4 ms·

The best way a person can do something is to have less than or equal to 1 child. The world can not sustain large numbers of people who live like Americans. It

The best way a person can do something is to have less than or equal to 1 child. The world can not sustain large numbers of people who live like Americans. It can not sustain large numbers of people who live like rich Europeans. Pollution, garbage, effect of resource extraction are beginning to toxify the planet. Since globalization billions of people have gotten out of poverty. As this trend continues the strain on the environment similarly increases. Want to genuinely help,the environment? Have fewer kids. Think of this, the average environmentally conscious consumer still contributes massive amounts of trash and still relies on resources extracted from countries with mild environmental standards.

skinpop 9y ago
Even better, just commit suicide.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  Sure, if several billion people did this then that would be helpful in greatly decreasing humanity's pollution impact. But just me committing suicide isn't going to help. The fact is there are way too many people consuming at an unsustainable level. A reasonable, feasible long term solution would be a steady decline in population through birth control.
- sctb 9y ago
  If you can't comment civilly and substantively, please don't post at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
melling 9y ago
Is this actually true? A few days ago we found out 100 companies created 71% of the CO2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743137 Isn’t it really a matter of developing cleaner transportation and electricity to make us individually generate less CO2? Assuming of course, these companies become more efficient.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  Couldn't that just be an consequence of how most people's needs are served by a small number of massive companies?
- yequalsx 9y ago
  Think about how much trash you generate. How much plastic ends up in landfills due to your buying habits. This isn't a dig at you. There's really no practical way to avoid it. Now we can say Company A is responsible for making all that plastic wrap so let's get rid of Company A. But the demand still exists and will be filled by some other company or companies. Let's just look at medicines. Almost every fish in the ocean contains modern pharmaceuticals in its system. Think about that. To me that is staggering. Excess pharmaceuticals have been thrown down the drain in sufficient quantities to have entered the bodies of the world's fish.
  - melling 9y ago
    Ok, there are going to be 9 billion people by 2050, and I believe the birth rate is already low in the developed world. We are going to need a better solution.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
Having a few thousand or a few million fewer kids is not going to make a substantial difference. A far more effective difference would be made by having kids and raising them to care. Our current mechanisms for combating climate change aren't working well; effective change will probably come from a new solution either technical and social. And solutions come from people who care.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  The population of the world needs to decrease substantially. I'm talking by hundreds of millions and even billions. I know lots of first world people who care about the environment. They drive cars, fly in planes, buy iPhones, buy computers, buy large amounts of plastic wrapped food items. But they care! As poverty declines hundreds of millions of more people join the ranks of super consumers. The environment can't sustain the damage done to satiate the current level of consumption. Fewer people is what is needed.
Clubber 9y ago
Child births are way down in the US and have been for quite a while. We have to import (immigrate) to keep population growth in the US. It's ultimately a problem of our domination of viruses and bacteria. In the past, large families were created to combat child mortality rates. Once we found another way through vaccines, antibiotics and antivirals, the culture of large families took a while to subside. China and India are of course the larges population centers in the the world and both are doing something about it in a fairly humane way. The majority of our systemic problems are a result of a population misalignment, but the US isn't a contributor to that (and many Western countries) because families in these areas have fewer than 2.0 kids. For the most part, humanity has done an amazing job of supporting our population. Simply feeding that many people is quite an engineering feat.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  Child births are down in rich countries. However, to compensate those rich countries import people and those people end up living like Americans or Europeans. There is also the fact that wealth increasing worldwide and consumption correspondingly is increasing. My statement about having fewer kids was meant to apply to the whole world. Great, we have enough food. There is more to life than just food. In addition to having enough food we have plenty of pollution too. We are toxifying our environment. This is not abating.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Hah there is no life without food. >We are toxifying our environment. This is not abating. I think everyone is well aware of that. Don't you get tired of giving the speech? The US doesn't seem to be doing a damn thing about it, perhaps it's time to try another tactic.

skinpop 9y ago

Even better, just commit suicide.

yequalsx 9y ago
Sure, if several billion people did this then that would be helpful in greatly decreasing humanity's pollution impact. But just me committing suicide isn't going to help. The fact is there are way too many people consuming at an unsustainable level. A reasonable, feasible long term solution would be a steady decline in population through birth control.
sctb 9y ago
If you can't comment civilly and substantively, please don't post at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

melling 9y ago

Is this actually true? A few days ago we found out 100 companies created 71% of the CO2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743137 Isn’t it really a matter of developing cleaner transportation and electricity to make us individually generate less CO2? Assuming of course, these companies become more efficient.

nerdponx 9y ago
Couldn't that just be an consequence of how most people's needs are served by a small number of massive companies?
yequalsx 9y ago
Think about how much trash you generate. How much plastic ends up in landfills due to your buying habits. This isn't a dig at you. There's really no practical way to avoid it. Now we can say Company A is responsible for making all that plastic wrap so let's get rid of Company A. But the demand still exists and will be filled by some other company or companies. Let's just look at medicines. Almost every fish in the ocean contains modern pharmaceuticals in its system. Think about that. To me that is staggering. Excess pharmaceuticals have been thrown down the drain in sufficient quantities to have entered the bodies of the world's fish.
- melling 9y ago
  Ok, there are going to be 9 billion people by 2050, and I believe the birth rate is already low in the developed world. We are going to need a better solution.

bryanlarsen 9y ago

Having a few thousand or a few million fewer kids is not going to make a substantial difference. A far more effective difference would be made by having kids and raising them to care. Our current mechanisms for combating climate change aren't working well; effective change will probably come from a new solution either technical and social. And solutions come from people who care.

yequalsx 9y ago
The population of the world needs to decrease substantially. I'm talking by hundreds of millions and even billions. I know lots of first world people who care about the environment. They drive cars, fly in planes, buy iPhones, buy computers, buy large amounts of plastic wrapped food items. But they care! As poverty declines hundreds of millions of more people join the ranks of super consumers. The environment can't sustain the damage done to satiate the current level of consumption. Fewer people is what is needed.

Clubber 9y ago

Child births are way down in the US and have been for quite a while. We have to import (immigrate) to keep population growth in the US. It's ultimately a problem of our domination of viruses and bacteria. In the past, large families were created to combat child mortality rates. Once we found another way through vaccines, antibiotics and antivirals, the culture of large families took a while to subside. China and India are of course the larges population centers in the the world and both are doing something about it in a fairly humane way. The majority of our systemic problems are a result of a population misalignment, but the US isn't a contributor to that (and many Western countries) because families in these areas have fewer than 2.0 kids. For the most part, humanity has done an amazing job of supporting our population. Simply feeding that many people is quite an engineering feat.

yequalsx 9y ago
Child births are down in rich countries. However, to compensate those rich countries import people and those people end up living like Americans or Europeans. There is also the fact that wealth increasing worldwide and consumption correspondingly is increasing. My statement about having fewer kids was meant to apply to the whole world. Great, we have enough food. There is more to life than just food. In addition to having enough food we have plenty of pollution too. We are toxifying our environment. This is not abating.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Hah there is no life without food. >We are toxifying our environment. This is not abating. I think everyone is well aware of that. Don't you get tired of giving the speech? The US doesn't seem to be doing a damn thing about it, perhaps it's time to try another tactic.