4 ms·
By this logic, a far better thing to do for the environment is to increase access to birth control and abortions. Raising a child costs hundreds of thousands o
by smt88 3y ago
By this logic, a far better thing to do for the environment is to increase access to birth control and abortions.
Raising a child costs hundreds of thousands or millions. Preventing an accidental pregnancy can cost under a dollar.
- esalman 3y agoYou probably need to study birth control in context of the collapsing economies of countries like Japan, Korea and China
- kajecounterhack 3y agoAre you insinuating that accidental and unwanted pregnancies would help their plight?
- esalman 2y agoI'm saying that having less children is not necessarily good for the environment.
- smt88 2y agoWhy?
- kajecounterhack 2y agoDo you mean economy? Your comment doesn’t mention the environment. OP: “preventing unwanted pregnancies is good for environment” (because humans have big carbon footprint) You: “having fewer children is bad: see these economies” This reads as criticism of birth control and the viability of population reduction as an environmental strategy. But: 1. Do unwanted children typically contribute positively to GDP? Isn’t reducing that terrible situation just a win on all fronts? 2. How is collapsing population in developed countries related to the OP’s suggestion of widespread birth control? Are they really that related? 3. How is having fewer kids bad for environment? Afaict it is unambiguously good for that.
- smt88 2y agoHow are those countries' collapsing economies harming the environment? Also why would I want to fix an economy using unwanted children?