5 ms·

> stop having kids I wonder if such major personal and individual sacrifices are actually worth it, and if at all effective, when we leave those handful of com

> stop having kids I wonder if such major personal and individual sacrifices are actually worth it, and if at all effective, when we leave those handful of companies which spew massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into the environment to operate

melagonster 3y ago
I don't think so. maybe giving children good education is more important.
sdenton4 3y ago
Not having a kid cuts off a whole branch of human reproduction; it's undoubtedly the best thing you can do for the planet, on the personal scale. Everything else pales in comparison.
- hgomersall 3y ago
  It might be true within a very narrow scope but is irrelevant. There is no path to climate change mitigation that involves population control that isn't substantially worse than than problem. Just as individuals' decisions are only relevant when taken in aggregate, so too should an individual act as though their behaviour was an aggregate one. Climate change solutions can only be implemented at the societal level, as is becoming abundantly clear.
- deadlast2 3y ago
  Stopping migration/immigration from poorer to richer countries would be an even better solution. Stopping all long haul air travel would even be better. If you are being honest you know this will never be solved because no one believes it.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Stopping migration/immigration from poorer to richer countries would be an even better solution Only instantaneously; integrated over the relevant timescales, the poor countries burn more while industrialising, and everyone (including the poor countries) installs renewables. I visited Kenya about a decade ago, the taxi was old enough to not have electric windows (so I suspect electric cars will take a while to become affordable for Matatu drivers); there was a geothermal power station. To actually solve the greenhouse gas problems needs everyone and everything to get greener, including air travel — given how long CO2 stays in the air, if we fixed everything worldwide except rail, that's still 400% of our global greenhouse gas budget. Aviation is about 19x, cement 30x, livestock and manure 58x; yet all of those combined — rail, air, cement, and livestock & manure — are still only about a tenth of our emissions
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  So the only people who will have kids are those who don't believe in climate change?
  - mnsc 3y ago
    And all those noble hearted pepople not having kids will make the overpopulation/competition for scarce resources look more manageble meaning those who do not believe in climate change (and/or are greedy egotisticials) might go "actually, it looks like I can still have that third child after all".
carlgreene 3y ago
Blaming those emissions on companies is such an interesting shift of blame to me. Who do you think those companies serve and who consumes the end product of whatever they’re doing?
- eesmith 3y ago
  "Serve" have multiple meanings. The title of the TV series "Are You Being Served?" refers to a customer receiving sales service from the store. However, Grace Brothers (the aforementioned store) exists to make a profit for the "Old" and "Young" Misters Grace, so in that respect the company serves its owners. The former use of "serve" is subordinate to the latter. Indeed, a widely held view is that a company serves its shareholders, and the goal of the company is to maximize shareholder wealth. If this means using greenwashing or other forms of deceit to falsely persuade the public that the product isn't harmful, then go ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing If it means ExxonMobil uses PR techniques, funding, and lobbying to discredit global warming research and limit restrictions on its ability to make money for its shareholders, then go ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni... If it means persuading governments to grant tax breaks and other subsidizes for cheap fossil fuel, making most of the population dependent on continual cheap fossil fuel with no easy way to wean themselves off, then go ahead. Lock-in is great for shareholder wealth. That's who those companies serve.
  - carlgreene 3y ago
    The vast majority of shareholder wealth increase is by either having more customers, or increasing spend per customer. Customer being the individual. How the corpos go about doing that is largely irrelevant as they're only producing emissions so that individuals can consume their goods.

melagonster 3y ago

I don't think so. maybe giving children good education is more important.

sdenton4 3y ago

Not having a kid cuts off a whole branch of human reproduction; it's undoubtedly the best thing you can do for the planet, on the personal scale. Everything else pales in comparison.

hgomersall 3y ago
It might be true within a very narrow scope but is irrelevant. There is no path to climate change mitigation that involves population control that isn't substantially worse than than problem. Just as individuals' decisions are only relevant when taken in aggregate, so too should an individual act as though their behaviour was an aggregate one. Climate change solutions can only be implemented at the societal level, as is becoming abundantly clear.
deadlast2 3y ago
Stopping migration/immigration from poorer to richer countries would be an even better solution. Stopping all long haul air travel would even be better. If you are being honest you know this will never be solved because no one believes it.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Stopping migration/immigration from poorer to richer countries would be an even better solution Only instantaneously; integrated over the relevant timescales, the poor countries burn more while industrialising, and everyone (including the poor countries) installs renewables. I visited Kenya about a decade ago, the taxi was old enough to not have electric windows (so I suspect electric cars will take a while to become affordable for Matatu drivers); there was a geothermal power station. To actually solve the greenhouse gas problems needs everyone and everything to get greener, including air travel — given how long CO2 stays in the air, if we fixed everything worldwide except rail, that's still 400% of our global greenhouse gas budget. Aviation is about 19x, cement 30x, livestock and manure 58x; yet all of those combined — rail, air, cement, and livestock & manure — are still only about a tenth of our emissions
readthenotes1 3y ago
So the only people who will have kids are those who don't believe in climate change?
- mnsc 3y ago
  And all those noble hearted pepople not having kids will make the overpopulation/competition for scarce resources look more manageble meaning those who do not believe in climate change (and/or are greedy egotisticials) might go "actually, it looks like I can still have that third child after all".

carlgreene 3y ago

Blaming those emissions on companies is such an interesting shift of blame to me. Who do you think those companies serve and who consumes the end product of whatever they’re doing?

eesmith 3y ago
"Serve" have multiple meanings. The title of the TV series "Are You Being Served?" refers to a customer receiving sales service from the store. However, Grace Brothers (the aforementioned store) exists to make a profit for the "Old" and "Young" Misters Grace, so in that respect the company serves its owners. The former use of "serve" is subordinate to the latter. Indeed, a widely held view is that a company serves its shareholders, and the goal of the company is to maximize shareholder wealth. If this means using greenwashing or other forms of deceit to falsely persuade the public that the product isn't harmful, then go ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing If it means ExxonMobil uses PR techniques, funding, and lobbying to discredit global warming research and limit restrictions on its ability to make money for its shareholders, then go ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni... If it means persuading governments to grant tax breaks and other subsidizes for cheap fossil fuel, making most of the population dependent on continual cheap fossil fuel with no easy way to wean themselves off, then go ahead. Lock-in is great for shareholder wealth. That's who those companies serve.
- carlgreene 3y ago
  The vast majority of shareholder wealth increase is by either having more customers, or increasing spend per customer. Customer being the individual. How the corpos go about doing that is largely irrelevant as they're only producing emissions so that individuals can consume their goods.