and force us all to become plant eaters with families with <= 2 children who drive electric vehicles or ride bicycles or preferably only use mass transit and farm sustainably without pesticides and.... 😅😅😅
Yeah... My stance anymore is the only solution is civilization/societal collapse that forces us to resort to pre-industrial revolution ways of existing. The industrial revolution has been the catalyst for so many of these environmental issues that it's hard not to see it as nefarious anymore. All in the name of advancing... science? Technology? What are we exactly working towards with our space-ships and faster cars? To break records and feed our ego & human hubris. The only thing left anymore to do is to basically be an observer of the mass extinction to come because we can't even decide if we should be vegans or vegetarians without a large debate.
The longer I pay attention to politics, the more I realize that it's just people arguing until we're all drowning and not actually fixing the problem lol. You won't get people to do choice-fully do all of these eco-friendly things because it's not fun or comfortable or whatever people need to feel fulfilled. We've lost touch with reality, aka Gaeia or Mother Nature, and have filled it with Technocracy and worshipping the computer.
We keep hoping... no, really, expecting that some future technology will save us. Like Godot, that savior will very unlikely arrive.
This is a phase of grieving: bargaining. The hard truth is we adapt or we die.
The latter is looking more likely by the year.
You are not really responding to the comment you are posting this reply to. Nor the comment above that. I suppose that in your mind you are, but at most you are doubling down on all or nothing solutions even adding to it with something wishful about tyrants? It seems like you are reacting, but not responding to content.
To be honest, it is a bit alienating to me.
I disagree that I was not responding.
Also, yes, I am doubling down. And if it's alienating then it's because you find it alienating. I'm not here to appease you. I have my perspective. You don't like it or how I express it? Ok.
The remark about tyrants was hyperbole yet also seemingly one of the few ways that global scale tragedies of the commons can be effectively resolved barring a miracle.
Yeah, vegetarianism is one of those things I have a hard time being convinced of pushing the last 10% of. I already rarely have meat twice a day and I've gone vegetarian for years at a time, but it would make my life objectively worse if I never had salmon or steak again. And having meat a few times a year is not meaningfully different from eating no meat a year.
It's never been easier. Veggie products abound in many groceries, and anyone can learn to cook amazing meals with the help of the web.
I think people are aware that switching to a plant based diet would be meaningful action to help the (primarily, our survival on this) planet, they just really don't want to.
Know what's something that people really really don't like being brought up?
That not having children is the most direct and pragmatic choice people can make.
Eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tons CO2e/yr saved)
Having one fewer child (58.6 tons CO2e/yr saved)
Edit...
...told ya people didn't want it brought up.
People are already having less children in the developed world. But also, I think the discussion of climate change is predicated on the implicit understanding that we’re preserving the human race. For that we need to have children. And climate-minded humans need to as well.
Humans aren't going to collectively stop having children, so the argument against not having more children out of a fear or claim that humankind will not persevere is a flawed one.
The top 10% of global earners (about $50k/year) account for 50% of global emissions, the bottom 50% of earners account for 8%. The top 1% ($140k/year) account for the same emissions as the bottom 66%. 77 million people at the top pollute as much 5.1Billion at the bottom. Top earners pollute enough in two weeks to account for the entire lifetime pollution of the poorest. [1] [2] [3] - Poor people having a dozen kids aren't the problem and aren't the ones that should stop breeding.
Rich people can afford to clean up after themselves. The issue is they don’t. We should mandate that instead of pounding the pavement as anti-natalists.
Then hop to, because looking at the numbers it seems like only one of the two options presented is actually happening/working and since developed nation birthrates are (thankfully) plummeting, it's not the cleanup.
China is pulling quite a lot of weight on this right now. Along with India they’re actually net removing coal/oil power. And they’re building the tech needed for green energy. Western countries are however much less impressive. Even if we did a 180 right now there will be disastrous consequences from climate change. But there is an end in sight. Do what you can personally and push your legislators to do more. We are sadly a minority on this. Most people aren’t doing shit.
Power generation is only one part of it. People still have to eat, commute/travel, wear clothing, build houses, consume goods...
And the absolute best thing one can personally do?
not have children.
Edits since this got locked because you people really don't like being told you have to stop breeding so future generations can exist...
It’s fine if you don’t want to have kids, but can you at least acknowledge that for most people that sort of decision is a far more difficult and complicated one than choosing what to eat?
You’re making it out like choosing not to have kids is some trivial thing, but parenthood is central to many people’s identities and their life goals. Asking them to give that up is far less likely to be successful than suggesting that they eat less meat.
Would it have a greater impact on future climate change? Perhaps. It’s infinitely less likely to actually be successful, though, and in the meantime you’ll have created a lot of resentment against your cause.
