5 ms·

> Nothing one person could ever do could hold a light to the amount of carbon released by industries. By far the best thing you can do for the environment is t

by Aaargh20318 8y ago

> Nothing one person could ever do could hold a light to the amount of carbon released by industries. By far the best thing you can do for the environment is to not procreate.

slavik81 8y ago
That's a losing strategy. The entire next generation would be raised by those who disagreed with you.
- kawsper 8y ago
  If you want any say in that, maybe you could adopt.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  A lot of us disagree with our parents on environmental issues so I'm not sure about that.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Given that animals regulate their procreation rates as well, this may not be such a rational choice as you think. When we judge ourselves as having space and resources, we procreate. When we don't, we don't. Humans explain this to themselves as having a choice, made along some axis, but that's at best partially true. But in 4 billion years nature has in fact realized that just blindly maximizing procreation at all costs is not often the best strategy. It is well known that animal procreation follow an S-curve. This would not happen if everything just maximized reproduction. Then you'd see bubbles and crashes. Well, all of nature except some viruses. They don't tend to survive for long, but some do a lot of damage before they go extinct, which of course may be why most species regulate their reproduction.
    - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
      Well all that went out the window when we invented birth control so the whole discussion is somewhat irrelevant. People aren't even breeding at replacement rates in the 1st world and the 1st world is where the environmental problems stem from.
      - candiodari 8y ago
        I doubt it. I don't get why people keep thinking again and again that even the most basic things humans do are entirely new never-before-seen innovations. There are animals with built-in birth control (sex, but no pregnancy unless the female "enables" it), and I doubt condoms are half as effective as that. Nature has experimented a LOT with every form of procreation you could possibly come up with. It seems to me very unlikely that something as stupid as condoms are going to catch it off guard. You wouldn't see the second part of the S-curve unless there was at least statistical birth control (ie. that individuals in those species controlled at least the odds of offspring).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

> Nothing one person could ever do could hold a light to the amount of carbon released by industries. By far the best thing you can do for the environment is to not procreate.

slavik81 8y ago

That's a losing strategy. The entire next generation would be raised by those who disagreed with you.

kawsper 8y ago
If you want any say in that, maybe you could adopt.
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
A lot of us disagree with our parents on environmental issues so I'm not sure about that.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Given that animals regulate their procreation rates as well, this may not be such a rational choice as you think. When we judge ourselves as having space and resources, we procreate. When we don't, we don't. Humans explain this to themselves as having a choice, made along some axis, but that's at best partially true. But in 4 billion years nature has in fact realized that just blindly maximizing procreation at all costs is not often the best strategy. It is well known that animal procreation follow an S-curve. This would not happen if everything just maximized reproduction. Then you'd see bubbles and crashes. Well, all of nature except some viruses. They don't tend to survive for long, but some do a lot of damage before they go extinct, which of course may be why most species regulate their reproduction.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    Well all that went out the window when we invented birth control so the whole discussion is somewhat irrelevant. People aren't even breeding at replacement rates in the 1st world and the 1st world is where the environmental problems stem from.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      I doubt it. I don't get why people keep thinking again and again that even the most basic things humans do are entirely new never-before-seen innovations. There are animals with built-in birth control (sex, but no pregnancy unless the female "enables" it), and I doubt condoms are half as effective as that. Nature has experimented a LOT with every form of procreation you could possibly come up with. It seems to me very unlikely that something as stupid as condoms are going to catch it off guard. You wouldn't see the second part of the S-curve unless there was at least statistical birth control (ie. that individuals in those species controlled at least the odds of offspring).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]