5 ms·

The carbon footprint of a person in "the west" is far far larger than that of a person in China, India, etc. If reducing emissions helps the environment, then i

The carbon footprint of a person in "the west" is far far larger than that of a person in China, India, etc. If reducing emissions helps the environment, then it is pretty obvious to anyone with a half developed brain that not having children (in the west) is a great way to reduce emissions. Other reasons people don't have children: - Socioeconomic disparities make it difficult to raise a family due to cost of living - Uncertainty over the future with massive droughts (we have observed them), and ever increasing food scarcity imply that down the road, future generations will have a lot of issues to deal with, so why bring more people to needlessly suffer? All in all, parent commenter assumes that young people are stupid, and fails to see that young people are generally concerned about their behaviour and the consequences. Commenter also fails to see that young people don't want to bring more humans to this planet because they don't want more people to suffer. Bringing children to life is generally a very selfish act with dire consequences to anyone involved.

boeingUH60 4y ago
> Bringing children to life is generally a very selfish act with dire consequences to anyone involved. No, it's not. I understand people having concerns about the future and especially regarding the expense of raising a child. But, to brand people "selfish" for having kids that they're able to provide good care for is silly.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  If we are all "equal", then each one of us is allocated some amount of emissions that we may produce. Bringing children to the world reduces the slice of other people, and assumes that the kids will have a good enough life without too much suffering. Many children have been born to families that had the wealth to provide for the children, but ultimately hurt them in the process or caused needless suffering.
swader999 4y ago
Should ban immigration with the same logic?
CallMeJim 4y ago
> Socioeconomic disparities make it difficult to raise a family due to cost of living Rather, the number of children per family tends to go down as income increases - compare Congo (6.2 children per woman in 2020, $577.20 GDP per capita) with Norway (1.5 children per woman in 2020, $89,154.39 GDP per capita).
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Those are not directly related (although in some way they are). Lack of education, contraceptives and social nets means that women in congo will have more children on average. If you get them all that and a stable pension after (so they won't need kids to keep them alive when old) the numbers of kids will fall. On the other hand, in the "rich" western countries, no matter how high the income number is (compared to congo), that doesn't mean that a young couple can actually afford a home large enough to have a kid or two (or more), childcare and all the other kid-related costs.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> that not having children (in the west) is a great way to reduce emissions. Why in the west? The west is already doing their (our) part by not having enough children to replace the current people here. The 'rest of the world' has too many children, in some places even too many to literally just feed. Why deal with the areas where couples have <2, even <1.5 children on average and not with areas where the numbers are 5 or even more? Also, doesn't that mean that we should also stop immigration? Moving someone from a poor country to a rich(er) one means more emissions since they tend to consume more due to more money than in their originating country.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  > Why in the west? The cost in emissions to raise a child in the west is far higher than in other countries. > The 'rest of the world' has too many children, in some places even too many to literally just feed. Countries like India and China have far lower emissions per capita than western countries, and especially if we account for carbon emissions and imports. > Why deal with the areas where couples have <2, even <1.5 children on average and not with areas where the numbers are 5 or even more? There are very few countries with as many children, all of them very low on emissions per capita, and the easiest way to drop that is by accelerating their growth, improving education, and QoL. > Also, doesn't that mean that we should also stop immigration? Moving someone from a poor country to a rich(er) one means more emissions since they tend to consume more due to more money than in their originating country. No idea. If you wish to reduce the need for immigration, the simplest way is to enable people to have children. US' policies on maternity, leave and so on are not helping the situation, and neither is the ever increasing CoL in European countries while we have as high tax rates.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    > The cost in emissions to raise a child in the west is far higher than in other countries. But the west is already way on the way to reducing population, even too much. > There are very few countries with as many children, all of them very low on emissions per capita, and the easiest way to drop that is by accelerating their growth, improving education, and QoL. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_rec... if you scroll down to the second table, sort by most recent value, you'll see many many large countries with numbers way above 2 (replacement value), and pretty much none of them will be developed western ones. Again, why should the west not have children, while the rest can have 5? Shouldn't we focus our efforts on those 5 per couple, instead of 1.5 or watever the average for eg EU is? > No idea. If you wish to reduce the need for immigration, the simplest way is to enable people to have children. US' policies on maternity, leave and so on are not helping the situation, and neither is the ever increasing CoL in European countries while we have as high tax rates. But didn't you just say that we shouldn't have children in the west, because children pollute? But moving poor people to richer countries pollutes too, since they earn more there and pollute more in turn.

