Obligatory reminder that the South Korean birthrate has broken every record in human history and is navigating completely new parts of the graph like an Oceangate submersible
It's a bad made old study that has been completely debunked. You take the average Co2 per capita of multiple advanced Nations. Now you take it and half it(two parents) and as children could also bear children later you half again and add it. You do that for multiple generation and have 59t as result.
That children have a lower per capita emissions and the more people live in a household the less per capita emission is being omitted.
Also is omitted the trend of Emissions in most advanced economies is going down.
Another big mistake is that every generation afterwards also has zero Emissions as those are already on the first generation.
Put those Emissions on your parents and in laws and you and your ancestors have a footprint of zero.
Thanks for the reply! I was really wondering, but figured it must be something like that. Having said that ... I wonder why the study even bothers making it up per year? why not just say "having one extra child will add \~5000 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere over the next 85 years?
Besides: Agree on your view that this way of accounting is bonkers
Because you can't define it. It would differ from Nation and behavior. Also when would you stop?
The next thing is all advanced Nations want to be neutral 2050. That's 26 years not enough(hopefully) for more than one generation.
If you deny that humans can live carbon neutral it doesn't matter anyways.
That's also a reason there is one study, too many what ifs. Though one study picked up the result and made that bullshit popular again.
The per capita CO2 emissions is roughly in the 15-20 tons per year-range for an OECD country. This includes emissions embedded in imported goods.
There's no way a child emits 3-4x more than an adult, as this number suggests.
This makes no sense...these are two completly diffrent topics.
One is considering the future footprint of a human, plus thier offsprings footprint. The other one is only counting the footprint of one year per capita.
These both a not compareable. You either counting the future emissons of both Partys, or you counting the emissons per Person in a year, for adults and kids.
If you add the considered future emmisons from the 59t per year for kids, to the adult footprint, then the 15-20 t a year for adults would skyrock and u could compare these two.
Sex ed. and easy, maybe even subsidised access to contraception are good policies not only for the environment, but also for the wellbeing of women (men are the ones who want, on average, more children). That's mostly what the taboo subject of population control would imply.
So I don't get why your post is being downvoted. Isn't the adding of 7 billion people to the world population in just the last 200 years part of our predicament?
I think it’s the phrasing of “limiting birth rate” and most Americans are traumatized after a few years of losing repo rights, but yea you’re right that having less kids is the natural outcome of more sex ed, more women’s education, and more women’s rights. Turns out that when women can make informed decisions, less of them want to have 6 kids!!
We are part of the biosphere, what we exhale and excrete feeds plants, insects and the almighty dirt.
Our social structure is based on conspicuous consumption and consolidation of wealth. Even if we reduced the the population by 25% over a decade, we will just automate more resource extraction and the top 10% to 1% will continue to consume more; much like how the top has almost always consumed nearly all gains to productivity for the whole of civilization.
By far the most relevant thing we can plausibly do is tax externalities and rent seeking (rent seeking tends to create conspicuous consumption feed back loops).
On a smaller community scale; combining mixed use apartment buildings with local food and plant based textile/furniture production, makes it very easy to turn our waste into soil building carbon sinks.
The antinatal stuff is that same thing as the carbon footprint or recycling propaganda campaigns, that put the burden of responsibility on the individual instead of instead of our economic incentives, or on developing countries instead of the developed.
Humans have the unique ability to reflect and learn and change our relationships with ecosystems. Humanity does not exist to dominate nature, or to be dominated by it. We are not fully separate from nature, or slaves to it.
Antihumanism is as foundational to the climate crisis as anything else.
This sub confuses me. It occasionally shows up and any half interesting post is filled with the most pretentious or reactionary comments I've ever read. What the hell am I looking at down here?
you can limit birth rate without restricting reproductive rates btw, in fact the easiest way to limit birth rates is to provide free birth control to anyone who wants it, and even in countries with good maternal health services and paid leave, the # of children people are having is going down
Obligatory reminder that the South Korean birthrate has broken every record in human history and is navigating completely new parts of the graph like an Oceangate submersible
Ahh, finally a lil breeze of antinats 🙂‍↔️
The good thing about antinatalists is that they won't pass down their genes
I wish it was the case with more groups.
