3 ms·
That is probably mostly because the population argument is usually used by people in rich countries in order not to have to change anything, despite the fact th
by dvko 7y ago
That is probably mostly because the population argument is usually used by people in rich countries in order not to have to change anything, despite the fact that on average, a 10-person family in rural Africa emits less CO2 than a single individual in the US.
I agree there is probably no good reason for anyone to have more than 4 kids (at most, probably just 2 to go for a manageable population decline) but lifestyle is simply a more important aspect of the equation.
- kristofferR 7y agoYou can presume that your kid will have roughly the same lifestyle, and emissions, as you over a lifetime - so having a kid is a decision of doubling your emissions.
- austhrow743 7y agoIt doesn't end there. Kid will probably have kids that have the same lifestyle as well. Who will also probably have kids, etc.
- dvko 7y agoWhich is exactly why change is needed, not for us all to stop having any kids at all.
- dvko 7y agoWith that attitude, yes. This actually illustrates my point of changing consumption habits perfectly. We became vegetarians the moment we became parents. Not because I think our individual change will make a difference but because I want it to be a no-brainer for our kids to drastically reduce meat intake. If you don’t want to raise kids, that is fine. But don’t act like having 1 or 2 kids is ruining the planet. It is not, it’s the way we live that is.