Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
radamfi
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:46 pm

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by radamfi » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:29 am

vexed87 wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:08 am
Go figure, but the stats in the article can only be relevant to you if you are a typical consumer, what the article fails to address is if you really want to reduce impact, you simply need to stop consuming goods and services produced by the industrial system, or simply, get out of the city and stop buying shit.

We're talking adopting appropriate tech, home grown food, second-hand goods, home schooling, home-scale energy production (solar hot water). Adding additional children who don't use the system effectively discounts their carbon emissions. What gets my goat about these environmental journalists is they can't think outside the box of industrialised society. "We could all be more sustainable if we have less children, that way we can carry on as if there is no problem for a little longer."
But can a human realistically achieve zero environmental damage? Yes you can be much better than average, but there will still be a negative impact somewhere down the line. Your body will emit greenhouse gases after death. And there is the environmental damage done on your behalf by governments which are largely out of your control. For example, armed forces and health care providers generate a vast amount of environmental damage and the sizes of those organisations are generally in proportion to the size of the population.

User avatar
vexed87
Posts: 1203
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by vexed87 » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:32 am

But can a human realistically achieve zero environmental damage?
Of course not. We are ultimately talking about emissions from fossil fuels here. CO2 emitted from burning organic matter sequestered deep underground to raise a child is very different from CO2 emitted from lifeforms that have grown relatively recently and can and will grow back, thus eliminating the CO2 emitted. The carbon cycle is a very natural thing, what we are doing is digging up CO2 which would not otherwise be in the cycle.
Your body will emit greenhouse gases after death
I guess we should abolish death then? :lol:

Even agrarian humans effectively managed to obtain all their food and energy for millennia without accelerating climate change. It was the technology that made use of drilling, mining and piping of sequestered reserves of energy that enabled population to grow beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet. Population is not the problem, it's the means by which we feed ourselves. The laws of nature can and will keep population in check, it's just that we are raiding a large reserve of energy and dealing with the consequences. When it comes to having children, it's a question of how thinly do you want to divide the resources available. In a future where there will be less energy/resources, choosing to have fewer children, and later in life is probably a good idea.

There is also little point in threating about institutions outside our personal sphere of control. One just needs to minimise their exposure and dependence on those institutions, and the laws of supply and demand will kick in. In any case, the economic burden of climate change will likely lead to austerity that will finish off those institutions in time.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by ThisDinosaur » Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:07 am

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:25 pm
7 billion people. Eventually, we will either cause an extinction event, or we will harness our fecundity. There are no other options.
There is a third option. We will reach an ecological barrier and our population will shrink down to some equilibrium level. 7 billion humans are like an algal bloom. Instead of fertilizer runoff causing algae to outgrow their O2 and sunlight supply, we have a fossil fuel runoff causing us to outgrow our topsoil and phosphorus supply.
radamfi wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:29 am
Your body will emit greenhouse gases after death.
We should seal our corpses in petroleum-based Ziploc bags so our icky CO2 doesn't contaminate the pristine Earth.

You know, too little CO2 is bad for the ecosystem as well. The first land plants evolved 430 million year ago. They evolved to exploit new resources: dry land and gasous CO2. By 300 million years ago, they had soaked up so much CO2 that global temperatures dropped and an ice age occurred. One of the largest mass extinctions in Earth's history was caused by too-little CO2. The trees that died with no one to eat and release their CO2 became our coal. Humans burning coal are doing a service to the earth.

User avatar
vexed87
Posts: 1203
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by vexed87 » Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:42 am

If we close the loops, there's plenty of phosphorus and top soil to go around. Pee in your damn garden and top contributing to soil erosion! :lol:

Of course, this is easier said than done in industrial civilization.

radamfi
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:46 pm

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by radamfi » Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:12 am

vexed87 wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:32 am
There is also little point in threating about institutions outside our personal sphere of control. One just needs to minimise their exposure and dependence on those institutions, and the laws of supply and demand will kick in. In any case, the economic burden of climate change will likely lead to austerity that will finish off those institutions in time.
What are you going to do when you or your missus or future kid get ill? Are you going to avoid going to the doctor or hospital?

Campitor
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by Campitor » Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:14 pm

People will continue to have children. Even if we reach a population equilibrium, it's no guarantee we will not exhaust our resources or blow ourselves up in some stupid nuclear war. Currently we are polluting because the true cost of pollution is being masked or diluted to 3rd parties. If the agents of pollution were directly responsible for the cost of their emissions, they would be more efficient with their waste. Economics 101 states that an item/service will be used inefficiently (amassed, excessively used, etc) if it's provided at an artificially low cost or for free. Humans have a large C02 footprint because it's cheap and/or more desirable compared to the current alternatives. And there would be a massive reduction on healthcare cost and use if humans ate healthier and exercised - most do neither.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Fuck the world till it spins on a broken axis

Post by fiby41 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:05 am

Image

Jean
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by Jean » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:36 pm

Stop having white babies so we can justify brown people replacing you on your own homeland.

