this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
535 points (87.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43494 readers
1406 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you actually want to do some about climate change, step 1 is to stop having kids.
An even less popular opinion: if you care enough about climate change to not have children you should have children. The alternative is that only people who don't care about climate change will have children.
Anyways, the fertility rate has dropped very quickly all over the developed world and the world is turning developed quickly. I'm not saying that will solve climate change but it looks like overpopulation is at least going to be solved.
This will reduce the population increase, while at the same time help children already in the world and being dealt a shit hand. It's not an easy role to take, but if it makes one child happier then it's worth it.
Every child will consume resources and be responsible for producing greenhouse gases.
My parents didnβt care about climate change. People can learn on their own.
I don't think not caring about climate change is a hereditary condition.
It's a product of the environment, which the parents set. So children of people who care about the environment is probably going to also care because that's what their parents teach them.
Step 2 is to start hunting kids
"Honey, stop the presses."
Yes the climate will be much better without pesky humans around!
Any other species have an extinction event named after them π
If you want to seriously do something about climate change, stop driving cars all the time.remake your cities to be bike and walk friendly, all of it.
Stop unbridled captialism. Buying shit you don't need fucks this planet.
Make EVERYTHING electric
Also, if you really care about climate change them you're screwed because humanity is fucked. We're not going to win this one. IF, and that is a huge if, we can win this one, the people seeing it will be the ones living in the year 3000, give or take...
One kid will contribute far more greenhouse gasses than a car will. One fewer child saves 58.6βtonnes CO2-equivalent per year, whereas going car free is only 2.4 tonnes. One less kid is better than 24 people ditching their car.
And note I said step 1. Surely there are other actions, but not having kids is by far the largest impact.
The big problem is everyone wants people to take the actions that they are ok with. Vegans think the best way to stop climate change is ending animal agriculture. Transit and bike advocates tell us itβs ending cars. Those same people will happily have multiple kids and fly around the globe without a second thought.
Oh I'll agree there. Soon we'll be 8 billion while we should have tried to level off at the 2-3 billion mark
you're fighting a losing battle. 'having kids is a good thing' is the only piece of propaganda that is distributed to probably every human. and probably the oldest one, too. it's also a base instinct, sort of hard to override by reasoning, as anyone who's ever been horny or hungry can probably attest. this is probably the best example on here related to the posted question.
for what it's worth, I do think you are correct
Well, thatβs why I thought it fits in this thread.