8 ms·

Degrowth is a lovely euphemism for the forbidden topic of having less kids. [insert “how dare you” meme]

polygamous_bat 3y ago
That is not true in the least. A hypothetical three-genetation extended (and frankly, quite large) family of 25 in Bangladesh emits roughly the same amount of CO2 as an average American.
- mmaunder 3y ago
  Always gets political. It’s humans. We’re doing it. No question about that. Less humans will mitigate it. No question. The conversation always goes to which humans or which political faction. Start with the fact that it’s us. It is us.
  - jonjon16 3y ago
    I usually like to answer this question(?) with a quote from Jordan Peterson (paraphrased), “lift people from poverty and they and their future kids will have more time to worry about a solution”. Personally speaking, to me “controlled childbirth” (unless you are instead suggesting we kill off some people) seems a contingent for the usage of humans as livestock.
    - mmaunder 3y ago
      Reducing the birth rate below 2.2 kids per family on average results in negative population growth. We’re already seeing it in many places world wide as a result of equality and education. Simply creating awareness of the global benefits is enough. We are already facing a catastrophic global population decline mid century which is going to shock the hell out of our forever-growth economic systems. The only question is whether we’ll see a decline soon enough. Humans as livestock? Killing people? Relax dude.
- bigyikes 3y ago
  What happens when Bangladesh fully modernizes and the average Bangladeshi consumes the same amount of energy as an American today?
  - simpleblend 3y ago
    This is the key. They don't want the third-world to industrialize.
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    There is an implicit assumption that "modernization" equates large energy consumption. Carbon emission of a German is half of that of an American, so are Americans twice as "modern" (whatever that means) compared to the average German?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pelasaco 3y ago
Exactly. Countries with birth rate > 3 should be unacceptable in 2023... One of the main forces driving Europe crazy today.
- bushbaba 3y ago
  Is it fair to tell an emerging county, hey I made my wealth doing X, however you can’t do X as it’s wrong. Unlikely the emerging country will listen without the prior wealth being shared. And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth.
  - lovecg 3y ago
    Emerging countries have the benefit of modern technology though. They can buy solar panels and batteries instead of coal plants like everyone else. Also surely we do say just that all the time. X=slavery, child labor, etc.
  - pelasaco 3y ago
    > And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth Just from 2020 to 2023, more than $24 Billion in interest-free loans were distributed. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/03/31/the-time-is-now-we-must-step-up-support-for-the-poorest-countries https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/03/31/the-time-is... There is no such thing as "enough help", but each country should do its own part, and birth control is for sure important for countries with birth rate > 3 and cannot provide to its people. I came myself from a poor country and I can guarantee that there is no way to develop a long term plan, if the population increases in a high pace. There is no way to allocate money accordingly and create infrastructure in such a pace to support it.
    - bushbaba 3y ago
      24 billion is equivalent to jeff bezo's buying you a Happy Meal at McDonalds, followed by hope you enjoy the shared wealth. US's GDP is 23.32 Trillion, and US collected 5 Trillion in taxes Americans. Wealth sharing would need to be many orders of magnitude more than 24 billion over 3 years.
bushbaba 3y ago
We are having less kids though. Give it time and in 30-50 years we’ll have global population shrinkage on our hands. The issue is society as currently structured doesn’t exactly work without population growth.
- pelasaco 3y ago
  > The issue is society as currently structured There was never better structured society as we have today.. or can you point some period where we were better than now?
palata 3y ago
Proving that you don't understand what degrowth is, in one sentence.
jacquesm 3y ago
No, it really isn't. But: degrowth to a Westerner usually translates into : the developing world shouldn't develop, and meanwhile I get to keep mine. That also doesn't work. That's the kind of pulling-up-the-ladder-behind-you thinking that gets you world wars. You can have as many children as you want as a nation, but you'll have to do that in more efficient (energy, resources) ways than you did in the past if you are a developed country and you probably can still develop quite a bit if you are a developing country.

