30 ms·

And yet people still having kids. The worse affected regions still have the highest natality rates.

sangnoir 5y ago
> The worse affected regions still have the highest natality rates. The same regions have the lowest per-capita carbon output. Perhaps we should tie reproductive rights to carbon footprint, to increase the proportion of low-pollution individuals. I'm only being half-sarcastic.
- decremental 5y ago
  They have low carbon footprints because they live in mud huts. I don't think they're going to be great stewards for the future of humanity. Modern civilization, that thing you're enjoying right now, was built by the people you want fewer of for some reason.
- pengaru 5y ago
  > The same regions have the lowest per-capita carbon output. Largely irrelevant. Every country aspires to increase their quality of life, burgeoning populations still living in the mud are just carbon time bombs. So, relevant in the negative sense of their per-capita output has nowhere to go but up, with a huge multiplier. It helps to view "third-world" as simply arriving in third place at the finish line of modern living; on a long enough timeline, there are no more mud huts. In the film Before the Flood, there's a part focused on India which states they have ~300M people living without electricity. A population roughly the size of the USA. In the same part, representatives from India's government make clear that India has vast coal reserves and no intention of leaving those 300M people without electricity. You're looking at an overnight arrival of the US population from the dark to using lights and refrigerators. It's not like populations with low carbon output have all mastered some kind of low impact living. They're just poor and lagging behind the more wealthy nations, don't mistake it for a lack of intention to join the first-world.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > It helps to view "third-world" as simply arriving in third place at the finish line of modern living; on a long enough timeline This is reductive, and possibly wrong. Developing countries do not have to follow the paths of developed ones; they can simply skip over the less useful bits. As an example, most developing countries skipped large-scale POTS networks and went directly to wireless (GSM). The same is happening with solar and wind energy; because the sparse electric distribution networks are sparse, energy is generated at its point of use, which favors solar and wind. Our "legacy" countries are the problem because we cannot wean ourselves off pollution without taking a hit in our lifestyles. The problem is in the here and now, not some future "time bomb", and it's not solved by tweaking at the margins by limiting population growth of those that live the greenest lifestyles. The problem with the climate change "debate" is that nobody wants to make changes - it's always the other who has to make sacrifices.
    - surge 5y ago
      If that were completely true China would be doing it now. We wouldn't see countries shutting down nuclear programs and replacing them with coal. But yes, I agree that if a tech is freely available there is opportunity for countries to build out with what's the best available then legacy tech, the same way China has 4G/5G everywhere because its all new infrastructure, they never bothered putting up a 3G tower.
      - pengaru 5y ago
        Using transport of information as exemplary strikes me as such extreme cherry-picking as to be disingenuous. It's relatively trivial to move data wirelessly. Physical infrastructure like housing, roads, bridges, are where the real challenges lie. Cement production alone is a huge co2 problem. Even if all the vehicles of the future are EVs, there's a huge amount of resources put into manufacturing, delivering, sheltering, and operating those per-capita. Despite its vast HSR network, China has still exceeded US car sales every year since 2009 [0]. [0] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-car-sales-by-key-markets-2005-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-car-sa...
tsol 5y ago
Is humanity supposed to stop reproducing? This is such a strange take. First worlders ruin the planet and then get exasperated that others continue to reproduce, knowing it may cause the first world more problems in the future
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  There were two billion humans a hundred years ago. Now we're eight billion. That means you now have to share what would have been yours a hundred years ago with three other people. Soon they will be four. Keep growing like this, you'll be sharing those resources with ten, fifteen people. You can keep cutting the cake in smaller and pieces, for sure, but that means everyone keeps getting a smaller and smaller portion until everyone is hungry. That doesn't even factor in the fact that the cake is effectively shrinking from overfishing, droughts, and so on. You keep expanding the human population. It'll be fine. It's probably too late to course correct anyway. Might as well do what makes you happy.
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    It's interesting to see Malthusianism is still alive and well. The cake isn't a fixed size. Our agricultural innovations continue to far exceed population growth. We can produce virtually infinite energy with Renewables and Nuclear Energy. The Earth is 70% water, and that too is a renewable resource; there's more than enough for the next million years. That's not even getting started on the fact that these sorts of prediction have been wrong repeatedly. The average world citizen has a vastly greater standard of living than they did 50 or 100 years ago, despite the increase in population. So the population is going up, and the standard of living is going up even faster.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      He was just a century too early. Most of our modern agricultural processes are about as sustainable as strip mining. They erode the top soil at a staggering rate, and that takes a very long time to regenerate, and that's not even considering the impact of climate change on the amount of arable land. There is no process for turning energy and water into nutrient rich food. You can make macronutrients (especially carbohydrates) easily enough, but that alone just makes us sick.
throwaway_4ever 5y ago
Please read https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-dont-give-up-on-having-kids?utm_source=url https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-dont-give-up-on...
surge 5y ago
We're well below replacement rates in most western and developed countries, there's a population crash expected in the next few decades which will cause issues as people age out and economies will shrink rapidly and social security programs will collapse, etc. The irony is, those far better equipped to have and raise intelligent productive kids, those with high education, good salaries, and liberal/progressive values, have less kids, meaning most kids in the next generation will be had by religiously conservative or less educated or poorer families and then these people will lament why their country is becoming more conservative when they don't have another generation they raised to pass their values onto. Which is counter productive if you want engineers and those that value the environment as a priority. For instance, Russia is expected to half their draft able males in the next 5 years and many of their educated engineers and technicians are older since they were mostly educated during USSR days, and be retiring age soon, which as reason why many think Russia is making moves now, while they still can. Shaming people for having kids is sheer idiocy at this point. Every person having 2 or more kids isn't even making up for the 5-10 people having 0-1 kids. The eventual conclusion of your reasoning, everyone is better off swallowing a bullet for the good of humanity.

