4 ms·

I'd also emphasize the financial stresses of raising a child. Young people have huge financial burdens from college, live in extremely expensive cities, and the

I'd also emphasize the financial stresses of raising a child. Young people have huge financial burdens from college, live in extremely expensive cities, and the idea of adding a child into that life seems ridiculous. Plus we have too many people in the world as it is.

nl 6y ago
> Plus we have too many people in the world as it is. Just pointing out there is no real evidence this is the case. Many people use vastly less resources than the average American, and even at high standards of living this remains true. We are able to feed all the people in the world easily, with current (or less) environmental impact (just look at the waste we produce). It's choices, not carrying capacity that leads to environmental issues.
- lm28469 6y ago
  You can't really live like a sub saharan person if you're in the US. Just sitting in an air conditioned office for a week probably makes you use more energy than the average guy in Sudan use in a year.
  - nl 6y ago
    And yet the company deciding to keep aircon at 21C instead if 25Cis made up of people and shareholders all who can change that decision. Plenty of green buildings are carbon neutral or negative.
    - lm28469 6y ago
      I've seen coworkers manually cranking the heat up to 25C in the middle of winter, people just don't give a shit. I live in berlin, you literally don't need heating if your building has any kind of insulation, you can just wear a sweater and be ok. But no, they even heat the damn stair cases no one uses because we have elevators.
      - nl 6y ago
        I think you are making my point for me? It's literally people's choices causing this. Not some inherent carrying capacity.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      It’s not possible to live so far apart from each other and be “carbon neutral”. All the mass required to live needs to be pushed further and the energy required grows exponentially the farther people spread out.
- mtalantikite 6y ago
  I don't know, hanging out in Asia makes me feel otherwise. The real results of climate change are in your face there. It's not just about being able to feed everyone.
  - nl 6y ago
    No argument about the impact of climate change at all. But even the IPCC report doesn't have a consensus on if food production increases or decreases from it. 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...
ReticentVole 6y ago
Americans use a lot of resources, but generate a huge amount of GDP, science, and culture. For example the average American generates 15.7x as much CO2 as the average Pakistani, but generates 591x as much science. https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/global/All/score https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo... Plus intelligence is highly heritable, and many positive traits are heavily influenced by parenting and upbringing, so successful people should have as many children as possible for the good of our civiliation. It is our duty. The core issue is the extremely high cost of housing in many cities, as well as high taxes, which can mostly be blamed on Baby Boomers for not downsizing rapidly enough and for the burden they place on the rest of society with their pension and healthcare expenses.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

nl 6y ago

> Plus we have too many people in the world as it is. Just pointing out there is no real evidence this is the case. Many people use vastly less resources than the average American, and even at high standards of living this remains true. We are able to feed all the people in the world easily, with current (or less) environmental impact (just look at the waste we produce). It's choices, not carrying capacity that leads to environmental issues.

lm28469 6y ago
You can't really live like a sub saharan person if you're in the US. Just sitting in an air conditioned office for a week probably makes you use more energy than the average guy in Sudan use in a year.
- nl 6y ago
  And yet the company deciding to keep aircon at 21C instead if 25Cis made up of people and shareholders all who can change that decision. Plenty of green buildings are carbon neutral or negative.
  - lm28469 6y ago
    I've seen coworkers manually cranking the heat up to 25C in the middle of winter, people just don't give a shit. I live in berlin, you literally don't need heating if your building has any kind of insulation, you can just wear a sweater and be ok. But no, they even heat the damn stair cases no one uses because we have elevators.
    - nl 6y ago
      I think you are making my point for me? It's literally people's choices causing this. Not some inherent carrying capacity.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    It’s not possible to live so far apart from each other and be “carbon neutral”. All the mass required to live needs to be pushed further and the energy required grows exponentially the farther people spread out.
mtalantikite 6y ago
I don't know, hanging out in Asia makes me feel otherwise. The real results of climate change are in your face there. It's not just about being able to feed everyone.
- nl 6y ago
  No argument about the impact of climate change at all. But even the IPCC report doesn't have a consensus on if food production increases or decreases from it. 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...

ReticentVole 6y ago

Americans use a lot of resources, but generate a huge amount of GDP, science, and culture. For example the average American generates 15.7x as much CO2 as the average Pakistani, but generates 591x as much science. https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/global/All/score https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo... Plus intelligence is highly heritable, and many positive traits are heavily influenced by parenting and upbringing, so successful people should have as many children as possible for the good of our civiliation. It is our duty. The core issue is the extremely high cost of housing in many cities, as well as high taxes, which can mostly be blamed on Baby Boomers for not downsizing rapidly enough and for the burden they place on the rest of society with their pension and healthcare expenses.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]