3 ms·

That's a terrible thing to do for the environment, 3bln people can ruin it just as easily as 7bln (maybe a little bit slower). But having less people, especial

• Fnoord 9y ago
  > That's a terrible thing to do for the environment, 3bln people can ruin it just as easily as 7bln (maybe a little bit slower). Sure, and one crazy narcissistic politician can also destroy Earth. That's not the point; the point is that on average, a child is going to have an average meaningful impact, and we cannot sustain the projected growth if we keep going on like we are right now. For example, those rich people you're so enthusiastic about are eating a lot of cow meat which has a terrible Co2 footprint. > (maybe a little bit slower). That's a good thing. If we're slower we'll be able to have more advanced technology. Its extremely arrogant to believe that your rich kid is going to make the difference in the world. Statistically, it won't. > Besides whats the point of saving the environment if there are no people to enjoy it. If you decide to not procreate there will still be people to live on Earth. If we destroy Earth for human inhabitation that doesn't equal all life is extinct.