4 ms·

In this case, it's a good thing, because the birthrates declined most for women 24 and younger. Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive acti

In this case, it's a good thing, because the birthrates declined most for women 24 and younger. Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do, you're literally spawning a lifetime of energy use. Best to do that when you're SURE they will have all the resources they need to be a productive and helpful member of society...not when you're 16 and can't care for them properly. I do think there is value to having a balanced aged pyramid, however. We don't want a China or Japan situation, where there are far too many old people, which would crush the younger members of society under the burden of caring. The one way to counteract that would be immigration, which has been a hot-button issue and is not a given or perfect remedy for population pyramids.

alehander42 6y ago
how can a human being be simplifed down to a "lifetime of energy use" and a very carbon-intensive action? I know this language has normalized and that we use it with "good" intentions, but sometimes we sound much more soulless and anti-human than even the language of soviet ideology
- whateveracct 6y ago
  ecofascism
  - orwin 6y ago
    As long as he does not force you to go along their life choices without a democratic decision, this is not fascism.
    - alehander42 6y ago
      once a political view is widely accepted, it starts getting really easy to force it on people
    - whateveracct 6y ago
      That's true. I'm not saying it's institutional. But we have fascist political forces in America despite the democracy. Same thing. It's a political thing not a structural thing.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Easily. As a human, based on your country [1], you will emit a certain amount of fossil CO2 over your lifetime. You will have an impact on natural resources. This math is no different than estimating your dollar value for something like a payout in the event you are accidentally killed. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map
  - mc32 6y ago
    Alternatively are you saying that people moving to less carbon intensive economies would also be a “good thing”. Get as many people from the developed world to move to places where they’d have less environmental impact? Though I’m sure there would be massive resistance from the affected people as well as from the destinations as they would upset the order on those places.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      The two most crucial focuses would be to decarbonize carbon intensive economies, and throwing massive amounts of money at education and healthcare for women in developing countries. Developed countries already have total fertility rates at or below replacement rate; it's all population momentum now, so you want to reduce the impact of everyone living a first world life for the remainder of their life span. Less combustion vehicles, less unnecessary air travel, fossil generation plants, meat heavy diets, etc. We're already headed in this direction, we just need to invest more heavily (Green New Deal, ESG funds, etc). Regarding education and healthcare in developing countries, educated, empowered women with access to robust healthcare have fewer children [1] [2], and this data holds true across the entire world, even in countries that attempt to use generous subsidies to encourage higher fertility rates. Moving folks from the developing world to the developed world, or vice versa, wouldn't have a meaningful impact IMHO. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#empowerment-of-women https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#empowerment-of-wom... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/womens-educational-attainment-vs-fertility https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/womens-educational-attain...
      - 6y ago
ZitchDog 6y ago
You could also be spawning the person who solves the problem of climate change.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  Right, and that's why the otherwise learned people who have been predicting, incorrectly, for thousands of years, that the earth was at/past carrying capacity have been wrong: more people means more human capacity, and that has outweighed having more mouths to feed.
  - kpmah 6y ago
    Except now we have a scientific consensus that the Earth's carrying capacity will decrease. I don't think that's been true before. Expecting technological advancement to bail us out every time is wishful thinking.
    - nl 6y ago
      That's not true. There is no scientific consensus on the impact of climate change on total food production (there is a significant school of thought that it will increase due to increased production in Canada and Russia), and there's no consensus at all on what the carrying capacity of earth is. Check the IPCC report: For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation will negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). {7.4, Figure 7-4} Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10% and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/food-security-and-food-production-systems/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/food-security-and-food-pr... Note how the projections are mixed between decreased and increased production? Don't claim consensus when it's not there.
- gtfoutttt 6y ago
  Or the next Hitler.
dudul 6y ago
> Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do This is a bold blanket statement that I can't agree with. It all depends on how this new person will live their life. I would argue that creating 10 new persons in a third world country doesn't hurt the environment as much as 1 single person in the US or in Europe.
- nfoddnens 6y ago
  And that’s a statement that’s already accepted, but you stated it as something new, bold thought. Bravo on your ignorance. > As a human, based on your country, you will emit a certain amount of fossil CO2 over your lifetime.
blueblisters 6y ago
> Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do, you're literally spawning a lifetime of energy use. Cutting back on energy use is the most regressive way of solving climate change. We will almost certainly use more energy in the future, regardless of the population.
SkyBelow 6y ago
>Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do, you're literally spawning a lifetime of energy use. This feels like a very odd view because the reverse is near profane thought. >Best to do that when you're SURE they will have all the resources they need to be a productive and helpful member of society...not when you're 16 and can't care for them properly. If it is okay to accept this logic based on age, what about other factors? For example, income level?
actuator 6y ago
Japan gets talked about a lot but Taiwan and SK are doing worse if you see TFR. TFR of SK was below 1 in 2018, replacement level being 2.1. It would be interesting to see how this plays out in the next two decades over there considering the high life expectancy.
- manquer 6y ago
  Interestingly both have major geopolitical disputes which are a critical part of their national discourse in addition to being highly developed economies and associated drop in TFR .
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago
> Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do [...] Best to do that when you're SURE they will have all the resources they need to be a productive and helpful member of society... I totally get the sentiment, but history stubbornly is full of people born into abject poverty who somehow rise to the occasion. Take a look on Wikipedia at inventor profiles. Our best, life changing inventions came from people who were born into less-than-ideal situations. In many ways the impact people have on the world is a dice roll and not a matter of proper financial preparation.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  Have you ever heard the saying "exception that proves the rule"?
ausbah 6y ago
if your birthrates and deathrates at roughly equal, I don't think this conclusion holds up
iandanforth 6y ago
The phrase "population pyramid scheme" comes to mind.

