4 ms·

Limiting further population increase is in no way equivalent to saying kill yourself. This is a gross exaggeration.

• dmichulke 8y ago
  I'm just saying it logically follows that killing yourself is likely even better than not having children. I consider it a failure of the study if it says "don't have kids" if (and only if) its original aim was to show how that can be done without drastic measures (such as "kill all humans", "don't have kids", ...). It's like suggesting to not have kids in order to fight cancer. Yes, absolute cancer occurrences will decrease if you don't have kids, yet we have not in any way addressed the underlying problem. EDIT: Previously I said "absolute cancer rates" where I should have said absolute cancer occurrences
  • drankula3 8y ago
    Fighting cancer involves lowering cancer rates in each individual person. Individual likelihood of cancer is unaffected by the global population. Fighting climate change involves lowering CO2 rates for the globe, and is heavily influenced by the global population and the population of rich countries.
    • dmichulke 8y ago
      > Fighting climate change involves lowering CO2 rates Exactly, and not having kids doesn't lower CO2 rates per capita, it just reduces absolute CO2 emissions. Hence the equivalence that the article's statistics implicitly suggest killing humans reduces CO2 emissions and my claim that this type of info doesn't help at all.
      • toasterlovin 8y ago
        It reduces absolute CO2 emissions if everyone has less children. Biology tells us that life does not stop reproducing short of extinction level events, however.