Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Should I still have kids if I'm worried about climate change? Podcast

Posted by freya 
Should I still have kids if I'm worried about climate change? Podcast
July 22, 2021
I was hoping this podcast would take a hard line and say NO but it encourages everyone to consider their options first.
It is better than pro-natalist drivel but it is still breeder pleaser. There are several references to her book and I think this podcast is a plug for that book. She wrote a book with her pedigree (scientist) that I found sufficient evidence to disclaim within the same hour that I listened to the podcast. An hour or two more and the evidence would have been more compelling.

Quote
from podcast
Population is irrelevant to solving environment issues....

So, 20 billion less disposable diapers in landfills in a year is irrelevant? The fact that disposable diapers are the third highest item filling landfills isn't relevant to environment issues? Disposable diapers taking 500 years to biodegrade is irrelevant.....

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/disposable-diapers-add-millions-of-tons-of-waste-to-landfills-each-year-according-to-epa-report-300384344.html
https://realdiapers.org/diaper-facts/
https://healtheplanet.com/100-ways-to-heal-the-planet/diapers/

Quote
from podcast
People should have kids if they want them, they should weigh that option for themselves....

Rigghht. Because overpopulation has nothing to do with climate change, poverty and unstable economies. If everyone was honest and lived below their means that would solve the overpopulation problem in developed countries where birth control is a choice. It would mean no kids if you can't afford them. 51.8% of kids qualified for free/reduced lunches in 2014-2015. If 51.8% of the total kids weren't born (the ones that the parents can't afford) it would cut the disposable diapers in landfills in half. It would also cut down on consumption: buying crap to impress people you don't like.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_204.10.asp

Quote
from podcast
Reducing population is not the way we are going to solve the climate crisis....The focus should be on removing fossil fuels and cutting emissions in half by 2030...

See everyone living below their means and not having kids they can't afford: 51.4% of kids in US on free/reduced lunches. Ok, so we can stop using fossil fuels and figure out how to build houses out of dirty disposable diapers.
During the COVID lockdowns there were visible improvements to the air/environment while so many worked from home. Perhaps make working from home a permanent option and the government strongly encouraging it when it makes sense would help, for starters to allow the fossil fuel replacement issue to be solved? But that would hurt the states and the 100 companies responsible for most of the fossil fuel dependency by causing demand to plummet and the cost of gasoline would decline....less profits for the 100 companies....

Quote
from podcast
high consumers...1% should cut down on their consumption

High consumers: see diapers. Parents and their kids are high consumers. Kids outgrow clothes, toys, etc. all the time. The 1% aren't all living in the huge mansions sensationalized by the press, perhaps a fraction of 1% but that isn't significant. I've yet to hear her call out corporations and their very high usage of fossil fuels.

100 investor and state-owned fossil fuel companies are responsible for around 70% of the worlds GHG emissions.
Top 20 firms contribute 33% of this pollution:
https://harvardpolitics.com/climate-change-responsibility/
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/holding-major-fossil-fuel-companies-accountable

At least she isn't advocating eliminating plastic straws as the solution or recycling.
But she sure pushes "everyone" to do their part. The entire world population only accounts for 30% of the worlds GHG emissions.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/690zq1qINnbI6NXwzyG2ez
Re: Should I still have kids if I'm worried about climate change? Podcast
July 22, 2021
Population is definitely a factor. For some reason, when this issue is presented, the people who bring it up are always accused of being paternalistic and racist, as if we only cared about world population without any concern for distribution.

I am most concerned about population in developed countries on the topic of climate change. We already consume a disproportionate amount of resources, and it has been shown that having a child is the single most polluting thing you can do. I'm less concerned about population growth in developing countries as it affects the environment, because they are largely not responsible for the problem. I do care about reproduction in developing countries, but more in the sense of quality of life: I want women to have reproductive freedom and I think fewer people improves quality of life (as demonstrated through the contraceptive programs in Thailand).

Where the population in developing countries matters with regard to climate change is that with more people there will be more suffering. With less money, they will suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change. If reducing human suffering is a goal, not adding to the population would be a good way to achieve it, seeing as we're already fucked on the climate.

