3 ms·

If we want to address climate change, we have to acknowledge that having children is the most environmentally destructive action you can possibly take. The mess

by cedws 3y ago

If we want to address climate change, we have to acknowledge that having children is the most environmentally destructive action you can possibly take. The message governments should be sending is "don't have children." 8 billion is too many. I heard from somewhere that if everybody on Earth lived a first world lifestyle, we would quickly deplete all of the available resources. Population decline is our chance to rebalance ourselves with nature.

techbro92 3y ago
Source: “I heard from somewhere”
- mobiuscog 3y ago
  We're doing it already without everyone living a first-world lifestyle, so whilst the source isn't cited, it's highly likely.
  - rnk 3y ago
    There are more efficient ways to get our needed energy, wind, water, solar. In the US we are up to 20% using this (and 20% nuclear). In other countries they will be able to transition to solar, as it will only get cheaper and cheaper. Electric vehicles will also further reduce emissions. Electricity to head and cool your home from primarily green sources will mean your personal emissions will go down. The hard thing to calculate is the net impact over time. But imagine someone in a poorer country that burns wood or coal, their electric sources are those too. They can increase their energy usage and actually improve their greenhouse gas impact. There's no panacea but we can get there.
- oska 3y ago
  Please read the Guidelines for commenting on this site https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
drak0n1c 3y ago
The opposite is true, considering your audience. In order to improve the environment those who can raise newborns with first-world nutrition, care, and education need to have more children. The economic efficiency and technological leaps that come with increasing the number of productive people would mitigate, slow, and potentially reverse climate change much more than surrendering the world to those who refine metals by mixing mercury over burning tires and will continue to reproduce without care for Malthusian handwringing. Note how the US reduced carbon emissions despite an increasing fertile population and concurrent deregulation. While others who focused only on limiting their status quo increased emissions. Human society is dynamic, not static, and linear projections and limits do not play out so simply.
- cedws 3y ago
  This is a very optimistic viewpoint. You are making out climate change to be a technology problem when in reality it's a political problem. Bringing more people into the world to do more climate research isn't going to help. There are billions of people out there that want what we have and have no regard for the climate. They'll burn as much coal and slash as many forests as they need to get there.
Terr_ 3y ago
> having children is the most environmentally destructive action you can possibly take I find the argument a little facile, because in that framework there is actually an even greater environmentally-destructive action... Deciding not to commit suicide.
- cedws 3y ago
  Suicide is traumatic. Not having children is not. Your point is also somewhat incorrect. By committing suicide you only reduce your carbon footprint by however many years you have left to live. Not having a child however prevents a whole lifetime of carbon emissions. Lifespans are increasing so that's another factor to account for.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    > Suicide is traumatic. Why is that suddenly important now? So it wasn't really about environmental impact, but about environmental impact implicitly modified by personal convenience and comfort? That's not what it sounded like. > By committing suicide you only reduce your carbon footprint by however many years you have left to live. Not having a child however With very few exceptions, a choice of dying today means someone will not beget any progeny on any subsequent day. So no, unless you are suggesting some kind of death by snoo-snoo or tube-baby-farm scenario, shuffling off this mortal coil already encompasses the "no further children" choice and broadens the human-removing even further.

by cedws 3y ago

techbro92 3y ago

Source: “I heard from somewhere”

mobiuscog 3y ago
We're doing it already without everyone living a first-world lifestyle, so whilst the source isn't cited, it's highly likely.
- rnk 3y ago
  There are more efficient ways to get our needed energy, wind, water, solar. In the US we are up to 20% using this (and 20% nuclear). In other countries they will be able to transition to solar, as it will only get cheaper and cheaper. Electric vehicles will also further reduce emissions. Electricity to head and cool your home from primarily green sources will mean your personal emissions will go down. The hard thing to calculate is the net impact over time. But imagine someone in a poorer country that burns wood or coal, their electric sources are those too. They can increase their energy usage and actually improve their greenhouse gas impact. There's no panacea but we can get there.
oska 3y ago
Please read the Guidelines for commenting on this site https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

drak0n1c 3y ago

The opposite is true, considering your audience. In order to improve the environment those who can raise newborns with first-world nutrition, care, and education need to have more children. The economic efficiency and technological leaps that come with increasing the number of productive people would mitigate, slow, and potentially reverse climate change much more than surrendering the world to those who refine metals by mixing mercury over burning tires and will continue to reproduce without care for Malthusian handwringing. Note how the US reduced carbon emissions despite an increasing fertile population and concurrent deregulation. While others who focused only on limiting their status quo increased emissions. Human society is dynamic, not static, and linear projections and limits do not play out so simply.

cedws 3y ago
This is a very optimistic viewpoint. You are making out climate change to be a technology problem when in reality it's a political problem. Bringing more people into the world to do more climate research isn't going to help. There are billions of people out there that want what we have and have no regard for the climate. They'll burn as much coal and slash as many forests as they need to get there.

Terr_ 3y ago

> having children is the most environmentally destructive action you can possibly take I find the argument a little facile, because in that framework there is actually an even greater environmentally-destructive action... Deciding not to commit suicide.

cedws 3y ago
Suicide is traumatic. Not having children is not. Your point is also somewhat incorrect. By committing suicide you only reduce your carbon footprint by however many years you have left to live. Not having a child however prevents a whole lifetime of carbon emissions. Lifespans are increasing so that's another factor to account for.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > Suicide is traumatic. Why is that suddenly important now? So it wasn't really about environmental impact, but about environmental impact implicitly modified by personal convenience and comfort? That's not what it sounded like. > By committing suicide you only reduce your carbon footprint by however many years you have left to live. Not having a child however With very few exceptions, a choice of dying today means someone will not beget any progeny on any subsequent day. So no, unless you are suggesting some kind of death by snoo-snoo or tube-baby-farm scenario, shuffling off this mortal coil already encompasses the "no further children" choice and broadens the human-removing even further.