19 ms·

You can deny it all you like, but it’s true [1] and you’re just illustrating the point: nobody wants to do the things that actually matter, because those things

by irq11 7y ago

You can deny it all you like, but it’s true [1] and you’re just illustrating the point: nobody wants to do the things that actually matter, because those things are painful (not incidentally, #2 is “sell your car”). It’s far easier to mock the people who tell you the truth than it is to make substantial changes. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
Or those things will just scare people into doing nothing because it's so overwhelming and hopeless to be so uncompromisingly perfectionist about it. Whereas making a car or a plane trip or a burger or a child x% more expensive will move us in the right direction and even that will be resisted to a crazy degree.
- irq11 7y ago
  What is so “scary” here? It’s literally the easiest thing you can possibly do. It’s the default option. “You know how you were gonna have a second kid? Here’s a thought: consider using the time and money you’d spend on that to do something else. Like retire early.” If we can’t convince people not to do an expensive, time-consuming, painful thing in order to help stop global warming, we really do have problems.
theworld572 7y ago
You know what would be EVEN more effective at fighting climate change than not having children? Committing suicide. But people don't want to listen to the harsh truths. They would rather consume their way out of the problem with electric cars, education for third world countries, reforestation, solar power and other false hopes.
- mcny 7y ago
  > You know what would be EVEN more effective at fighting climate change than not having children? Committing suicide. I'm sorry but I think this crosses the line. I don't want to impose my morality on you but in my opinion me saying "most people should not have children" is not the same as basically telling people to kill themselves. I understand that I am in the minority when I say this I think not conceiving children is not the same as telling people to kill themselves. I think people do not have a fundamental right to reproduction at the same level as they have the right to be left alive (which I think comes higher). I'd much rather see most people not have children rather than they kill themselves.
  - irq11 7y ago
    Exactly. This harsh reaction to what should be an obvious statement of fact underscores the ridiculousness of the conversation, and the point of the original post. It’s not surprising at all (as I said, people don’t want to actually change their lives), but it does become a self-satire.
  - theworld572 7y ago
    I'm not equating killing yourself with not having children. Of course they are not the same. I'm simply reflecting irq11's logic back at him: if the only measure by which you judge a solution is how much CO2 emissions are reduced then killing yourself is the best solution. irq11 does not consider the costs of implementing a world-wide child reduction policy. A combination of solutions including education, birth control, electric cars, reducing flying, solar energy etc. is FAR more realistic than the "no kids, no cars" approach. He complains about harsh reactions but he is the one who started this off from a very antagonistic perspective that everybody is just a mindless consumer while he is the arbiter of harsh truths that people are too weak-minded to admit to.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  Well that's technically what will happen when the forcing function of Earth's climate reaches a limit. I suppose it will be Earth killing us rather than us killing ourselves at that point though. We'll see if we get there with our current methods or not, hope electric cars work!
antisthenes 7y ago
In that case you can thank the educated women of the world who are forgoing having children in all the countries where the fertility rate is already below replacement. They've probably done more to combat global warming than most "ban cars/meat/flying" fanatics.

by irq11 7y ago

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

Or those things will just scare people into doing nothing because it's so overwhelming and hopeless to be so uncompromisingly perfectionist about it. Whereas making a car or a plane trip or a burger or a child x% more expensive will move us in the right direction and even that will be resisted to a crazy degree.

irq11 7y ago
What is so “scary” here? It’s literally the easiest thing you can possibly do. It’s the default option. “You know how you were gonna have a second kid? Here’s a thought: consider using the time and money you’d spend on that to do something else. Like retire early.” If we can’t convince people not to do an expensive, time-consuming, painful thing in order to help stop global warming, we really do have problems.

theworld572 7y ago

You know what would be EVEN more effective at fighting climate change than not having children? Committing suicide. But people don't want to listen to the harsh truths. They would rather consume their way out of the problem with electric cars, education for third world countries, reforestation, solar power and other false hopes.

mcny 7y ago
> You know what would be EVEN more effective at fighting climate change than not having children? Committing suicide. I'm sorry but I think this crosses the line. I don't want to impose my morality on you but in my opinion me saying "most people should not have children" is not the same as basically telling people to kill themselves. I understand that I am in the minority when I say this I think not conceiving children is not the same as telling people to kill themselves. I think people do not have a fundamental right to reproduction at the same level as they have the right to be left alive (which I think comes higher). I'd much rather see most people not have children rather than they kill themselves.
- irq11 7y ago
  Exactly. This harsh reaction to what should be an obvious statement of fact underscores the ridiculousness of the conversation, and the point of the original post. It’s not surprising at all (as I said, people don’t want to actually change their lives), but it does become a self-satire.
- theworld572 7y ago
  I'm not equating killing yourself with not having children. Of course they are not the same. I'm simply reflecting irq11's logic back at him: if the only measure by which you judge a solution is how much CO2 emissions are reduced then killing yourself is the best solution. irq11 does not consider the costs of implementing a world-wide child reduction policy. A combination of solutions including education, birth control, electric cars, reducing flying, solar energy etc. is FAR more realistic than the "no kids, no cars" approach. He complains about harsh reactions but he is the one who started this off from a very antagonistic perspective that everybody is just a mindless consumer while he is the arbiter of harsh truths that people are too weak-minded to admit to.
almost_usual 7y ago
Well that's technically what will happen when the forcing function of Earth's climate reaches a limit. I suppose it will be Earth killing us rather than us killing ourselves at that point though. We'll see if we get there with our current methods or not, hope electric cars work!

antisthenes 7y ago

In that case you can thank the educated women of the world who are forgoing having children in all the countries where the fertility rate is already below replacement. They've probably done more to combat global warming than most "ban cars/meat/flying" fanatics.