5 ms·
Why? We are told that having a child is the most environmentally damaging decision one could make [1,2,3,4]. And the developed world already has sub-replacement
by MikeUt 5y ago
Why? We are told that having a child is the most environmentally damaging decision one could make [1,2,3,4]. And the developed world already has sub-replacement fertility - for about half a century now. But that counts for nothing?
[1] 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-...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/science-proves-kids-are-bad-earth-morality-suggests-we-stop-ncna820781 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/science-proves-kids-ar...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/14/having-kids-is-terrible-for-the-environment-so-im-not-having-any/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/14/...
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoChina has sub-replacement fertility too.
- MikeUt 5y agoToday. But it had much higher fertility in the past, even relative to other countries back then: https://img.caixin.com/2018-09-13/1536823492774171.jpg https://img.caixin.com/2018-09-13/1536823492774171.jpg Fertility at a single moment in time is meaningless, which is why you look at the total population.