Stahlmann
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by Stahlmann » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:53 pm

Jean wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:36 pm
Stop having white babies so we can justify brown people replacing you on your own homeland.
On system level I think that "west" (from North America, West Europe, Australia, NZ) people got very, very, very lazy in terms of having children after development of hormonal contraception in 70'...

Somebody needs to keep the system working :lol: . The problem is that nowaday's immigration culture is totally different from the current one in the west world.

In the past, for example people from East Europe needed to get used to "native" culture (or they got punished very severly). Today's influx is not the same :evil: (I think it should be the price for better living).

Cases where some minority becomes extra pause during work on spiritual ground make me sick. And I am the biggot, because I fight for somewhat equality...

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by BRUTE » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:58 pm

Stahlmann wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:53 pm
Somebody needs to keep the system working
that's, like, Stahlmann's opinion, man

Stahlmann
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by Stahlmann » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:41 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:58 pm
Stahlmann wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:53 pm
Somebody needs to keep the system working
that's, like, Stahlmann's opinion, man
I think that (for example) self-breeding for read meat would be time consuming, so it's better that some people stay in workforce and provide cheap products due to industralization. With the lentils is the same :lol: !

I also hate when people refer to Big Lebowski here, because not everybody can find good paying job, enjoy
the work itself and this character is totally out of touch with previous mentioned qualities :roll: (aside being hardcore laid-back attitude).

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by BRUTE » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:41 pm

brute's money is on the system crashing. asteroid 2020!

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by fiby41 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:42 pm

Jean wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:36 pm
Stop having white babies so we can justify brown people replacing you on your own homeland.
That's racist. ding

Can't help it that the above bell goes off automatically in my head due to watching too many CinemaSins.

When dealing with Islam it is important to keep in mind the distinction between Islam as a doctrine and the Muslims, a group of people who were born into an Islamic environment. There is nothing intrinsically Islamic about human beings, not even when they are named Mohammed or Aisha.

In Europe the secularist left accuses the national‑populist and xenophobic parties of a "biologization of cultural differences". When the said parties plead that they have put "racism" behind them, that they have nothing against coloured people or foreigners per se, and that they only fear for social disharmony as a consequence of the co‑existence of European and immigrant cultures, their opponents rightly argue that this implies a belief in the permanent character of people's cultural identity. By assuming that immigrant foreigners are bound to remain culturally foreign, the xenophobes treat cultural identity as if it were a racial characteristic: a permanent and hereditary trait. In reality, of course, cultural identities change, e.g. most second‑generation Hindu immigrants have moved rather closely towards the mainstream culture of their adopted countries. Cultural identity including religion is not a permanent or hereditary trait.

This secularist "biologization of Islam" is also assumed, quite mindlessly, by most people.
Moreover, this approach of shielding Islam from critical enquiry is unfair to Islam by emphatically ignoring Islam's own self-definition as a religion based on a truth claim, viz. that "there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is Allah's prophet", a truth claim which can and must be evaluated as either true or false.
The harder they try to be secular, the more they reduce the Islam problem to one of co-existence with a community which is somehow different, though the nature of that difference is emphatically not up for analysis.
Example, Not one bad word will they say about Islam, even though it is Islam and nothing else which separates the Indian Muslims from their fellow Indians.

Finally, this non-doctrinal approach to the Muslim community creates the impression of a purely xenophobic motivation, similar to that of anti-foreigner parties in the west. Xenophobic parties in the west are faced with the problem that the country which they claim for their own nation is "invaded" by an outsider population which they cannot or will not assimilate. The cadres of these parties are often ideologues of ethnic or racial purity who do not want to assimilate Blacks or North-Africans or Turks, just as their grandfathers once rejected the assimilation of Juice. The recent electoral growth of these parties is mainly due to working-class people who have assimilated immigrant labour (Italians, Poles) before but who now find that certain new immigrant groups (particularly Muslims) in their neighbourhoods cultivate their separateness. They fear that, they can not assimilate these separatist newcomers, and that their children will be faced with a civil war. Either way, the starting-point of these xenophobic parties is the separateness or non-assimilation of foreigner populations, and their only solution is to send these immigrants back to their countries of origin.

The best example of this alleged similarity is the common complaint about the Islamic birth rate.

