The environmental disaster called children

There's a mainstream article on the topic and the author has also written an academic paper.

Figures he's a duh, though - even people who consider themselves aware can't seem to get away from that, can they? That's why he's sticking with the palatable "one fewer" rather than carrying his views to the logical conclusion that his own actions are unethical.

Quote
Mainstream article
A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.

Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That data was recycled this past summer in a paper showing that none of the activities most likely to reduce individuals’ carbon footprints are widely discussed.

Exactly what many of us have been saying. It's the elephant in the room, but nobody wants to talk about those measures individuals can take which are unappealing to most.

Quote
Academic article
Contrary to political and philosophical consensus, we argue that the threats posed by climate change justify population engineering, the intentional manipulation of the size and structure of human populations. Specifically, we defend three types of policies aimed at reducing fertility rates: (1) choice enhancement, (2) preference adjustment, and (3) incentivization. While few object to the first type of policy, the latter two are generally rejected because of their potential for coercion or morally objectionable manipulation. We argue that forms of each policy type are pragmatically and morally justified (perhaps even required) tools for preventing the harms of global climate change.

Governments and people are a-fucking-okay with preference adjustment and incentivization when it comes to have children, in the form of advertisements encouraging reproduction and baby bonuses. So I fail to see what possible ethical problem there could be with methods 2 and 3 toward the opposite aim. Most people are so fucking pronatalist they can't even see the hypocrisy.

And if he thinks choice enhancement is already accepted, he should talk to a CF woman under 30 in any western country, and ask her about her sterilization attempts.

Choice enhancement poses a big problem even after reaching the magic 30. Doctors still don't want to sterilize you and some even start questioning you if you come to renew the birth control prescription, usually trying to scare you with declining fertility. (At which i usually respond: Great! Can it decline a bit faster?)

I bookmarked the link and will read it later on today - this rock called Earth has very serious problems with overpopulation.

Third world countries need to have forced birth control.

A good, strong secular education for these people is the only way to get the 9 BILLION people under population control.

Some of these people are breeding their lives away and it is cause for major disasters.

All one needs to do is read the latest international news to see what is happening to the globe and it is NOT pretty at all.

Quote
selidororous
I bookmarked the link and will read it later on today - this rock called Earth has very serious problems with overpopulation.

Third world countries need to have forced birth control.

Developed countries are actually worse in some ways: we may create fewer people, but each of us is using many, many times the amount of resources of people in developing countries.

Quote
yurble

Quote
selidororous
I bookmarked the link and will read it later on today - this rock called Earth has very serious problems with overpopulation.

Third world countries need to have forced birth control.

Developed countries are actually worse in some ways: we may create fewer people, but each of us is using many, many times the amount of resources of people in developing countries.

True enough.

I think in dire enough circumstances, goods will have to be rationed, like during WW2.

Too many people, too much waste.

Food and gas being at the top of the list. Ugh.

Quote
selidororous
True enough.

I think in dire enough circumstances, goods will have to be rationed, like during WW2.

Too many people, too much waste.

Food and gas being at the top of the list. Ugh.

And guess who are the ones who will suffer more from rationing. It was i think on this board where i was reading about water rationing in some places with drought and the ones without kids had much less given to them.

Yes, i know, you have kids and you are entitled to have more because of them but applying this logic people will continue breeding because they know kids will bring them benefits.

Now, don't get me started on breeders who jump at my throat because i'm not a vegan or i don't use a menstrual cup.

Quote
yurble

Quote
selidororous
I bookmarked the link and will read it later on today - this rock called Earth has very serious problems with overpopulation.

Third world countries need to have forced birth control.

Developed countries are actually worse in some ways: we may create fewer people, but each of us is using many, many times the amount of resources of people in developing countries.

Developed countries might be worse in the carbon footprint, but developing countries are just as bad in their own ways. All of those extra people need land and money, so they will cut down rainforests, poach endangered and keystone species to extinction and just eat everything not nailed down when their numbers get too much much for any given area.

Plus many of them want Western levels of prosperity. They might not be able to get it right away, but it doesn't stop them from trying to attain it.