> The worse affected regions still have the highest natality rates. The same regions have the lowest per-capita carbon output. Perhaps we should tie reproductive rights to carbon footprint, to increase the proportion of low-pollution individuals. I'm only being half-sarcastic.

decremental 5y ago
They have low carbon footprints because they live in mud huts. I don't think they're going to be great stewards for the future of humanity. Modern civilization, that thing you're enjoying right now, was built by the people you want fewer of for some reason.
pengaru 5y ago
> The same regions have the lowest per-capita carbon output. Largely irrelevant. Every country aspires to increase their quality of life, burgeoning populations still living in the mud are just carbon time bombs. So, relevant in the negative sense of their per-capita output has nowhere to go but up, with a huge multiplier. It helps to view "third-world" as simply arriving in third place at the finish line of modern living; on a long enough timeline, there are no more mud huts. In the film Before the Flood, there's a part focused on India which states they have ~300M people living without electricity. A population roughly the size of the USA. In the same part, representatives from India's government make clear that India has vast coal reserves and no intention of leaving those 300M people without electricity. You're looking at an overnight arrival of the US population from the dark to using lights and refrigerators. It's not like populations with low carbon output have all mastered some kind of low impact living. They're just poor and lagging behind the more wealthy nations, don't mistake it for a lack of intention to join the first-world.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > It helps to view "third-world" as simply arriving in third place at the finish line of modern living; on a long enough timeline This is reductive, and possibly wrong. Developing countries do not have to follow the paths of developed ones; they can simply skip over the less useful bits. As an example, most developing countries skipped large-scale POTS networks and went directly to wireless (GSM). The same is happening with solar and wind energy; because the sparse electric distribution networks are sparse, energy is generated at its point of use, which favors solar and wind. Our "legacy" countries are the problem because we cannot wean ourselves off pollution without taking a hit in our lifestyles. The problem is in the here and now, not some future "time bomb", and it's not solved by tweaking at the margins by limiting population growth of those that live the greenest lifestyles. The problem with the climate change "debate" is that nobody wants to make changes - it's always the other who has to make sacrifices.
  - surge 5y ago
    If that were completely true China would be doing it now. We wouldn't see countries shutting down nuclear programs and replacing them with coal. But yes, I agree that if a tech is freely available there is opportunity for countries to build out with what's the best available then legacy tech, the same way China has 4G/5G everywhere because its all new infrastructure, they never bothered putting up a 3G tower.
    - pengaru 5y ago
      Using transport of information as exemplary strikes me as such extreme cherry-picking as to be disingenuous. It's relatively trivial to move data wirelessly. Physical infrastructure like housing, roads, bridges, are where the real challenges lie. Cement production alone is a huge co2 problem. Even if all the vehicles of the future are EVs, there's a huge amount of resources put into manufacturing, delivering, sheltering, and operating those per-capita. Despite its vast HSR network, China has still exceeded US car sales every year since 2009 [0]. [0] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-car-sales-by-key-markets-2005-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-car-sa...