boeingUH60 4y ago

> Bringing children to life is generally a very selfish act with dire consequences to anyone involved. No, it's not. I understand people having concerns about the future and especially regarding the expense of raising a child. But, to brand people "selfish" for having kids that they're able to provide good care for is silly.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
If we are all "equal", then each one of us is allocated some amount of emissions that we may produce. Bringing children to the world reduces the slice of other people, and assumes that the kids will have a good enough life without too much suffering. Many children have been born to families that had the wealth to provide for the children, but ultimately hurt them in the process or caused needless suffering.

swader999 4y ago

Should ban immigration with the same logic?

CallMeJim 4y ago

> Socioeconomic disparities make it difficult to raise a family due to cost of living Rather, the number of children per family tends to go down as income increases - compare Congo (6.2 children per woman in 2020, $577.20 GDP per capita) with Norway (1.5 children per woman in 2020, $89,154.39 GDP per capita).

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Those are not directly related (although in some way they are). Lack of education, contraceptives and social nets means that women in congo will have more children on average. If you get them all that and a stable pension after (so they won't need kids to keep them alive when old) the numbers of kids will fall. On the other hand, in the "rich" western countries, no matter how high the income number is (compared to congo), that doesn't mean that a young couple can actually afford a home large enough to have a kid or two (or more), childcare and all the other kid-related costs.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

> that not having children (in the west) is a great way to reduce emissions. Why in the west? The west is already doing their (our) part by not having enough children to replace the current people here. The 'rest of the world' has too many children, in some places even too many to literally just feed. Why deal with the areas where couples have <2, even <1.5 children on average and not with areas where the numbers are 5 or even more? Also, doesn't that mean that we should also stop immigration? Moving someone from a poor country to a rich(er) one means more emissions since they tend to consume more due to more money than in their originating country.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
> Why in the west? The cost in emissions to raise a child in the west is far higher than in other countries. > The 'rest of the world' has too many children, in some places even too many to literally just feed. Countries like India and China have far lower emissions per capita than western countries, and especially if we account for carbon emissions and imports. > Why deal with the areas where couples have <2, even <1.5 children on average and not with areas where the numbers are 5 or even more? There are very few countries with as many children, all of them very low on emissions per capita, and the easiest way to drop that is by accelerating their growth, improving education, and QoL. > Also, doesn't that mean that we should also stop immigration? Moving someone from a poor country to a rich(er) one means more emissions since they tend to consume more due to more money than in their originating country. No idea. If you wish to reduce the need for immigration, the simplest way is to enable people to have children. US' policies on maternity, leave and so on are not helping the situation, and neither is the ever increasing CoL in European countries while we have as high tax rates.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > The cost in emissions to raise a child in the west is far higher than in other countries. But the west is already way on the way to reducing population, even too much. > There are very few countries with as many children, all of them very low on emissions per capita, and the easiest way to drop that is by accelerating their growth, improving education, and QoL. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_rec... if you scroll down to the second table, sort by most recent value, you'll see many many large countries with numbers way above 2 (replacement value), and pretty much none of them will be developed western ones. Again, why should the west not have children, while the rest can have 5? Shouldn't we focus our efforts on those 5 per couple, instead of 1.5 or watever the average for eg EU is? > No idea. If you wish to reduce the need for immigration, the simplest way is to enable people to have children. US' policies on maternity, leave and so on are not helping the situation, and neither is the ever increasing CoL in European countries while we have as high tax rates. But didn't you just say that we shouldn't have children in the west, because children pollute? But moving poor people to richer countries pollutes too, since they earn more there and pollute more in turn.