That is not true in the least. A hypothetical three-genetation extended (and frankly, quite large) family of 25 in Bangladesh emits roughly the same amount of CO2 as an average American.

mmaunder 3y ago
Always gets political. It’s humans. We’re doing it. No question about that. Less humans will mitigate it. No question. The conversation always goes to which humans or which political faction. Start with the fact that it’s us. It is us.
- jonjon16 3y ago
  I usually like to answer this question(?) with a quote from Jordan Peterson (paraphrased), “lift people from poverty and they and their future kids will have more time to worry about a solution”. Personally speaking, to me “controlled childbirth” (unless you are instead suggesting we kill off some people) seems a contingent for the usage of humans as livestock.
  - mmaunder 3y ago
    Reducing the birth rate below 2.2 kids per family on average results in negative population growth. We’re already seeing it in many places world wide as a result of equality and education. Simply creating awareness of the global benefits is enough. We are already facing a catastrophic global population decline mid century which is going to shock the hell out of our forever-growth economic systems. The only question is whether we’ll see a decline soon enough. Humans as livestock? Killing people? Relax dude.
bigyikes 3y ago
What happens when Bangladesh fully modernizes and the average Bangladeshi consumes the same amount of energy as an American today?
- simpleblend 3y ago
  This is the key. They don't want the third-world to industrialize.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  There is an implicit assumption that "modernization" equates large energy consumption. Carbon emission of a German is half of that of an American, so are Americans twice as "modern" (whatever that means) compared to the average German?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pelasaco 3y ago

Exactly. Countries with birth rate > 3 should be unacceptable in 2023... One of the main forces driving Europe crazy today.

bushbaba 3y ago
Is it fair to tell an emerging county, hey I made my wealth doing X, however you can’t do X as it’s wrong. Unlikely the emerging country will listen without the prior wealth being shared. And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth.
- lovecg 3y ago
  Emerging countries have the benefit of modern technology though. They can buy solar panels and batteries instead of coal plants like everyone else. Also surely we do say just that all the time. X=slavery, child labor, etc.
- pelasaco 3y ago
  > And it’s unlikely for wealthy countries to give up their wealth Just from 2020 to 2023, more than $24 Billion in interest-free loans were distributed. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/03/31/the-time-is-now-we-must-step-up-support-for-the-poorest-countries https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/03/31/the-time-is... There is no such thing as "enough help", but each country should do its own part, and birth control is for sure important for countries with birth rate > 3 and cannot provide to its people. I came myself from a poor country and I can guarantee that there is no way to develop a long term plan, if the population increases in a high pace. There is no way to allocate money accordingly and create infrastructure in such a pace to support it.
  - bushbaba 3y ago
    24 billion is equivalent to jeff bezo's buying you a Happy Meal at McDonalds, followed by hope you enjoy the shared wealth. US's GDP is 23.32 Trillion, and US collected 5 Trillion in taxes Americans. Wealth sharing would need to be many orders of magnitude more than 24 billion over 3 years.

bushbaba 3y ago

We are having less kids though. Give it time and in 30-50 years we’ll have global population shrinkage on our hands. The issue is society as currently structured doesn’t exactly work without population growth.

pelasaco 3y ago
> The issue is society as currently structured There was never better structured society as we have today.. or can you point some period where we were better than now?

palata 3y ago

Proving that you don't understand what degrowth is, in one sentence.

jacquesm 3y ago

No, it really isn't. But: degrowth to a Westerner usually translates into : the developing world shouldn't develop, and meanwhile I get to keep mine. That also doesn't work. That's the kind of pulling-up-the-ladder-behind-you thinking that gets you world wars. You can have as many children as you want as a nation, but you'll have to do that in more efficient (energy, resources) ways than you did in the past if you are a developed country and you probably can still develop quite a bit if you are a developing country.