3 ms·

> 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,

> 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.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  > 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? I did not express that only we should do it. I simply said that having fewer children, especially in western world, is a very obvious way to reduce carbon footprint. > But didn't you just say that we shouldn't have children in the west, because children pollute? That's not what I said. I said that it is pretty selfish, both towards other people, _and_ towards the children themselves but people seem to have glossed over the latter. Just because I find it selfish doesn't mean that we should be doing what I propose. If it was up to me, we'd be heading for a voluntary human extinction, but for better or worse, we are not. I simply pointed out that claiming that young people are stupid and fall into traps is not the reason they don't have children.

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.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
> 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? I did not express that only we should do it. I simply said that having fewer children, especially in western world, is a very obvious way to reduce carbon footprint. > But didn't you just say that we shouldn't have children in the west, because children pollute? That's not what I said. I said that it is pretty selfish, both towards other people, _and_ towards the children themselves but people seem to have glossed over the latter. Just because I find it selfish doesn't mean that we should be doing what I propose. If it was up to me, we'd be heading for a voluntary human extinction, but for better or worse, we are not. I simply pointed out that claiming that young people are stupid and fall into traps is not the reason they don't have children.