1. The non-whites in the USA do not or need not form a genuine problem for US whites, because people of different ethnic backgrounds can and do share in the same American Dream, can and do participate in a common American society. By contrast, Islam in India is intrinsically separatist and aiming for hegemony and ultimately for the destruction of Hinduism through conversion or otherwise.
There is nothing intrinsically anti-white about blacks, but there is definitely something intrinsically anti-Hindu about Islam.
For this reason, the concern of whites about the growth of non-white groups in the USA is reprehensible, but the concern of Hindus and non-Muslims about the growth of Islam is entirely justified.

2. people's membership of certain racial groups, black or white or other, is unchangeable. While the potentially alarming adherence of people to Islam is entirely changeable. And it is at this last point that the secularist acceptance of the Islamic identity of the Muslims distorts the picture.

Muslims have walked into Islam, and they are bound to walk out again as well. Conditioning of Islamic indoctrination is powerful. Yet it's still a superficial imposition. So it's susceptible to the law of impermanence. That is why any solution which starts by assuming the race basis or Muslimness of Muslims, is mistaken.

User avatar
vexed87
Posts: 1203
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by vexed87 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:59 am

radamfi wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:12 am
vexed87 wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:32 am
There is also little point in threating about institutions outside our personal sphere of control. One just needs to minimise their exposure and dependence on those institutions, and the laws of supply and demand will kick in. In any case, the economic burden of climate change will likely lead to austerity that will finish off those institutions in time.
What are you going to do when you or your missus or future kid get ill? Are you going to avoid going to the doctor or hospital?
I have highlighted that key word for you. I am not advocating a fundamentalist approach where all carbon emissions from non-personal institutions are banned, there's no point, that ain't happening anyway. The footprint of an individual in healthcare institution who eats well, exercises and generally doesn't do stupid risk taking activity is negligible. The whole healthcare system has to be centralised because of the scale of the problem of poor lifestyles. Some people just get dealt bad cards sure, and my wife and I have very personal experience of that too.

Way back when I was a kid, I remember a local doctor could come to you to prescribe a course of antibiotics if you were bed ridden, now you might get blue lighted by ambulance to A&E. Home visits would never happen these days, particularly in the US, they wouldn't be able to bill you for the overnight stays, bed changes, round the clock 'assessments' etc etc. I imagine the home visit model of healthcare might return, if the centralised bureaucratic healthcare system collapses.

In the mean time there is a moral dilemma, consume non-renewable resources today in exchange for extending one's own life at the expense of our children and grand children having a hard time with climate disasters. I claim no moral high ground. My wife has had life saving procedures only available because of advanced healthcare, she has implanted electronics that keep her bladder functioning, without them she would get frequent bladder/kidney infections. Before treatment, she had been in intensive care with septic shock several times and would have died without IV antibiotics. The implants weren't available 10 years ago. Had her condition developed then, she would have succumbed to an infection sooner or later.

I'm lucky she is around now, and every day with her is a blessing. Her implants are not permanent however, they need replacing every 3-5 years because of the batteries. I have already come to terms with the fact that if there is a major economic shock, or even just scaling back of healthcare here in the UK due to declining resources, I may lose my wife as a result. It sucks, but that's life. No one lives forever, and there's no god given right to healthcare treatment. Just about everything about modern society today is only possible because of our exploitation of non-renewables. However, if we can acknowledge that, we can take steps to protect the most important aspects of healthcare, and find a way to make them run without fossil fuel inputs. I won't hold my breath though and intend to make the most of my time with my wife whilst she is fit and well.

Jean
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by Jean » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:07 am

@fiby41

All your points are correct.
But even if immigrants are all nice and assimilating, if one group stop to have child, and people from another group massively immigrate to where the first group used to live, the first group is going to be wiped out.
You can think it as no importance.
I think it has some importance.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2838
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:50 am

I interact on a regular basis with immigrant children from all over the planet. I can't even tell you how many times a tiny child who can barely put together 3 words in English has said something like "You have pretty hair like Elsa" to me. I don't think we are quite yet in need to worry about the death of all Western "culture" mode :roll:

One thing I have noted, but will not quite be able to fully articulate/expound upon, is that there is something inherently different about today's racism compared to the racism of my childhood. Like racism used to be heavier and believe itself to be more informed, and now it is lighter, or maybe more diffuse, and also knows itself to be more clueless. Like the N-word used to clang like a hammer on a railway tie, or a steel door slowly, but surely, slamming shut, but now it buzzes shrilly to quick cut, like a cheap,noisy hand-held sports game with a short-circuiting error function.

Jean
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by Jean » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:10 am

I don't care about our actual culture. Most of it is shit.
But if Rhinos are put on an alp and are being milked and are dressed with bells for parade, they won't become cows.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by BRUTE » Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:25 am

brute is confused as to why there is such a strong "all or nothing" culture about culture. clearly, many parts of any culture are terrible. most cultures have at least a few great parts, though.

brute enjoys individualism and capitalism in western culture, the family and sense of community/duty, and much better diet/physical culture in many parts of Asia.

wouldn't it be obviously better to simply copy other cultures instead of arbitrarily deciding that this set of cultures is set in stone, and humans have to choose all or nothing?

