4 ms·

I would also like to add that adopting instead of having your own baby is the most effective way to save the planet

pinkmuffinere 2y ago
I’ve never even heard this mentioned as an environmental choice. It strikes me as very strange that this would be the _most effective_ choice we can make — do you have some sources?
- photonthug 2y ago
  If you’re receptive to any kind of argument about reducing consumption, then how could you ignore an argument about reducing consumers? People that want others to do things like avoid plastic straws but themselves have 2.5 unadopted kids per household are obviously being somewhat hypocritical
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    It is clearly possible to operate at the level of zero carbon emissions. People did it for thousands of years before the industrial revolution and modern technology runs just fine on renewable or nuclear energy. Since the emissions per person can be zero, any level of emissions reduction can be achieved with any number of people, you just need more emissions reductions per person when you have more people. "We should have both more emissions reductions and more people" is thereby an entirely consistent position. More than that, emissions reductions generally require R&D and have some economic cost, but an aging population is economically weaker and has fewer resources to spare. Meanwhile older people who aren't going to live much longer and have no descendants have less incentive to care about what happens in the future and spend those scarce resources on things like emissions reductions. People having more kids avoids that death spiral. Also, I mean, who are we trying to save the world for?
    - agent008t 2y ago
      Can the whole supply chain of modern technology operate with zero carbon emissions?
      - zekrioca 2y ago
        Not entirely, but a considerable portion can. However, the modern supply chain has to be fully tracked down first, to uncover exactly where most emissions are coming from, and then focus on understanding how to decarbonise those sectors as much as possible.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        In terms of energy, certainly. Generate electricity with non-carbon sources, then use electricity. The main difficulty would be aviation, because current batteries are too heavy, but there you could use biofuels until someone comes up with something better. You're left with things like concrete that emit CO2 from something other than burning fossil fuels. But none of those things are strictly required. There are alternatives to them with various trade offs. Some that are essentially a drop-in replacement, basically different kinds of cement that don't emit CO2, others that operate differently but get you the same result, like using entirely different building materials. The main reason these aren't already used is cost, but that doesn't mean you can't pay the cost, it just means nobody is going to do it voluntarily. It also doesn't mean that no one could come up with some new alternative with a lower cost going forward -- that sort of thing happens all the time.
    - photonthug 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. 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.
  - leononame 2y ago
    Adopting is a multi-year, sometimes decade-long process where you have to fill out lots of paperwork before you're even considered. It's no wonder that it's not most people's choice. That stuff can really grind you down
  - jabradoodle 2y ago
    Avoiding single use items that pollute the environment for hundreds or thousands of years is rational whether you want children or not. Of course using a plastic straw isn't what got us into this mess and small individual choices like that won't save us.
dyauspitr 2y ago
Not really, it’s probably going fully vegetarian and stopping cattle farming but we all know we’re not going to do that.
- pawelmurias 2y ago
  Meat production takes like 15%. This would just reverse global warming.
smt88 2y 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 2y ago
  You probably need to study birth control in context of the collapsing economies of countries like Japan, Korea and China
  - kajecounterhack 2y ago
    Are you insinuating that accidental and unwanted pregnancies would help their plight?
    - esalman 2y ago
      I'm saying that having less children is not necessarily good for the environment.
      - smt88 2y ago
        Why?
      - kajecounterhack 2y ago
        Do 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.
  - 2y ago
Al-Khwarizmi 2y ago
That kind of thing is often said, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Preserving the planet is valuable insofar as there are people to enjoy it. Without people to experience it, it wouldn't matter much. Without any sentient being to experience it, it would matter (in my view) zero. Thus, creating new people to experience it is necessary, if preserving the planet is going to be worth it at all. Of course, one can argue that there are too many people and we need to make less, but I think there are lots of lifestyle changes that need to be made before something so radical even makes sense. I.e., don't think people should make less kids so that the ones that do get made can live in a suburb and drive a car everyday. That's getting the priorities totally wrong.
- mym1990 2y ago
  There is something to be said for leaving things in a good way without the expectation of anyone coming after you to enjoy it. There is still some order to the world and the universe without humans, to think that we are the center of it all is certainly one kind of philosophy, but not the only one.
- sa-code 2y ago
  I think you're responding to the statement of not having kids at all, instead of the statement about adopting kids
tdb7893 2y ago
Realistically the lowest carbon emissions would be to just die
monktastic1 2y ago
Why not nuking the whole planet, so that nobody is left? Or maybe you want some people remaining to enjoy it, in which case why not your progeny instead of others? I find this whole line of thought fraught. Some assumption somewhere went wrong.

