5 ms·

Probably the worst possible damage a person can do to the enviroment is to have children. Everything else is basically just a drop (of pollution) in the ocean.

Probably the worst possible damage a person can do to the enviroment is to have children. Everything else is basically just a drop (of pollution) in the ocean. I have my own opinions here, which i won't say, but i'm just addressing the elephant in the news.

seriousquestion 5y ago
If we end up with an upside down population pyramid, we'll have bigger problems than a slowly changing climate.
- corty 5y ago
  There are some countries with an upside down population pyramid and it isn't the end of the world. Certainly less apocalyptic than most climate change scenarios.
  - carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
    Well, it doesn't scale for the future tax vs. elder social benefits. You can't just sweep the consequences of extreme population demographic shifts under a rug. Look at China with its disastrous One-child policy where there are millions of unhappy, dissatisfied men who can't marry. That's a recipe for social unrest and suicide attacks.
    - corty 5y ago
      Look at Japan, there things got more stable with the aging of the population. China isn't really an example for most of the world because CCP experiments screwed up more than just their age pyramid. Also, taxes and pensions are very small problems compared to uninhabitable coastal regions, mass migrations and food shortages that climate change predictions show us.
      - carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
        Taxes and pensions are pressing, immediate problems within the next 50 years. What you're talking about is a much bigger problem trend, but it will take longer to occur, say 80-120 years. Age pyramid? That's not the biggest issue in China's demographics: it's the sex ratio. Talking vague FUD about China isn't helpful and doesn't contribute to this discussion. Mass migrations and food shortages are happening now, but not as bad as they will be. This is due to both climate and US Monroe doctrine meddling (crime caused by the War on Drugs and installation of right-wing leaders with death squads).
    - mariusor 5y ago
      > Look at China with its disastrous One-child policy where there are millions of unhappy, dissatisfied men who can't marry I'm pretty sure that's because of Missing women of China[1], not necessarily the one child policy. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#China and the other linked articles.
- marshmallow_12 5y ago
  agreed, but that's the inevitable conclusion of any inquiry into solving climate change. Should we therefore do nothing? Probably not. But again, i won't elaborate.
chasd00 5y ago
You may want to subscribe to their newsletter https://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/ https://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
- mariusor 5y ago
  Of course. The two are perfect equivalent. (/s, just in case)
ekianjo 5y ago
> Probably the worst possible damage a person can do to the enviroment is to have children Sure, let's nuke the whole world and get rid of the human species to save the environment! What a wonderful take.
- carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
  Omnicidal and suicidal thoughts are multiplying as people lose hope in the future and their future specifically. Furthermore, is there any sensible, hopeful, safe, stable, productive, and generally happy society that has mass shootings and addictions/crimes of despair nearly everyday?
  - corty 5y ago
    The current apocalyptic scenarios are the same as in the past. If anything, we do have more science and technology to deal with them and to predict them. And the grim prediction is rather than climate change, the real problem is population growth.
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      > the real problem is population growth Population growth is not a massive problem: we already know that human population will hit a max of 10 billion people and from there start aging progressively and reduce over time.
      - corty 5y ago
        We don't know, we suspect that in the most optimistic scenarios. Without knowing the underlying mechanism. Without knowing the consequences of cultural change and industrialisation of the third world countries. This is the finest kind of denialism, and it is really going to bite us hard in about a hundred years at most.
      - carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
        I agree. The problems are resource consumption and pollution per capita. There are many soft and hard effects trends that are reducing population. Oceanic food production that would also sequester carbon would allow for a greater population carrying capacity. The main issue is getting people to reproduce. xD
carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
I happen to like kids and want someone to bury me in the right plot that was already set-aside (in basically the middle of nowhere). We also need some people sensible enough to fix the damage done to the Earth by the reckless and selfish generations of FF burners, meat eaters, jet-setting frequent-fliers, long-distance/single-occupant car commuters, and concrete pourers who came before.
- corty 5y ago
  We do not need humans to "fix" anything on earth, the ecosystem will find a new balance on its own. Absent a few chaotic effects that might happen, without human disturbance, this balance will be reached faster than with humans meddling.
  - carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
    :-/ You're basically recommending giving-up. There is waay too much energy in the water cycle that is locked in for hundreds of years, and may lead to global ecological collapse: desert earth. Humans already "meddled" negatively, humans can also "meddle" positively to make the Earth habitable and stem the Holocene extinction. Just throwing your hands up in the air in the names of external locus-of-control is insane when humans can clean-up and restore the ecology of what we damaged. Coral reef preservation, for example. Cleaning up microplastics from oceans is another. https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-disease-ravages-coral-reefs-scientists-scramble-for-solutions https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-disease-ravages-coral-reef...
test_alpha 5y ago
Increasing population levels in highly emitting countries whose populations have naturally leveled off or are decreasing is very bad too (not to mention all the other horrific problems with this neocolonial type of immigration).
jay_kyburz 5y ago
Yes but, to be clear, we are only fixing the climate emergency _for_ our children, and their children. Climate change will not really impact most of us alive today. This is why it has been so hard to get people to make real changes, spend real money reducing our footprint. A lot of people just don't care because they will be dead and gone when the real trouble starts.
- mbgerring 5y ago
  > Climate change will not really impact most of us alive today. Climate change is already effecting millions of people worldwide in drastic, life-changing ways, and those effects will only increase over current lifetimes even under the most aggressive plausible decarbonization scenarios.

