5 ms·

The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy

The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do You're basically proposing 3, which is asking poor people to voluntarily not have kids so one day they can have what you already have by accident of birth

dencodev 6y ago
I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stuff unless really needed.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  > I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. ... so that the planet is preserved for the descendants of less environmentally responsible human beings?
  - dencodev 6y ago
    Yes. Just because someone is irresponsible and votes for governments that actively work to let these awful things happen doesn't mean they deserve to die from the effects of climate change.
    - dencodev 6y ago
      HN downvotes the weirdest things.
- spacephysics 6y ago
  And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases, and pollution. But not at the expense of human life. First it’s “To save the planet, I won’t have kids”. Next is, “To save the planet, you shouldn’t have kids” Regardless if you have children or not, the chilling sentiment still exists. My fear is when, inevitably, there is social pressure, if not force, to adhere to similar doctrines on a larger scale.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jungturk 6y ago
    It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate). The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest. I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.
    - spacephysics 6y ago
      My concern isn’t with the local decisions - I agree, if your local sacrifice meets your moral expectations for yourself, and that involves abstaining from reproducing, then have at it. The danger I see is that, with most movements, once a “critical mass” of support is reached, there tends to be a sentiment of “us vs them”. Then it’s less about accepting other people’s different beliefs (having x children vs having y or 0 children), and more of shaming/“forcing”/coercing non-believers to your side. We see this with cancel culture today, and various other movements in recent times.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
baron816 6y ago
Option d) technology and good government policies enables a low/no carbon future.
- loopz 6y ago
  Certainty e) incarnate as somebody else for many lifetimes to come Rationale: If you acknowledge you are alive and conscious reading this, why would this experience be something unique. Especially if everybody else reports the same? If not, why keep you alive?
- hh3k0 6y ago
  It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping points from which there may not be a return to the status quo.
  - tarboreus 6y ago
    We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.
    - maheart 6y ago
      That's only part of the solution. Energy generation makes up ~25% of emissions, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, etc. make up the other 75%. All of these will increase as the 3rd world industrialises.
    - hh3k0 6y ago
      > We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy. No, we do not. Nuclear energy is by no means emission-free. > There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0. -- Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/ https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-e...
rbecker 6y ago
d) Limit immigration, thus reducing the population (and, according to some, economic growth) of the globally wealthy, that are almost without exception at sub-replacement fertility. No eugenics required.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Most of the nightmarish consumption growth is not from immigration but from formerly developing countries achieving lifestyles and consumption habits similar to developed ones. 3 billion Chinese, Indians, etc. are more than happy to consume large amounts of meat, dairy and drive cars to their AC-controlled homes and jobs without immigrating.
webmaven 6y ago
> The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: > a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) > b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low > c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do I think there is a plausible scenario where wealth becomes even more concentrated such that most Americans join the globally poor (this reduces the number of globally wealthy without reducing their consumption, after which you can assume scenario B). This is more or less the setup for the one-season TV series "Incorporated".

dencodev 6y ago

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stuff unless really needed.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
> I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. ... so that the planet is preserved for the descendants of less environmentally responsible human beings?
- dencodev 6y ago
  Yes. Just because someone is irresponsible and votes for governments that actively work to let these awful things happen doesn't mean they deserve to die from the effects of climate change.
  - dencodev 6y ago
    HN downvotes the weirdest things.
spacephysics 6y ago
And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases, and pollution. But not at the expense of human life. First it’s “To save the planet, I won’t have kids”. Next is, “To save the planet, you shouldn’t have kids” Regardless if you have children or not, the chilling sentiment still exists. My fear is when, inevitably, there is social pressure, if not force, to adhere to similar doctrines on a larger scale.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jungturk 6y ago
  It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate). The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest. I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.
  - spacephysics 6y ago
    My concern isn’t with the local decisions - I agree, if your local sacrifice meets your moral expectations for yourself, and that involves abstaining from reproducing, then have at it. The danger I see is that, with most movements, once a “critical mass” of support is reached, there tends to be a sentiment of “us vs them”. Then it’s less about accepting other people’s different beliefs (having x children vs having y or 0 children), and more of shaming/“forcing”/coercing non-believers to your side. We see this with cancel culture today, and various other movements in recent times.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

baron816 6y ago

Option d) technology and good government policies enables a low/no carbon future.

loopz 6y ago
Certainty e) incarnate as somebody else for many lifetimes to come Rationale: If you acknowledge you are alive and conscious reading this, why would this experience be something unique. Especially if everybody else reports the same? If not, why keep you alive?
hh3k0 6y ago
It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping points from which there may not be a return to the status quo.
- tarboreus 6y ago
  We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.
  - maheart 6y ago
    That's only part of the solution. Energy generation makes up ~25% of emissions, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, etc. make up the other 75%. All of these will increase as the 3rd world industrialises.
  - hh3k0 6y ago
    > We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy. No, we do not. Nuclear energy is by no means emission-free. > There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0. -- Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/ https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-e...

rbecker 6y ago

d) Limit immigration, thus reducing the population (and, according to some, economic growth) of the globally wealthy, that are almost without exception at sub-replacement fertility. No eugenics required.

bobthepanda 6y ago
Most of the nightmarish consumption growth is not from immigration but from formerly developing countries achieving lifestyles and consumption habits similar to developed ones. 3 billion Chinese, Indians, etc. are more than happy to consume large amounts of meat, dairy and drive cars to their AC-controlled homes and jobs without immigrating.

webmaven 6y ago

> The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: > a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) > b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low > c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do I think there is a plausible scenario where wealth becomes even more concentrated such that most Americans join the globally poor (this reduces the number of globally wealthy without reducing their consumption, after which you can assume scenario B). This is more or less the setup for the one-season TV series "Incorporated".