4 ms·

The only real way to reduce ones climate footprint is by not procreating. Everything else is a joke.

fsflover 6y ago
Proof: https://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg https://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1ful...
- imtringued 6y ago
  This graph does not consider that CO2 conscious parents can teach their children to be CO2 conscious. This means the effect of consciously having less children to fight climate change is highly overstated. I mean, imagine being a parent who is only eating a plant based diet, buying green energy, not flying at all and living car free. Somehow you are assuming that your children will violate all of these rules despite living in the same household as you. They somehow eat meat, they somehow fail to use the green energy you bought for them and they go on transatlantic flights on their own and they even have a damn car! By definition no matter what you do for yourself is going to matter because you are creating a CO2 spewing monster according to this graph. Is that really what happens in practice? I doubt that. It is far more likely that your child has learned some CO2 saving measures from you and therefore when you are having one child less you aren't eliminating the CO2 monster, you're eliminating a CO2 saver. There is also another more obvious issue with the graph. It is double counting emissions by counting your children's emissions as your own. Meaning there is no real upper bound to how much CO2 you save. If humanity colonizes the entire universe the impact of your decision to not have one child would be literally astronomical. Your decision could have avoided hundreds of trillions of lives being brought into existence or even infinite if all humans die without having children. Just think of the CO2 savings! Because the last section of the graph is highly misleading I hope nobody bases their decision to have children on it. If you really want to have less children then first consider whether your child will be a CO2 monster or not.
adrianb 6y ago
This gives a good impression how much that reduces the footprint compared to the commonly blamed activities: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
imtringued 6y ago
I always hear this but the vast majority of people are not going to base their decision to have children on climate change. The real driving factor is the rising cost of living and educated women in the work force. We are doing our best to make sure these things continue so I don't think we actually have to tell anyone to have less children, the people have already decided so for themselves.
vimy 6y ago
I don’t get why so many people think misanthropy is the solution to what is essentially a tech problem.
st1x7 6y ago
Take that thought a few steps further. Maybe a very small number of people in developed countries are happy to not have children and also claim they're doing it for environmental reasons. How do you scale this to the developing countries in Asia and Africa that have the largest populations and highest birth rates? What exactly would you do if you were in charge?
- Traubenfuchs 6y ago
  My solutions for implementing the principle of "procreation being a privilege to be earned instead of a right for all" are not socially acceptable and pointless to discuss. We'd need a Brave New World system taking over the world. It's an absolute utopia. I had a deep hatred for the savage even when I first read the book.

Proof: https://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg https://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1ful...

imtringued 6y ago
This graph does not consider that CO2 conscious parents can teach their children to be CO2 conscious. This means the effect of consciously having less children to fight climate change is highly overstated. I mean, imagine being a parent who is only eating a plant based diet, buying green energy, not flying at all and living car free. Somehow you are assuming that your children will violate all of these rules despite living in the same household as you. They somehow eat meat, they somehow fail to use the green energy you bought for them and they go on transatlantic flights on their own and they even have a damn car! By definition no matter what you do for yourself is going to matter because you are creating a CO2 spewing monster according to this graph. Is that really what happens in practice? I doubt that. It is far more likely that your child has learned some CO2 saving measures from you and therefore when you are having one child less you aren't eliminating the CO2 monster, you're eliminating a CO2 saver. There is also another more obvious issue with the graph. It is double counting emissions by counting your children's emissions as your own. Meaning there is no real upper bound to how much CO2 you save. If humanity colonizes the entire universe the impact of your decision to not have one child would be literally astronomical. Your decision could have avoided hundreds of trillions of lives being brought into existence or even infinite if all humans die without having children. Just think of the CO2 savings! Because the last section of the graph is highly misleading I hope nobody bases their decision to have children on it. If you really want to have less children then first consider whether your child will be a CO2 monster or not.

adrianb 6y ago

This gives a good impression how much that reduces the footprint compared to the commonly blamed activities: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...

imtringued 6y ago

I always hear this but the vast majority of people are not going to base their decision to have children on climate change. The real driving factor is the rising cost of living and educated women in the work force. We are doing our best to make sure these things continue so I don't think we actually have to tell anyone to have less children, the people have already decided so for themselves.

vimy 6y ago

I don’t get why so many people think misanthropy is the solution to what is essentially a tech problem.

st1x7 6y ago

Take that thought a few steps further. Maybe a very small number of people in developed countries are happy to not have children and also claim they're doing it for environmental reasons. How do you scale this to the developing countries in Asia and Africa that have the largest populations and highest birth rates? What exactly would you do if you were in charge?

Traubenfuchs 6y ago
My solutions for implementing the principle of "procreation being a privilege to be earned instead of a right for all" are not socially acceptable and pointless to discuss. We'd need a Brave New World system taking over the world. It's an absolute utopia. I had a deep hatred for the savage even when I first read the book.