seriousquestion 5y ago

If we end up with an upside down population pyramid, we'll have bigger problems than a slowly changing climate.

corty 5y ago
There are some countries with an upside down population pyramid and it isn't the end of the world. Certainly less apocalyptic than most climate change scenarios.
- carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
  Well, it doesn't scale for the future tax vs. elder social benefits. You can't just sweep the consequences of extreme population demographic shifts under a rug. Look at China with its disastrous One-child policy where there are millions of unhappy, dissatisfied men who can't marry. That's a recipe for social unrest and suicide attacks.
  - corty 5y ago
    Look at Japan, there things got more stable with the aging of the population. China isn't really an example for most of the world because CCP experiments screwed up more than just their age pyramid. Also, taxes and pensions are very small problems compared to uninhabitable coastal regions, mass migrations and food shortages that climate change predictions show us.
    - carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
      Taxes and pensions are pressing, immediate problems within the next 50 years. What you're talking about is a much bigger problem trend, but it will take longer to occur, say 80-120 years. Age pyramid? That's not the biggest issue in China's demographics: it's the sex ratio. Talking vague FUD about China isn't helpful and doesn't contribute to this discussion. Mass migrations and food shortages are happening now, but not as bad as they will be. This is due to both climate and US Monroe doctrine meddling (crime caused by the War on Drugs and installation of right-wing leaders with death squads).
  - mariusor 5y ago
    > Look at China with its disastrous One-child policy where there are millions of unhappy, dissatisfied men who can't marry I'm pretty sure that's because of Missing women of China[1], not necessarily the one child policy. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#China and the other linked articles.
marshmallow_12 5y ago
agreed, but that's the inevitable conclusion of any inquiry into solving climate change. Should we therefore do nothing? Probably not. But again, i won't elaborate.

chasd00 5y ago

You may want to subscribe to their newsletter https://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/ https://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

mariusor 5y ago
Of course. The two are perfect equivalent. (/s, just in case)

ekianjo 5y ago

> Probably the worst possible damage a person can do to the enviroment is to have children Sure, let's nuke the whole world and get rid of the human species to save the environment! What a wonderful take.

carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
Omnicidal and suicidal thoughts are multiplying as people lose hope in the future and their future specifically. Furthermore, is there any sensible, hopeful, safe, stable, productive, and generally happy society that has mass shootings and addictions/crimes of despair nearly everyday?
- corty 5y ago
  The current apocalyptic scenarios are the same as in the past. If anything, we do have more science and technology to deal with them and to predict them. And the grim prediction is rather than climate change, the real problem is population growth.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > the real problem is population growth Population growth is not a massive problem: we already know that human population will hit a max of 10 billion people and from there start aging progressively and reduce over time.
    - corty 5y ago
      We don't know, we suspect that in the most optimistic scenarios. Without knowing the underlying mechanism. Without knowing the consequences of cultural change and industrialisation of the third world countries. This is the finest kind of denialism, and it is really going to bite us hard in about a hundred years at most.
    - carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
      I agree. The problems are resource consumption and pollution per capita. There are many soft and hard effects trends that are reducing population. Oceanic food production that would also sequester carbon would allow for a greater population carrying capacity. The main issue is getting people to reproduce. xD

carpedimebagjoe 5y ago

I happen to like kids and want someone to bury me in the right plot that was already set-aside (in basically the middle of nowhere). We also need some people sensible enough to fix the damage done to the Earth by the reckless and selfish generations of FF burners, meat eaters, jet-setting frequent-fliers, long-distance/single-occupant car commuters, and concrete pourers who came before.

corty 5y ago
We do not need humans to "fix" anything on earth, the ecosystem will find a new balance on its own. Absent a few chaotic effects that might happen, without human disturbance, this balance will be reached faster than with humans meddling.
- carpedimebagjoe 5y ago
  :-/ You're basically recommending giving-up. There is waay too much energy in the water cycle that is locked in for hundreds of years, and may lead to global ecological collapse: desert earth. Humans already "meddled" negatively, humans can also "meddle" positively to make the Earth habitable and stem the Holocene extinction. Just throwing your hands up in the air in the names of external locus-of-control is insane when humans can clean-up and restore the ecology of what we damaged. Coral reef preservation, for example. Cleaning up microplastics from oceans is another. https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-disease-ravages-coral-reefs-scientists-scramble-for-solutions https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-disease-ravages-coral-reef...

test_alpha 5y ago

Increasing population levels in highly emitting countries whose populations have naturally leveled off or are decreasing is very bad too (not to mention all the other horrific problems with this neocolonial type of immigration).

jay_kyburz 5y ago

Yes but, to be clear, we are only fixing the climate emergency _for_ our children, and their children. Climate change will not really impact most of us alive today. This is why it has been so hard to get people to make real changes, spend real money reducing our footprint. A lot of people just don't care because they will be dead and gone when the real trouble starts.

mbgerring 5y ago
> Climate change will not really impact most of us alive today. Climate change is already effecting millions of people worldwide in drastic, life-changing ways, and those effects will only increase over current lifetimes even under the most aggressive plausible decarbonization scenarios.