4 ms·

It sounds like you’re in favor of change via top down regulations, so you’re not arguing for bottom up reduction of consumption. My point is, people who do arg

It sounds like you’re in favor of change via top down regulations, so you’re not arguing for bottom up reduction of consumption. My point is, people who do argue for reducing consumption must consider the fact that consumption hinges on consumers, so either they should adopt or they have rejected their own premises I personally take the view that policing individual consumption is meaningless, but I still notice the doublethink required for those that have that view to rationalize their choices to not adopt. > who are we saving the world for? The future, regardless of whether those people are genetically derived from our selves. Having your own children is often viewed as a selfless act, which is weird, because if you do that when you could adopt an orphan, and if we’re being honest, then it’s one of the most selfish things you can do.

ryanjshaw 2y ago
> My point is, people who do argue for reducing consumption must consider the fact that consumption hinges on consumers, so either they should adopt or they have rejected their own premises This argument is absurd and naive. Mass murder and your suicide would also reduce consumers. Clearly there are other factors to consider over and above the raw numbers, many of which are cultural and subjective.
- photonthug 2y ago
  Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m pretty much in favor of do no harm, which certainly excludes advocating or enacting murder or suicide. Do no harm also means, if you think consumption is harmful then you do need to avoid opting into creating maybe 50-100 Years of extra consumption per child just for the satisfaction of knowing your genes will be doing the consumption. Are there ever acceptable cultural or subjective reasons to excuse “rules for thee but not for me”?
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> It sounds like you’re in favor of change via top down regulations, so you’re not arguing for bottom up reduction of consumption. It could be achieved either way. If you want to e.g. replace gasoline cars with electric cars, you could have some kind of government incentives, or you as an individual could just choose to buy an electric car and put solar panels on your roof to charge it. > people who do argue for reducing consumption must consider the fact that consumption hinges on consumers But it doesn't. The rate of consumption is number of consumers times consumption per consumer. You can increase number of consumers while reducing consumption per consumer and end up with a net reduction, as long as the latter is larger. Since consumption per person can get arbitrarily close to zero, it's entirely consistent to want to get there that way than by reducing the population, which has all kinds of terrible consequences. > Having your own children is often viewed as a selfless act, which is weird It costs a significant amount of money and primarily benefits someone else (the child). You have to forego a lot of luxury vacations and early retirement to pay for books and food and college. > if you do that when you could adopt an orphan The fertility rate is below the population-replacement rate. That includes the orphans. If the fertility rate was only the orphans, it would be far lower than it even is already and we would be completely screwed. Not only that, by your logic the orphans' parents are selfish too, but then who is it that you think should be having kids if the human race is not to go extinct?

ryanjshaw 2y ago

> My point is, people who do argue for reducing consumption must consider the fact that consumption hinges on consumers, so either they should adopt or they have rejected their own premises This argument is absurd and naive. Mass murder and your suicide would also reduce consumers. Clearly there are other factors to consider over and above the raw numbers, many of which are cultural and subjective.

photonthug 2y ago
Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m pretty much in favor of do no harm, which certainly excludes advocating or enacting murder or suicide. Do no harm also means, if you think consumption is harmful then you do need to avoid opting into creating maybe 50-100 Years of extra consumption per child just for the satisfaction of knowing your genes will be doing the consumption. Are there ever acceptable cultural or subjective reasons to excuse “rules for thee but not for me”?

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> It sounds like you’re in favor of change via top down regulations, so you’re not arguing for bottom up reduction of consumption. It could be achieved either way. If you want to e.g. replace gasoline cars with electric cars, you could have some kind of government incentives, or you as an individual could just choose to buy an electric car and put solar panels on your roof to charge it. > people who do argue for reducing consumption must consider the fact that consumption hinges on consumers But it doesn't. The rate of consumption is number of consumers times consumption per consumer. You can increase number of consumers while reducing consumption per consumer and end up with a net reduction, as long as the latter is larger. Since consumption per person can get arbitrarily close to zero, it's entirely consistent to want to get there that way than by reducing the population, which has all kinds of terrible consequences. > Having your own children is often viewed as a selfless act, which is weird It costs a significant amount of money and primarily benefits someone else (the child). You have to forego a lot of luxury vacations and early retirement to pay for books and food and college. > if you do that when you could adopt an orphan The fertility rate is below the population-replacement rate. That includes the orphans. If the fertility rate was only the orphans, it would be far lower than it even is already and we would be completely screwed. Not only that, by your logic the orphans' parents are selfish too, but then who is it that you think should be having kids if the human race is not to go extinct?