In addition to this, the equation may not be as simple as
fewer people == better. Surely it’s a positive thing if a greater share of parents are environmentally-minded? Families of such parents are where you’re the most likely to find the next generation of researchers, scientists, engineers, politicians, and advocates who will be driving the cause forward once we’ve grayed and eventually departed.Those who are indifferent or worse, actively anti-environmentalist certainly aren’t going to stop having children, and while it’s not impossible for those kids to make a radical departure from their parents and make an outsize positive impact, it’s a lot less likely, particularly for families who profit from environmental destruction.
We're starting to veer into some of the soft eugenics areas - this argument is very similar to some of those used by the "pro-natalists" that (IMO) pretend to be left wing, while speaking alongside some really racist people. There's an issue in deciding any group is full of worthier parents than another. It can be twisted into any group being favored or discouraged for pretty much any reason.
Society should support people who have kids or who want to have them, regardless of the rest, because we're part of the same community. But we probably should never be in the business of deciding who should or shouldn't have kids unless it's ourselves.
Absolutely, this is something that gets really nasty really fast if you’re not careful. I would never ever support anything that strips people of freedom to make this intensely personal decision, and I do not hold up any particular group as being more worthy parents than anybody else.
All that I’m saying is that it’s not necessarily so cut and dry that deciding to not become a parent makes one a better environmentalist, and environmentally-minded people who choose to raise families shouldn’t necessarily be chided for that decision.
Fully agreed, I didn't think you were intending to go there, but there's enough weird eugenicist shit out there I wanted to say something before the convo could drift there. (The Niger comment in this comment section is still sitting in my head for example)
I suppose this is a reasonable argument from a purely carbon-based perspective, but what's the goal? Western countries die out and nomads in Niger are the last remaining humans, living the same way they have for thousands of years until smallpox kills them all?
Why would a small subculture of one African country be the only surviving humans on earth due to birth rates? And smallpox?
I'm not exactly sure how you got here, can you elaborate?
Niger has both the highest birthrate in the world and among the lowest carbon emissions - mostly because the country produces very very little - so I was responding to the notion that "it's not rich people that need to be having fewer kids" by asking what the logical extension of that thought process is. I'm not arguing that Nigeriens should have fewer kids.
You're right that the smallpox thing makes no sense though, sorry. My thought process was basically that a lot of our carbon emissions are due to effectively making the world better. Producing vaccines, cleaning water, and so on. Almost all of that currently happens in rich countries, for a variety of obvious and nonobvious reasons. So again I quesion what the goals of the idea "rich people need to have fewer kids and the global poor don't" will lead to. That needed way more explanation though so yeah, it was nonsensical.
I appreciate how you approached this. (At least in this post. Linking me to eugenicism in a different comment made me roll my eyes. ;) )
I don't agree with any sort of statements about who should and shouldn't have kids, down that road lies eugenics basically every time. But the connection you were trying to draw did not link for me either. I think @sparksbet and I were in the same headspace about the concerns we had over your post.
I don't think more explanation would have helped, personally, but even if "the west" or "the global north" stopped having children, the idea that that would result in a single ethnic group of nomads remaining in the world rather than much of the global south or whatever other division of the world one uses. If you truly intended just hyperbole, it wasn't clear to me that was what you meant.
But in this comment you frame the comment you were replying to both as:
and
Again I think both are bad, but that led me to quite a bit of confusion on this reply too.
...I don't know of a more polite way to say this, but this comment is really racist. I assume (and hope) you didn't mean for it to be, but you should really think of a different way to make whatever point you're trying to make, because it's (hopefully) not being communicated effectively.
Alternate take: there actually are nomads in Niger that have been nomads for millennia, and have routinely been devastated by smallpox throughout history.
Or hell, if "nomads in Niger" makes you feel icky then take your pick:
There are dozens of different groups around the world that live vastly different lives from you and I, whose cultures are intertwined with their way of life, and have been living that way for centuries.
Let's chill out, and be a little more charitable to each other.
In full seriousness, in what way is it racist? I find the concept of "poor people aren't the ones that should stop breeding" to be way more distasteful - and distastefully phrased - than an acknowledgement of Niger's demographics. For context, Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world and also has the world's highest birthrate. I brought it up as it most specifically responded to the post in question.
Having fewer children is bad for the economy and most first-world countries are actually facing demographic problems of not having enough children. If we're okay with damaging the economy, then a heavy carbon tax will be far more cost-effective.
That's valid, but if we're comparing then I think we need to include what these things give us.
I think the most pragmatic would be the immediate annihilation of our species, but I haven't seen the second season of The Last of Us yet.
I don't think you understand the definition of pragmatic.
I don't think that is a very constructive response. It's hard to tell from your tone if you're interested in a conversation or if you're hinting that I should peace out.
My point is that if your only metric is carbon impact, which is the only metric you used in your reasoning, then there are more effective solutions than going extinct over the next generation. Immediate annihilation is a rhetorical suggestion - the absurdity is the point.
Offtopic: @mycketforvirrad, before you change the
climate policytag topolicy.climate(like I almost did) it's worth mentioning that it's actually a reference to the scientific journal called Climate Policy where the researchers published their findings. ;)I didn't even do that on purpose! Good to know though.