3 ms·

Only if you equate “having fewer children” to “killing yourself”, which is transparently incorrect, not to mention tasteless. However, the responses to this si

by irq11 7y ago

Only if you equate “having fewer children” to “killing yourself”, which is transparently incorrect, not to mention tasteless. However, the responses to this simple fact continue to be enlightening: people would rather commit all sorts of tortured fallacies of reasoning than change their lifestyles in any meaningful way.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Only if you equate “having fewer children” to “killing yourself”, which is transparently incorrect, not to mention tasteless. It's the same result. You're just choosing it for yourself instead of your parents having chosen for you, which only seems fair -- I know I'd rather be the one to choose for myself. But the point is that the choice, in either case, is not worth the cost when there are better alternatives. If we were at the point that population reduction was the only possible solution then we would be soliciting volunteers, but it's not. > However, the responses to this simple fact continue to be enlightening: people would rather commit all sorts of tortured fallacies of reasoning than change their lifestyles in any meaningful way. Why would anybody want to do that when it isn't necessary? You can't just buy an electric car and call it done, but it's one among a collection of things you can do that sum together to an actual solution that doesn't require people to abandon their standard of living.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  Killing a living, breathing person is nowhere near choosing to not make a new one, morally, practically, legally or in any other sense. Edit: choosing not to have children (and I don't think that's a reasonable way to expect people to try and address climate change) is not population reduction. It's population control, if you like. You are making sure that the population doesn't keep increasing. Killing people on the other hand is population reduction. They're really not the same thing at all.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Killing a living, breathing person is nowhere near choosing to not make a new one, morally, practically, legally or in any other sense. I don't think anybody wants to have the abortion debate right now, so let's not. > choosing not to have children (and I don't think that's a reasonable way to expect people to try and address climate change) is not population reduction. It's population control, if you like. The fertility rate is already below the population replacement rate in developed countries, so having fewer children than the current baseline is a (further) population reduction.

by irq11 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Only if you equate “having fewer children” to “killing yourself”, which is transparently incorrect, not to mention tasteless. It's the same result. You're just choosing it for yourself instead of your parents having chosen for you, which only seems fair -- I know I'd rather be the one to choose for myself. But the point is that the choice, in either case, is not worth the cost when there are better alternatives. If we were at the point that population reduction was the only possible solution then we would be soliciting volunteers, but it's not. > However, the responses to this simple fact continue to be enlightening: people would rather commit all sorts of tortured fallacies of reasoning than change their lifestyles in any meaningful way. Why would anybody want to do that when it isn't necessary? You can't just buy an electric car and call it done, but it's one among a collection of things you can do that sum together to an actual solution that doesn't require people to abandon their standard of living.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
Killing a living, breathing person is nowhere near choosing to not make a new one, morally, practically, legally or in any other sense. Edit: choosing not to have children (and I don't think that's a reasonable way to expect people to try and address climate change) is not population reduction. It's population control, if you like. You are making sure that the population doesn't keep increasing. Killing people on the other hand is population reduction. They're really not the same thing at all.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Killing a living, breathing person is nowhere near choosing to not make a new one, morally, practically, legally or in any other sense. I don't think anybody wants to have the abortion debate right now, so let's not. > choosing not to have children (and I don't think that's a reasonable way to expect people to try and address climate change) is not population reduction. It's population control, if you like. The fertility rate is already below the population replacement rate in developed countries, so having fewer children than the current baseline is a (further) population reduction.