3 ms·

> We don't even have serious bicycle or transit prioritization in our major urban areas. We don't have any concern for reducing our meat consumption. We don't h

> We don't even have serious bicycle or transit prioritization in our major urban areas. We don't have any concern for reducing our meat consumption. We don't have any concern for alternatives to airlines. Sorry, but this stuff is a joke. Population control and non carbon based energy sources are the only things that can really make an impact.

scoofy 5y ago
Cool, the low hanging fruit is a joke. Let's do nothing then, how about that.
- ianai 5y ago
  I appreciate your perspective. I’ve always thought climate change should be a higher priority. The amount of resources for the meat industry alone should be enough to make some changes. But oil has insular forces making it a real curse to progress.
Falling3 5y ago
The richest 10% of the world population is responsible for almost half of all carbon emissions. The global median age is up and expected to continue rising. The global fertility rate is dropping. Population growth is projected to flatten in the next century. Why would we waste time on population control, much less prioritize it?
MildlySerious 5y ago
I see the population control argument made a lot, and while I don't want to throw this conversation out the window entirely, I personally don't think it's very constructive right now. What we need is a drastic reduction in emissions FAST. X0% less now buys a lot more time and has a much bigger effect than X0% in say 50 years when most of the damage is done. Any means of population control that is not straight up genocide will take decades if not generations to make a real impact. Long term planning should of course be a core part of our strategy, and whether population control is part of that or not is not my call to make. That being said, the next five to ten years are much, much more important, and my experience in these contexts has been that the population control argument tends to interfere with this more important conversation about actions to take right now. What would help most in a shorter time frame is economic incentives to move away from fossil fuels. Carbon taxes, and most importantly changing where subsidies go in the first place would go a long way. More funding for research in relevant areas would, as well. Before those and other things aren't well underway, there is really nothing to gain from bringing up population control every time the climate change comes up, in my opinion.

scoofy 5y ago

Cool, the low hanging fruit is a joke. Let's do nothing then, how about that.

ianai 5y ago
I appreciate your perspective. I’ve always thought climate change should be a higher priority. The amount of resources for the meat industry alone should be enough to make some changes. But oil has insular forces making it a real curse to progress.

Falling3 5y ago

The richest 10% of the world population is responsible for almost half of all carbon emissions. The global median age is up and expected to continue rising. The global fertility rate is dropping. Population growth is projected to flatten in the next century. Why would we waste time on population control, much less prioritize it?

MildlySerious 5y ago

I see the population control argument made a lot, and while I don't want to throw this conversation out the window entirely, I personally don't think it's very constructive right now. What we need is a drastic reduction in emissions FAST. X0% less now buys a lot more time and has a much bigger effect than X0% in say 50 years when most of the damage is done. Any means of population control that is not straight up genocide will take decades if not generations to make a real impact. Long term planning should of course be a core part of our strategy, and whether population control is part of that or not is not my call to make. That being said, the next five to ten years are much, much more important, and my experience in these contexts has been that the population control argument tends to interfere with this more important conversation about actions to take right now. What would help most in a shorter time frame is economic incentives to move away from fossil fuels. Carbon taxes, and most importantly changing where subsidies go in the first place would go a long way. More funding for research in relevant areas would, as well. Before those and other things aren't well underway, there is really nothing to gain from bringing up population control every time the climate change comes up, in my opinion.