This whole “have one fewer child” thing is totally bonkers, because even on the face of it, it really only makes sense for people in Western nations with their current lifestyles. It’s also an average over all the people in that country, meaning it’s heavily spoiled by rich kids. Essentially, 1. you can’t know beforehand how your child will live and 2. emissions don’t scale linearly with the number of people (again, look at the difference between countries). And then there’s the anti-humane undertone of it.
The average environmental impact of even poor people in rich nations is many times higher than even rich people in poor nations.
a) Having fewer kids is extremely environmentally friendly, in any nation, and especially the West. Each child produces around 60x the CO2 offset by one person going vegan for life. This is just CO2. Consider the countless other ways an individual pollutes the environment during the course of their lives.
b) Migration from poor nations to rich nations is extremely damaging to the environment. Consumption matches Western patterns almost immediately.
The average environmental impact of even poor people in rich nations is many times higher than even rich people in poor nations.
It’s often around 1t CO2e for a poor person in developing country vs. 5-10t CO2e for a poor person in an industrialized country.
However, rich people in Western countries tend to be in the 100s or 1000s of tons of CO2e/p/y which is extremely far off from being sustainable.
But I want to emphasize that this is just the current state. How your child lives in 20 or 30 years, you don’t know. It may use much fewer resources or much more. I am cautiously optimistic that they will use fewer resources than we do. The question is more whether it will be enough.
a) Having fewer kids is extremely environmentally friendly, in any nation, and especially the West
1t CO2e/person/year is roughly sustainable within the current ecosystem. Thus, many people in poor countries are at or near climate neutrality already. If people live sustainably already, then no, there is no inherent need to reduce population or necessarily have fewer children.
That’s not to say there may not be other benefits to having fewer children.
Each child produces around 60x the CO2 offset by one person going vegan for life.
Again, this is true only in the current situation and in Western countries.
b) Migration from poor nations to rich nations is extremely damaging to the environment. Consumption matches Western patterns almost immediately.
Blaming CO2e emissions on migrants is a bit disingenuous. But if it helps you make the case to yourself that Western countries should do more to give people in developing nations safer lives so they don’t have to flee, I guess I’ll take it.
People may make it eugenicist but the policy can not be. For exemple if the country gives money for the first child but not the second, you reduce the intentions to have more than one. Then maybe people will kill their baby because they want a blond girl but this is their fault.
Almost every modern human uses non-renewable resources and produces greenhouse gases either directly or indirectly. At the current rates it is unsustainable. It is the exponential growth of industry, technology, and human population that has caused the dramatic shift in climate change.
The top 10% earning Americans (>$178,000/year) created 40% of the nation’s pollution according to a recent study. And that factored in the industries they worked in. That still means that the majority of climate change is caused by the activity of normal people.
We can acknowledge reality without being histrionic. I’m not calling for an end to humanity. I’m simply explaining that human life is wasteful and inefficient. I think we should accept that, rather than pretending otherwise. Tinkering around the edges isn’t going to change the trend.
Reality isn’t “fascism.” If you can’t end bear to hear facts without screeching about fascism, consider that you might need to work in your mental resiliency. I didn’t argue to end migration from poor to rich nations. I’m simply explaining it’s catastrophic for the environment. Pick your poison. What do you care about more? The environment, or your belief in open borders?
I didn’t argue to end migration from poor to rich nations. I’m simply explaining it’s catastrophic for the environment. Pick your poison. What do you care about more? The environment, or your belief in open borders?
this is ecofascism. I can’t believe your instance or this community tolerates it.
This whole “have one fewer child” thing is totally bonkers, because even on the face of it, it really only makes sense for people in Western nations with their current lifestyles. It’s also an average over all the people in that country, meaning it’s heavily spoiled by rich kids. Essentially, 1. you can’t know beforehand how your child will live and 2. emissions don’t scale linearly with the number of people (again, look at the difference between countries). And then there’s the anti-humane undertone of it.
The average environmental impact of even poor people in rich nations is many times higher than even rich people in poor nations.
a) Having fewer kids is extremely environmentally friendly, in any nation, and especially the West. Each child produces around 60x the CO2 offset by one person going vegan for life. This is just CO2. Consider the countless other ways an individual pollutes the environment during the course of their lives.
b) Migration from poor nations to rich nations is extremely damaging to the environment. Consumption matches Western patterns almost immediately.
It’s often around 1t CO2e for a poor person in developing country vs. 5-10t CO2e for a poor person in an industrialized country.
However, rich people in Western countries tend to be in the 100s or 1000s of tons of CO2e/p/y which is extremely far off from being sustainable.
But I want to emphasize that this is just the current state. How your child lives in 20 or 30 years, you don’t know. It may use much fewer resources or much more. I am cautiously optimistic that they will use fewer resources than we do. The question is more whether it will be enough.
1t CO2e/person/year is roughly sustainable within the current ecosystem. Thus, many people in poor countries are at or near climate neutrality already. If people live sustainably already, then no, there is no inherent need to reduce population or necessarily have fewer children.
That’s not to say there may not be other benefits to having fewer children.
Again, this is true only in the current situation and in Western countries.
Blaming CO2e emissions on migrants is a bit disingenuous. But if it helps you make the case to yourself that Western countries should do more to give people in developing nations safer lives so they don’t have to flee, I guess I’ll take it.
this is some malthusian eugenicist bullshit.
Malthusian yes, eugenicist no.
you can’t do any malthusian advocacy that isn’t necessarily eugenicist
you can’t implement any malthusian policy that isn’t necessarily eugenicist.
People may make it eugenicist but the policy can not be. For exemple if the country gives money for the first child but not the second, you reduce the intentions to have more than one. Then maybe people will kill their baby because they want a blond girl but this is their fault.
who are you giving money to?
I’m giving money to my country by paying taxes?
I meant which parents.
Humans cause pollution so fewer humans = less pollution. It’s not that complicated.
Fuck ecofascism. The problem is not how many we are. We are well within the planet’s carrying capacity. The problem is how the richest among us live.
Almost every modern human uses non-renewable resources and produces greenhouse gases either directly or indirectly. At the current rates it is unsustainable. It is the exponential growth of industry, technology, and human population that has caused the dramatic shift in climate change.
The top 10% earning Americans (>$178,000/year) created 40% of the nation’s pollution according to a recent study. And that factored in the industries they worked in. That still means that the majority of climate change is caused by the activity of normal people.
doubling down on this is fucking gross
Advocating for overpopulation is fucking gross. The planet is already experiencing another mass extinction event.
no one is advocating for overpopulation. I’m advocating for the silencing of malthusian and xenophobes by any means necessary.
We can acknowledge reality without being histrionic. I’m not calling for an end to humanity. I’m simply explaining that human life is wasteful and inefficient. I think we should accept that, rather than pretending otherwise. Tinkering around the edges isn’t going to change the trend.
this is just ecofascism
misogyny is another classic hallmark of fascism.
sounds like xenophobia.
honestly, your whole post reads like eviro-fascism.
Reality isn’t “fascism.” If you can’t end bear to hear facts without screeching about fascism, consider that you might need to work in your mental resiliency. I didn’t argue to end migration from poor to rich nations. I’m simply explaining it’s catastrophic for the environment. Pick your poison. What do you care about more? The environment, or your belief in open borders?
this is ecofascism. I can’t believe your instance or this community tolerates it.