alehander42 6y ago

how can a human being be simplifed down to a "lifetime of energy use" and a very carbon-intensive action? I know this language has normalized and that we use it with "good" intentions, but sometimes we sound much more soulless and anti-human than even the language of soviet ideology

whateveracct 6y ago
ecofascism
- orwin 6y ago
  As long as he does not force you to go along their life choices without a democratic decision, this is not fascism.
  - alehander42 6y ago
    once a political view is widely accepted, it starts getting really easy to force it on people
  - whateveracct 6y ago
    That's true. I'm not saying it's institutional. But we have fascist political forces in America despite the democracy. Same thing. It's a political thing not a structural thing.
toomuchtodo 6y ago
Easily. As a human, based on your country [1], you will emit a certain amount of fossil CO2 over your lifetime. You will have an impact on natural resources. This math is no different than estimating your dollar value for something like a payout in the event you are accidentally killed. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map
- mc32 6y ago
  Alternatively are you saying that people moving to less carbon intensive economies would also be a “good thing”. Get as many people from the developed world to move to places where they’d have less environmental impact? Though I’m sure there would be massive resistance from the affected people as well as from the destinations as they would upset the order on those places.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    The two most crucial focuses would be to decarbonize carbon intensive economies, and throwing massive amounts of money at education and healthcare for women in developing countries. Developed countries already have total fertility rates at or below replacement rate; it's all population momentum now, so you want to reduce the impact of everyone living a first world life for the remainder of their life span. Less combustion vehicles, less unnecessary air travel, fossil generation plants, meat heavy diets, etc. We're already headed in this direction, we just need to invest more heavily (Green New Deal, ESG funds, etc). Regarding education and healthcare in developing countries, educated, empowered women with access to robust healthcare have fewer children [1] [2], and this data holds true across the entire world, even in countries that attempt to use generous subsidies to encourage higher fertility rates. Moving folks from the developing world to the developed world, or vice versa, wouldn't have a meaningful impact IMHO. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#empowerment-of-women https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#empowerment-of-wom... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/womens-educational-attainment-vs-fertility https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/womens-educational-attain...
    - 6y ago

ZitchDog 6y ago

You could also be spawning the person who solves the problem of climate change.

jjoonathan 6y ago
Right, and that's why the otherwise learned people who have been predicting, incorrectly, for thousands of years, that the earth was at/past carrying capacity have been wrong: more people means more human capacity, and that has outweighed having more mouths to feed.
- kpmah 6y ago
  Except now we have a scientific consensus that the Earth's carrying capacity will decrease. I don't think that's been true before. Expecting technological advancement to bail us out every time is wishful thinking.
  - nl 6y ago
    That's not true. There is no scientific consensus on the impact of climate change on total food production (there is a significant school of thought that it will increase due to increased production in Canada and Russia), and there's no consensus at all on what the carrying capacity of earth is. Check the IPCC report: For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation will negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). {7.4, Figure 7-4} Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10% and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/food-security-and-food-production-systems/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/food-security-and-food-pr... Note how the projections are mixed between decreased and increased production? Don't claim consensus when it's not there.
gtfoutttt 6y ago
Or the next Hitler.

dudul 6y ago

> Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do This is a bold blanket statement that I can't agree with. It all depends on how this new person will live their life. I would argue that creating 10 new persons in a third world country doesn't hurt the environment as much as 1 single person in the US or in Europe.

nfoddnens 6y ago
And that’s a statement that’s already accepted, but you stated it as something new, bold thought. Bravo on your ignorance. > As a human, based on your country, you will emit a certain amount of fossil CO2 over your lifetime.

blueblisters 6y ago

> Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do, you're literally spawning a lifetime of energy use. Cutting back on energy use is the most regressive way of solving climate change. We will almost certainly use more energy in the future, regardless of the population.

SkyBelow 6y ago

>Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do, you're literally spawning a lifetime of energy use. This feels like a very odd view because the reverse is near profane thought. >Best to do that when you're SURE they will have all the resources they need to be a productive and helpful member of society...not when you're 16 and can't care for them properly. If it is okay to accept this logic based on age, what about other factors? For example, income level?

actuator 6y ago

Japan gets talked about a lot but Taiwan and SK are doing worse if you see TFR. TFR of SK was below 1 in 2018, replacement level being 2.1. It would be interesting to see how this plays out in the next two decades over there considering the high life expectancy.

manquer 6y ago
Interestingly both have major geopolitical disputes which are a critical part of their national discourse in addition to being highly developed economies and associated drop in TFR .

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago

> Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do [...] Best to do that when you're SURE they will have all the resources they need to be a productive and helpful member of society... I totally get the sentiment, but history stubbornly is full of people born into abject poverty who somehow rise to the occasion. Take a look on Wikipedia at inventor profiles. Our best, life changing inventions came from people who were born into less-than-ideal situations. In many ways the impact people have on the world is a dice roll and not a matter of proper financial preparation.

chillwaves 6y ago
Have you ever heard the saying "exception that proves the rule"?

ausbah 6y ago

if your birthrates and deathrates at roughly equal, I don't think this conclusion holds up

iandanforth 6y ago

The phrase "population pyramid scheme" comes to mind.