I’ve never even heard this mentioned as an environmental choice. It strikes me as very strange that this would be the _most effective_ choice we can make — do you have some sources?

photonthug 2y ago
If you’re receptive to any kind of argument about reducing consumption, then how could you ignore an argument about reducing consumers? People that want others to do things like avoid plastic straws but themselves have 2.5 unadopted kids per household are obviously being somewhat hypocritical
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  It is clearly possible to operate at the level of zero carbon emissions. People did it for thousands of years before the industrial revolution and modern technology runs just fine on renewable or nuclear energy. Since the emissions per person can be zero, any level of emissions reduction can be achieved with any number of people, you just need more emissions reductions per person when you have more people. "We should have both more emissions reductions and more people" is thereby an entirely consistent position. More than that, emissions reductions generally require R&D and have some economic cost, but an aging population is economically weaker and has fewer resources to spare. Meanwhile older people who aren't going to live much longer and have no descendants have less incentive to care about what happens in the future and spend those scarce resources on things like emissions reductions. People having more kids avoids that death spiral. Also, I mean, who are we trying to save the world for?
  - agent008t 2y ago
    Can the whole supply chain of modern technology operate with zero carbon emissions?
    - zekrioca 2y ago
      Not entirely, but a considerable portion can. However, the modern supply chain has to be fully tracked down first, to uncover exactly where most emissions are coming from, and then focus on understanding how to decarbonise those sectors as much as possible.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      In terms of energy, certainly. Generate electricity with non-carbon sources, then use electricity. The main difficulty would be aviation, because current batteries are too heavy, but there you could use biofuels until someone comes up with something better. You're left with things like concrete that emit CO2 from something other than burning fossil fuels. But none of those things are strictly required. There are alternatives to them with various trade offs. Some that are essentially a drop-in replacement, basically different kinds of cement that don't emit CO2, others that operate differently but get you the same result, like using entirely different building materials. The main reason these aren't already used is cost, but that doesn't mean you can't pay the cost, it just means nobody is going to do it voluntarily. It also doesn't mean that no one could come up with some new alternative with a lower cost going forward -- that sort of thing happens all the time.
  - photonthug 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. 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.
- leononame 2y ago
  Adopting is a multi-year, sometimes decade-long process where you have to fill out lots of paperwork before you're even considered. It's no wonder that it's not most people's choice. That stuff can really grind you down
- jabradoodle 2y ago
  Avoiding single use items that pollute the environment for hundreds or thousands of years is rational whether you want children or not. Of course using a plastic straw isn't what got us into this mess and small individual choices like that won't save us.

dyauspitr 2y ago

Not really, it’s probably going fully vegetarian and stopping cattle farming but we all know we’re not going to do that.

pawelmurias 2y ago
Meat production takes like 15%. This would just reverse global warming.

smt88 2y 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 2y ago
You probably need to study birth control in context of the collapsing economies of countries like Japan, Korea and China
- kajecounterhack 2y ago
  Are you insinuating that accidental and unwanted pregnancies would help their plight?
  - esalman 2y ago
    I'm saying that having less children is not necessarily good for the environment.
    - smt88 2y ago
      Why?
    - kajecounterhack 2y ago
      Do 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.
- 2y ago

Al-Khwarizmi 2y ago

That kind of thing is often said, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Preserving the planet is valuable insofar as there are people to enjoy it. Without people to experience it, it wouldn't matter much. Without any sentient being to experience it, it would matter (in my view) zero. Thus, creating new people to experience it is necessary, if preserving the planet is going to be worth it at all. Of course, one can argue that there are too many people and we need to make less, but I think there are lots of lifestyle changes that need to be made before something so radical even makes sense. I.e., don't think people should make less kids so that the ones that do get made can live in a suburb and drive a car everyday. That's getting the priorities totally wrong.

mym1990 2y ago
There is something to be said for leaving things in a good way without the expectation of anyone coming after you to enjoy it. There is still some order to the world and the universe without humans, to think that we are the center of it all is certainly one kind of philosophy, but not the only one.
sa-code 2y ago
I think you're responding to the statement of not having kids at all, instead of the statement about adopting kids

tdb7893 2y ago

Realistically the lowest carbon emissions would be to just die

monktastic1 2y ago

Why not nuking the whole planet, so that nobody is left? Or maybe you want some people remaining to enjoy it, in which case why not your progeny instead of others? I find this whole line of thought fraught. Some assumption somewhere went wrong.