3 ms·
8000 fewer births per year is excellent from an ecological standpoint, though.
by sdenton4 6y ago
8000 fewer births per year is excellent from an ecological standpoint, though.
- drtillberg 6y agoNot for those 8,000 would-be people .... And for their parents?
- 542354234235 6y agoIt isn’t negative or positive, because “would be” people are not real. They are an abstract idea in someone’s head. There are an almost infinite number of would be people. Every time a contraceptive is used, that is a would be person not born. Every time someone does not take the opportunity to have sex, that is a would be person not born. Every single egg not fertilized is a would be person not born. Those “8,000” don’t exist right along with the trillion other would be people, except in the heads of actual living conscious creatures.
- James_Henry 6y agoThis seems rather inconsiderate of all the people who would like to have children but decide they can't or shouldn't because of the cost.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 542354234235 6y agoIt isn't inconsiderate because I am not talking about actual living people and the problems they have or the suffering they may be experiencing. They are conscious and are worthy of our concern. What isn’t worthy of concern is the abstract idea of “X number of would be people” because those aren’t actual living things, they are just a concept in someone’s head about a possible alternate reality where these hypothetical people could have existed. 8 thousand, 8 million, or 8 billion hypothetical imaginary children mean less than 1 real child. But the suffering of 8,000 real people that could not have a child that they wanted would be worthy of concern. The concept of the possible child, in and of itself, is not. Otherwise every month would be a genocide of “would be children” lost to the menstrual cycle.
- finder83 6y agoWhat has the impact been though from families that still have 3 kids and buy larger cars/SUVs than they would have otherwise?
- sdenton4 6y agoRemoving a birth removes a full lifetime of emissions (all the cars that person would have bought) as well as any future children of that kid; over the long term, the extra emissions from adding a person grow exponentially, while adding a larger car (for a kid that would have existed anyway) is a one-time fixed cost. So, as t->infinity, fewer kids is going to win from a co2 perspective. So the question is just where the crossover point is (if any; the 8000 fewer kids might already simply offset any larger cars bought within the first year - i don't know). I suppose that requires estimating the number of larger cars bought for third children per year, and comparing to the yearly emissions for people as they age.