However, as we've seen with fires in North America and floods in Europe, nowhere on earth is safe and that is what people should be considering when it comes to climate change and reproduction. Less "will my child contribute to climate change" (although the answer is yes), but "what kind of a hell will the earth be for my child?"
So if population control isn't the answer and climate issues are the direct result of man-made pollution, then what options are there? If you want kids in a time of climate crisis, adoption and fostering are the only option where you can fulfill any desire to be a parent without creating more biological trash. Yes that child will still take up resources, but it's one that was already here.

As far as I'm concerned, if you produce biological offspring, you forfeit all right to be concerned about climate change because no amount of recycling and planting trees and waste reduction will make your carbon footprint smaller than a childless person who drives a gas guzzler and throws their trash in the river.

Since shitrags are one of the biggest sources of pollution, I wonder how breeders would react if the government decided to ban all disposable diapers in an effort to combat climate change. I'd say 99% of breeders are much too lazy to fuss with cloth diapers and the screaming would be legendary. If the ban was announced nationally, people would stock up on disposable diapers in order to resell them at an insane profit on some kind of diaper black market.

All the little things individuals can do to "do their part" won't amount to much of anything - buying resuable things whenever possible and recycling bottles do more to make people feel good about themselves than they do to actually help the environment. Good luck putting a stop to things like fossil fuels. I've heard that cow farts are depleting the ozone and that everyone adopting a vegetarian diet would help too, but that's not happening either because Americans love their cooked dead animals and there would be a revolt if meat was banned and/or jacked up in price so high that no one could afford it.

Quote
yurble
However, as we've seen with fires in North America and floods in Europe, nowhere on earth is safe and that is what people should be considering when it comes to climate change and reproduction. Less "will my child contribute to climate change" (although the answer is yes), but "what kind of a hell will the earth be for my child?"

Sadly, no breeders think that far ahead when they decided to get or stay pregnant. All they care about is "me want babby!" They don't give a shit what kind of a hellhole their offspring will inherit, so long as they get to fulfill their desire to create new people because apparently that is the only way people can find life meaningful. Then they complain about every aspect of the process as if they didn't choose it. Breeders don't have to give a crap because by the time stuff becomes really unbearably bad, they'll be long gone.
Re: Should I still have kids if I'm worried about climate change? Podcast
July 23, 2021
Quote
yurble
Population is definitely a factor. For some reason, when this issue is presented, the people who bring it up are always accused of being paternalistic and racist, as if we only cared about world population without any concern for distribution.

I am most concerned about population in developed countries on the topic of climate change. We already consume a disproportionate amount of resources, and it has been shown that having a child is the single most polluting thing you can do. I'm less concerned about population growth in developing countries as it affects the environment, because they are largely not responsible for the problem.

Paul Ehrlich, who wrote The Population Explosion and similar books forecasting doom, was busted for being a racist. Really. He moaned about the number of brown "people, people, people, people" he saw in India, but did not have as much to say about white American Jews having children. eye rolling smiley P. J. O'Rourke called him out for it.

The problem is that people with attitudes similar to Ehrlich's seemed to be the main ones talking about population control for a long time, and that helped discredit that agenda. Now, if you bring up the number of people being a problem for the environment, you'll get shouted down in some forums.
It's unfortunate that we live in a time where historical figures are not judged on the totality of their work.

Margaret Sanger has been similarly treated. She has been painted with the eugenics brush although in many cases she was simply advocating for poor people to have access to contraception.

I myself am a ruthless realist and an INTJ. I cannot fathom why giving all people, particularly poor people, addicts and those who are not in a position to raise children, access to birth control (including abortion) is a bad idea.

While some people may find it sad that anyone, regardless of means, health, and ability, cannot have as many kids as they want--being able to clothe, house, feed and interact with these kids---these are the minimum. If you cannot provide them, you should not be having kids.

But if you dare to suggest, "can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em," or suggest that people with fatal diseases should not breed, you are being "a Eugenicist" or "racist," or "ableist."

Margaret Sanger the good the bad and the ugly
If they want to cut down on fossil fuel use, they'd have to cut down on or ban a lot of plastic, since a lot of it is made from crude oil. A lot of baby stuff, like toys, bottles, and disposable diapers and more are made of plastics, so they'd have to get rid of these and parents have really gotten used to the 'throw away' convenience.