tsol 5y ago

Is humanity supposed to stop reproducing? This is such a strange take. First worlders ruin the planet and then get exasperated that others continue to reproduce, knowing it may cause the first world more problems in the future

marginalia_nu 5y ago
There were two billion humans a hundred years ago. Now we're eight billion. That means you now have to share what would have been yours a hundred years ago with three other people. Soon they will be four. Keep growing like this, you'll be sharing those resources with ten, fifteen people. You can keep cutting the cake in smaller and pieces, for sure, but that means everyone keeps getting a smaller and smaller portion until everyone is hungry. That doesn't even factor in the fact that the cake is effectively shrinking from overfishing, droughts, and so on. You keep expanding the human population. It'll be fine. It's probably too late to course correct anyway. Might as well do what makes you happy.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  It's interesting to see Malthusianism is still alive and well. The cake isn't a fixed size. Our agricultural innovations continue to far exceed population growth. We can produce virtually infinite energy with Renewables and Nuclear Energy. The Earth is 70% water, and that too is a renewable resource; there's more than enough for the next million years. That's not even getting started on the fact that these sorts of prediction have been wrong repeatedly. The average world citizen has a vastly greater standard of living than they did 50 or 100 years ago, despite the increase in population. So the population is going up, and the standard of living is going up even faster.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    He was just a century too early. Most of our modern agricultural processes are about as sustainable as strip mining. They erode the top soil at a staggering rate, and that takes a very long time to regenerate, and that's not even considering the impact of climate change on the amount of arable land. There is no process for turning energy and water into nutrient rich food. You can make macronutrients (especially carbohydrates) easily enough, but that alone just makes us sick.

throwaway_4ever 5y ago

Please read https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-dont-give-up-on-having-kids?utm_source=url https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-dont-give-up-on...

surge 5y ago

We're well below replacement rates in most western and developed countries, there's a population crash expected in the next few decades which will cause issues as people age out and economies will shrink rapidly and social security programs will collapse, etc. The irony is, those far better equipped to have and raise intelligent productive kids, those with high education, good salaries, and liberal/progressive values, have less kids, meaning most kids in the next generation will be had by religiously conservative or less educated or poorer families and then these people will lament why their country is becoming more conservative when they don't have another generation they raised to pass their values onto. Which is counter productive if you want engineers and those that value the environment as a priority. For instance, Russia is expected to half their draft able males in the next 5 years and many of their educated engineers and technicians are older since they were mostly educated during USSR days, and be retiring age soon, which as reason why many think Russia is making moves now, while they still can. Shaming people for having kids is sheer idiocy at this point. Every person having 2 or more kids isn't even making up for the 5-10 people having 0-1 kids. The eventual conclusion of your reasoning, everyone is better off swallowing a bullet for the good of humanity.