3 ms·

> If I choose to have children, I will have 2 or less. This is the only thing that actually matters. Everything else you’ve listed is a rounding error compare

> If I choose to have children, I will have 2 or less. This is the only thing that actually matters. Everything else you’ve listed is a rounding error compared to this. Although I’m curious how you came up with two as your threshold.

jdnenej 7y ago
It's a copypasta. OP didn't make up the number 2 but I'm guessing it comes down to 2 being a tolerable number to most people.
- yoube 7y ago
  I mean, it's literally the replacement population. 2 parents die, 2 children remain.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Technically you need a little more than 2 because people die without having children occasionally.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
drblast 7y ago
Two is slightly below replacement rate so will result in a steadily decreasing population which would solve many environmental issues but itself.
joe_the_user 7y ago
The delay on population decisions is huge. We need action before the impact of any population decrease is felt. In any case, the population of the Western World is stable or decreasing and the places where population is increasing couldn't care less about personal responsibility for decreasing climate change.
- mayniac 7y ago
  >the places where population is increasing couldn't care less about personal responsibility for decreasing climate change. I wouldn't say this is necessarily true, it's more that they have other things to care about. We can't criticise developing nations for enjoying the same luxuries we did a hundred years ago. It should be our (first world) job to ensure they get the same benefits from fossil fuels as we did, such as transport freedom and easy access to electricity, but using environmentally friendly technology. Unfortunately, we can't even get ourselves away from fossil fuels quick enough, so this is likely not going to happen. Also, developing countries emit far fewer emissions per capita when you look at consumption-based emissions [0]. This isn't necessarily a problem with the number of people, it's a problem with the type of lifestyle people want and expect. Even if population increase stopped entirely climate change would get far worse if everyone on Earth had a 1st world lifestyle of red meat, SUVs and yearly holidays. Population increase is obviously a problem but it's an overstated one. If everyone went vegetarian, which is going to have to happen at some point, the planet can sustain 10 billion people [1], which we're only forecasted to hit in 2100, if we even a) make it that far and b) don't see a reversal in population growth, which has been predicted. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/global-inequalities-co2-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/global-inequalities-co2-consumpti... [1] https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-suppor...
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    I wouldn't say this is necessarily true, it's more that they have other things to care about. We can't criticise developing nations for enjoying the same luxuries we did a hundred years ago. Well, no. The only means of survival for the human species going into the 20-40 seems to be coming up with energy-efficient ways for everyone to enjoy a decent standard of living. Also, developing countries emit far fewer emissions per capita when you look at consumption-based emissions [0]. This isn't necessarily a problem with the number of people, it's a problem with the type of lifestyle people want and expect. Yeah, emphasizing population is ineffective and kind of misanthropic. The thing is, the large population of the third world certainly reach the point of consuming to first world standards and first-world inefficiencies. Then we'd be more even more doomed than now.

jdnenej 7y ago

It's a copypasta. OP didn't make up the number 2 but I'm guessing it comes down to 2 being a tolerable number to most people.

yoube 7y ago
I mean, it's literally the replacement population. 2 parents die, 2 children remain.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Technically you need a little more than 2 because people die without having children occasionally.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

drblast 7y ago

Two is slightly below replacement rate so will result in a steadily decreasing population which would solve many environmental issues but itself.

joe_the_user 7y ago

The delay on population decisions is huge. We need action before the impact of any population decrease is felt. In any case, the population of the Western World is stable or decreasing and the places where population is increasing couldn't care less about personal responsibility for decreasing climate change.

mayniac 7y ago
>the places where population is increasing couldn't care less about personal responsibility for decreasing climate change. I wouldn't say this is necessarily true, it's more that they have other things to care about. We can't criticise developing nations for enjoying the same luxuries we did a hundred years ago. It should be our (first world) job to ensure they get the same benefits from fossil fuels as we did, such as transport freedom and easy access to electricity, but using environmentally friendly technology. Unfortunately, we can't even get ourselves away from fossil fuels quick enough, so this is likely not going to happen. Also, developing countries emit far fewer emissions per capita when you look at consumption-based emissions [0]. This isn't necessarily a problem with the number of people, it's a problem with the type of lifestyle people want and expect. Even if population increase stopped entirely climate change would get far worse if everyone on Earth had a 1st world lifestyle of red meat, SUVs and yearly holidays. Population increase is obviously a problem but it's an overstated one. If everyone went vegetarian, which is going to have to happen at some point, the planet can sustain 10 billion people [1], which we're only forecasted to hit in 2100, if we even a) make it that far and b) don't see a reversal in population growth, which has been predicted. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/global-inequalities-co2-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/global-inequalities-co2-consumpti... [1] https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-suppor...
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  I wouldn't say this is necessarily true, it's more that they have other things to care about. We can't criticise developing nations for enjoying the same luxuries we did a hundred years ago. Well, no. The only means of survival for the human species going into the 20-40 seems to be coming up with energy-efficient ways for everyone to enjoy a decent standard of living. Also, developing countries emit far fewer emissions per capita when you look at consumption-based emissions [0]. This isn't necessarily a problem with the number of people, it's a problem with the type of lifestyle people want and expect. Yeah, emphasizing population is ineffective and kind of misanthropic. The thing is, the large population of the third world certainly reach the point of consuming to first world standards and first-world inefficiencies. Then we'd be more even more doomed than now.