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 9064
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by jacob » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:19 pm

@brute sounds like one of those cafeteria-style culture-consumers (like me) who values personal autonomy and thinks of people as "individual individuals" who exist in isolation of each other picking and consuming "behaviors" according to their preferences insofar as they can afford to do so. E.g I'll take some Japanese Sake from this culture; some SubTropic maniana from that culture; and some "show up on time from that culture" ... and then build/consume my own personally perfect combination and that'll be great...

Whereas the majority of humans think of culture [in terms of skin-albedo or football shirt-uniforms] as some kind of identifier for team-affiliation rather instead of some historical genotype-latitude thing that serves as a measure to include/exclude individuals by some measure they can't personally control because they were born that way (and thus be pissed about insofar others superficially judge them accordingly). In which case ... Under no circumstance can they ever even be associated with that OTHER thing as long as it's branding wrongly. Like, ACA is cool ... but ObamaCare is the worst, because that [Care] concept has Obama in the word... It's very different worlds.

Standard normal humans prioritize mostly "group-belonging" over "individual autonomy". Wise-choice too, because standard-normal-humans are mostly mince-meat when left to their own devices happily shooting themselves in the foot in the name of comfort and convenience. As seen elsewhere ... all those ideal ideas go right out the window once more "genetic concerns" enter the picture.

brute might be temporarily confused(?) because many humans (who prefers the former) has elevated "freedom" to a slogan... using pretty much the opposite of what they think and do as a battle call: "That's what you are. But what am I?" Everybody who graduated from 3rd grade understands how this works and how well it works. Or maybe not .., C'est la vie ... plus la change... le blah le blah, eh?

On the opposing side of team-oriented humans who prefer other humans to side with their shirt-color for the good of ... whatever ... there's also the SJW and other single-issue religious [ehh uhh ... freedom] peeps who think that sociological problems are most easily solved by convincing the other 80% to change their personal values to ... whatever [mine is]. Ha! Fat chance! But such is democracy ... It's a rather imperfect clusterfuck.

So here we are ... for the past 10-20 years, already. So humans have figured that maybe multi-culturalism should solve this problem? If only all humans "diversified" their cultural values and learned to enjoy a wide variety just like a rare minority has already figured it out... then the random human could enjoy some aspect of whatever value they were holding. Does that sound familiar? ;-) Yes! ... but no. Not gonna work. Because only a minority of humans are sufficiently open-minded. Most are not!

Humans are too crude to for this level of complexity. Humans could ... but they don't.

George the original one
Posts: 4279
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by George the original one » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:39 pm

Jacob, LOL!

There's a story by A.E. Van Vogt (I think... couldn't find it the last time I looked) about aliens taking over the world and reorganizing human civilization such that the cultural differences are stamped out. Reclassifying people to do the work they enjoy doing, etc. Naturally there are humans trying to organize a rebellion and the aliens fall into the trap of having to grant cultural privileges to get cooperation. Like allowing a cultural minority to continue speaking Frisian so they'd do some strongarm stuff...

Ultimately these little privileges provide the crowbar to repel the alien takeover even though humanity would have been better off with the aliens in charge.

Edit: "Pendulum" is the story. Thanks, google!

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by BRUTE » Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:47 pm

jacob wrote:
Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:19 pm
Humans could ... but they don't.
if they don't, is it accurate to say that they could? determinism is strong in brute.

enigmaT120
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by enigmaT120 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:47 pm

I thought I had all of A.E. Van Vogt's stuff in my library, but that one doesn't sound familiar.

Isabel
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:11 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by Isabel » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:05 pm

Having fewer children won´t change anything. Such actions (convincing people not to have children) will not work. Only China like measures would have some effect but they will not be introduced on the global level.

It seems however that population issue will solve itself gradually as nature is taking its course. There are already visible processes where this is happening:

1. Antimicrobial resistance is on its rise and will only increase.
2. Infertility is on the rise. There are studies that male sperm count halved over the last 50 years. Therefore in the developed countries it is already difficult to conceive. In Denmark every 5th male is already infertile. (This is mostly due to phtalates in plastics, which are emulating estrogens in the body).

Therefore over the years (also due to other civilisation diseases) human population will probably decimate quite naturally. There must be no major war or famine.

ducknalddon
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by ducknalddon » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:38 am

I suspect birth control will have more effect than disease or famine, most of the developed world is already below replacement level and the rest are catching up fast.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Post by fiby41 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:46 am

Social security provided by govt is more effective birth control than biological/medical birth control.

Post Reply