3 ms·

As a person reading HN, here's what you can do: Don't have kids. Don't eat meat. Don't fly in planes. Don't drive a car. Don't buy stuff you don't need. Live i

As a person reading HN, here's what you can do: Don't have kids. Don't eat meat. Don't fly in planes. Don't drive a car. Don't buy stuff you don't need. Live in small dense housing. Take political action. Whether you choose to do them or rationalize a way to not do them doesn't matter that much. But at least you can say you tried. For whatever that's worth.

fsflover 5y ago
Reference: http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...
kingsloi 5y ago
Shouldn't political action be first on the list? I wish I had the image handy, but it was something like this: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eda91260bbb7e7a4bf528d8/1619187421930-OW9HUYKJ4Q2MAH8LVFTE/meme23.png?format=500w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eda91260bbb7e...
- rahen 5y ago
  No, having one less child makes sens as the first element on the list, as it's estimated to be up to 60 times more efficient than any other action when it comes to fighting global warming. In fact, having too many children appears to be the single most destructive thing a person can to do to the environment. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
- paulcole 5y ago
  Not having kids is both incredibly impactful and incredibly easy. It's also clear whether you've done "enough" or not. Either you had a kid or you didn't. Political action is much more wishy-washy and hand wavey. Did you do enough of it? What impact did it have? Sure if you could take political action that fixes the whole mess do that first. But understand that's not likely at all.
- MickerNews 5y ago
  Maybe this one? https://i.imgur.com/avjsowj.png https://i.imgur.com/avjsowj.png
adamrezich 5y ago
recommendations for others to not procreate will never sit well with me. I understand that not everyone wants to have kids, but for people like me, whose life goals amount to little more than "attain financial stability to the point where I can start a family and continue to provide for it," the idea that I should be discouraged from doing so comes across as basically offensive, in a way that I believe most people suggesting as much do not fully understand.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Most of the parent's list comes across as "don't live your life, basically", which is not going to convince a majority of people. It could have read as a recommendation to reduce your environmental footprint. "Eat less meat, fly less often, drive an electric car if you can afford to, or bike when you can", etc. But everyone isn't going to just give up all that and go live in a small apartment in the big city.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    > But everyone isn't going to just give up all that and go live in a small apartment in the big city. Some people are going to have to make decisions like the ones I've laid out (it's how I chose to live my life, but not for environmental reasons). If not, that's fine too, but then enjoy the next 50ish years before things get real bad.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      The reality is that people are still going to do those things on a global scale regardless of what some people do. Solutions have to take human behavior on a that scale into account. 50 years of thinking about the problem while technology improves and society adapts is reason for hope. Maybe in that time a lot more people will adopt a standard of living you suggest as part of that adaptation (with cities adapted to suit that lifestyle), while renewable energy completely replaces fossil fuels, and things like carbon capture become a reality, along with tree planting initiatives and other ideas being tossed around know to mitigate climate change.

fsflover 5y ago

Reference: http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full.jpg http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...

kingsloi 5y ago

Shouldn't political action be first on the list? I wish I had the image handy, but it was something like this: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eda91260bbb7e7a4bf528d8/1619187421930-OW9HUYKJ4Q2MAH8LVFTE/meme23.png?format=500w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eda91260bbb7e...

rahen 5y ago
No, having one less child makes sens as the first element on the list, as it's estimated to be up to 60 times more efficient than any other action when it comes to fighting global warming. In fact, having too many children appears to be the single most destructive thing a person can to do to the environment. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
paulcole 5y ago
Not having kids is both incredibly impactful and incredibly easy. It's also clear whether you've done "enough" or not. Either you had a kid or you didn't. Political action is much more wishy-washy and hand wavey. Did you do enough of it? What impact did it have? Sure if you could take political action that fixes the whole mess do that first. But understand that's not likely at all.
MickerNews 5y ago
Maybe this one? https://i.imgur.com/avjsowj.png https://i.imgur.com/avjsowj.png

adamrezich 5y ago

recommendations for others to not procreate will never sit well with me. I understand that not everyone wants to have kids, but for people like me, whose life goals amount to little more than "attain financial stability to the point where I can start a family and continue to provide for it," the idea that I should be discouraged from doing so comes across as basically offensive, in a way that I believe most people suggesting as much do not fully understand.

goatlover 5y ago
Most of the parent's list comes across as "don't live your life, basically", which is not going to convince a majority of people. It could have read as a recommendation to reduce your environmental footprint. "Eat less meat, fly less often, drive an electric car if you can afford to, or bike when you can", etc. But everyone isn't going to just give up all that and go live in a small apartment in the big city.
- paulcole 5y ago
  > But everyone isn't going to just give up all that and go live in a small apartment in the big city. Some people are going to have to make decisions like the ones I've laid out (it's how I chose to live my life, but not for environmental reasons). If not, that's fine too, but then enjoy the next 50ish years before things get real bad.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    The reality is that people are still going to do those things on a global scale regardless of what some people do. Solutions have to take human behavior on a that scale into account. 50 years of thinking about the problem while technology improves and society adapts is reason for hope. Maybe in that time a lot more people will adopt a standard of living you suggest as part of that adaptation (with cities adapted to suit that lifestyle), while renewable energy completely replaces fossil fuels, and things like carbon capture become a reality, along with tree planting initiatives and other ideas being tossed around know to mitigate climate change.