I asked a mother once what they would do if disposable diapers were banned, she said she didn't know, but my impression was that she felt it probably would make childcare not as easy.
Quote
kman
Paul Ehrlich, who wrote The Population Explosion and similar books forecasting doom, was busted for being a racist. Really. He moaned about the number of brown "people, people, people, people" he saw in India, but did not have as much to say about white American Jews having children. eye rolling smiley P. J. O'Rourke called him out for it.

The problem is that people with attitudes similar to Ehrlich's seemed to be the main ones talking about population control for a long time, and that helped discredit that agenda. Now, if you bring up the number of people being a problem for the environment, you'll get shouted down in some forums.

The us and not them isn't a credible argument for limiting population. And it certainly comes across as either elitist or racist, depending on who is us versus them. I guess some would argue it is elitist to not allow people to have as many kids as they want regardless of whether or not they can afford them. I'd argue people with these beliefs can put their money where their mouth is and pay an extra 15% in taxes per year to support said people or stop with the arguments, already.

I'm all for allowing people (who can't budget) to decide if they want to pay certain voluntary taxes: if they want free/subsidized childcare then they can pay for it over the course of their entire working lives. Don't want to pay? That is fine. Want to receive funds? You're paying at least 20 years in taxes towards the fund. Want free college for your brats? Start paying higher taxes when they are born for each kid and hope they can get into a college with the dollar amount agreed to when the child was born. Expect to pay at least 20 years of higher taxes and expect to pay more because you have the government handling your expenses rather than yourself and the money won't be loaned without interest being accrued. There is a price for bringing in a middleman. Same thing for taking a year off after breeding.

Refusing to work to get out of paying? It will come out of your Social Security check.
Give them the option to pay off the loan and not have it withdrawn as an installment payment from their paychecks.

It really isn't that different than people paying for voluntary insurance. I also have a feeling it will shut up lots of demanding, whiny people because it offers a solution to shut them up while leaving the remaining taxpayers without any obligation.

India's most populous state has proposed a 2 child policy. I hope it passes and the rest of the world passes similar laws, as one can dream (where feasible, it would be cruel to put this policy in place in a country where birth control and sterilization were not readily available).
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-most-populous-state-seeks-promote-two-child-policy-2021-07-10/
Quote
yurble
I am most concerned about population in developed countries on the topic of climate change. We already consume a disproportionate amount of resources, and it has been shown that having a child is the single most polluting thing you can do. I'm less concerned about population growth in developing countries as it affects the environment, because they are largely not responsible for the problem. I do care about reproduction in developing countries, but more in the sense of quality of life: I want women to have reproductive freedom and I think fewer people improves quality of life (as demonstrated through the contraceptive programs in Thailand)."

I agree. I'd like to see women in developing countries have the right to choose and plan their families with access to birth control and abortion. A baby born in a developing country is better than one born in a developed country from an environmental perspective.
Quote
freya

The us and not them isn't a credible argument for limiting population. And it certainly comes across as either elitist or racist, depending on who is us versus them. I guess some would argue it is elitist to not allow people to have as many kids as they want regardless of whether or not they can afford them. I'd argue people with these beliefs can put their money where their mouth is and pay an extra 15% in taxes per year to support said people or stop with the arguments, already.
Exactly. Most developing countries don't really want to stay third world as most would like to eventually be able to have the affluence and power of the first worlders. That usually comes with increased resource consumption and pollution, and a rise in population as less children and babies die from preventable disease and starvation and more people reach adulthood. Unfortunately without some kind of limitations on growth a population can grow and outstrip it's infrastructure and decimate the local environment which can lead to conditions favoring increased crime, corruption and wannabe dictators and warlords.


Quote
freya
India's most populous state has proposed a 2 child policy. I hope it passes and the rest of the world passes similar laws, as one can dream (where feasible, it would be cruel to put this policy in place in a country where birth control and sterilization were not readily available).
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-most-populous-state-seeks-promote-two-child-policy-2021-07-10/
I agree. They will have to offer incentives too to make people want to keep with it, because India can't keep going the way it is and still vainly hope that shit won't someday hit the fan.
I don't think we can turn this juggernaut of human cockroach bunnyrabbits in time...

two cents ΒΆΒΆ

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Sometimes in life it's the only weapon we have. Roger Rabbit

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login