4 ms·

> Pretty saddening to read- instead of spending their billions to fight climate change A pretty good way to fight climate change would be to mostly stop breedi

> Pretty saddening to read- instead of spending their billions to fight climate change A pretty good way to fight climate change would be to mostly stop breeding, because fewer people means less energy consumption and thus less climate change.

j88439h84 8y ago
> fewer people means less energy consumption Is that how markets work?
tuesdayrain 8y ago
Unfortunately the people who should consider breeding less will never consider this. And anyone on HN who is conscientious enough to actually stop reproducing because of this post will probably cause a net loss for society by doing so.
- cmiles74 8y ago
  AFAIK, there's no scientific basis for this argument, it strikes me as tone deaf and possibly racist or classist. While there is some basis on which to argue that genes may influence intelligence, it is certainly not the easiest or most direct way to influence intelligence: education, economic and social stability, general health, etc. If everyone on HN stopped having children, I am sure the world would get along just fine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-research-has-not-established-that-you-inherited-your-intelligence-from-your-mother/#71f3dcf76502 https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-r...
  - darwin142 8y ago
    From your own source "While maybe half of our intelligence as we currently define and measure it is inherited." So the author admits that probably half of intelligence is inherited. Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics.
    - cmiles74 8y ago
      It sounds like you are arguing that manipulating genetics is an easier way to encourage intelligence then education and environment. Is that really what you are trying to say? Because that sounds ridiculous to me.
      - darwin142 8y ago
        Really? Care to point out which part of "Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics" implies that I think manipulating genes is easier than changing education or environment?
        manicdee 8y ago
        The part where you claim that the easiest part to manipulate is the most important contributor to intelligence.
        darwin142 8y ago
        Considering I never even used the word manipulate your attempt at putting words in my mouth is even more see through than the previous reply's.
        cmiles74 8y ago
        Yes, that's the quote that led me to my conclusion. ;-)
        darwin142 8y ago
        Which part? You seem to be having a massive failure of reading comprehension and I would love to help improve your ability to read.
        dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
cmiles74 8y ago
That's a pretty anti-capitalist attitude: who would buy all of the apps and other consumer durables that would enable companies to keep reaping quarter on quarter growth? It also presumes that climate change is caused by the number of people on the planet, which is demonstrably untrue. If we're willing to contemplate anti-capitalist (and thus anti-corporate) solutions, why not just fix the problem at it's source and make it illegal to burn fossil fuels, etc.? I think the idea that people need to "stop breeding" is somehow easier is somewhat stomach-turning. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-compa...

j88439h84 8y ago

> fewer people means less energy consumption Is that how markets work?

tuesdayrain 8y ago

Unfortunately the people who should consider breeding less will never consider this. And anyone on HN who is conscientious enough to actually stop reproducing because of this post will probably cause a net loss for society by doing so.

cmiles74 8y ago
AFAIK, there's no scientific basis for this argument, it strikes me as tone deaf and possibly racist or classist. While there is some basis on which to argue that genes may influence intelligence, it is certainly not the easiest or most direct way to influence intelligence: education, economic and social stability, general health, etc. If everyone on HN stopped having children, I am sure the world would get along just fine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-research-has-not-established-that-you-inherited-your-intelligence-from-your-mother/#71f3dcf76502 https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-r...
- darwin142 8y ago
  From your own source "While maybe half of our intelligence as we currently define and measure it is inherited." So the author admits that probably half of intelligence is inherited. Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics.
  - cmiles74 8y ago
    It sounds like you are arguing that manipulating genetics is an easier way to encourage intelligence then education and environment. Is that really what you are trying to say? Because that sounds ridiculous to me.
    - darwin142 8y ago
      Really? Care to point out which part of "Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics" implies that I think manipulating genes is easier than changing education or environment?
      - manicdee 8y ago
        The part where you claim that the easiest part to manipulate is the most important contributor to intelligence.
        darwin142 8y ago
        Considering I never even used the word manipulate your attempt at putting words in my mouth is even more see through than the previous reply's.
      - cmiles74 8y ago
        Yes, that's the quote that led me to my conclusion. ;-)
        darwin142 8y ago
        Which part? You seem to be having a massive failure of reading comprehension and I would love to help improve your ability to read.
        dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

cmiles74 8y ago

That's a pretty anti-capitalist attitude: who would buy all of the apps and other consumer durables that would enable companies to keep reaping quarter on quarter growth? It also presumes that climate change is caused by the number of people on the planet, which is demonstrably untrue. If we're willing to contemplate anti-capitalist (and thus anti-corporate) solutions, why not just fix the problem at it's source and make it illegal to burn fossil fuels, etc.? I think the idea that people need to "stop breeding" is somehow easier is somewhat stomach-turning. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-compa...