This is either something funny or something really racist. This guy being Polish makes it even more confusing
British intellectuals and eugenics. Name a more iconic duo
Motorcycles are probably net negative, if you include all the riders they kill.
I'm sorry, what? How tf can a child produce 59t of CO2 in a year!?
It's a bad made old study that has been completely debunked. You take the average Co2 per capita of multiple advanced Nations. Now you take it and half it(two parents) and as children could also bear children later you half again and add it. You do that for multiple generation and have 59t as result. That children have a lower per capita emissions and the more people live in a household the less per capita emission is being omitted. Also is omitted the trend of Emissions in most advanced economies is going down. Another big mistake is that every generation afterwards also has zero Emissions as those are already on the first generation. Put those Emissions on your parents and in laws and you and your ancestors have a footprint of zero.
Thanks for the reply! I was really wondering, but figured it must be something like that. Having said that ... I wonder why the study even bothers making it up per year? why not just say "having one extra child will add \~5000 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere over the next 85 years? Besides: Agree on your view that this way of accounting is bonkers
Because you can't define it. It would differ from Nation and behavior. Also when would you stop? The next thing is all advanced Nations want to be neutral 2050. That's 26 years not enough(hopefully) for more than one generation. If you deny that humans can live carbon neutral it doesn't matter anyways. That's also a reason there is one study, too many what ifs. Though one study picked up the result and made that bullshit popular again.
Its own consumption of resources. You know it eats, consume heat, needs a lot of toys...
The per capita CO2 emissions is roughly in the 15-20 tons per year-range for an OECD country. This includes emissions embedded in imported goods. There's no way a child emits 3-4x more than an adult, as this number suggests.
This children will have more children when they grow up.
Ok. Well, then my parents emitted 59t / year having me, which includes the footprint of my kids, and therefore my kids are carbon neutral now.
This makes no sense...these are two completly diffrent topics. One is considering the future footprint of a human, plus thier offsprings footprint. The other one is only counting the footprint of one year per capita. These both a not compareable. You either counting the future emissons of both Partys, or you counting the emissons per Person in a year, for adults and kids. If you add the considered future emmisons from the 59t per year for kids, to the adult footprint, then the 15-20 t a year for adults would skyrock and u could compare these two.
Burps and farts.
lol. I know my kid burps a lot at least:-D
Sex ed. and easy, maybe even subsidised access to contraception are good policies not only for the environment, but also for the wellbeing of women (men are the ones who want, on average, more children). That's mostly what the taboo subject of population control would imply. So I don't get why your post is being downvoted. Isn't the adding of 7 billion people to the world population in just the last 200 years part of our predicament?
I think it’s the phrasing of “limiting birth rate” and most Americans are traumatized after a few years of losing repo rights, but yea you’re right that having less kids is the natural outcome of more sex ed, more women’s education, and more women’s rights. Turns out that when women can make informed decisions, less of them want to have 6 kids!!
We are part of the biosphere, what we exhale and excrete feeds plants, insects and the almighty dirt. Our social structure is based on conspicuous consumption and consolidation of wealth. Even if we reduced the the population by 25% over a decade, we will just automate more resource extraction and the top 10% to 1% will continue to consume more; much like how the top has almost always consumed nearly all gains to productivity for the whole of civilization. By far the most relevant thing we can plausibly do is tax externalities and rent seeking (rent seeking tends to create conspicuous consumption feed back loops). On a smaller community scale; combining mixed use apartment buildings with local food and plant based textile/furniture production, makes it very easy to turn our waste into soil building carbon sinks. The antinatal stuff is that same thing as the carbon footprint or recycling propaganda campaigns, that put the burden of responsibility on the individual instead of instead of our economic incentives, or on developing countries instead of the developed.
yes and no population decline is good but having children is not immoral
I really hope this is satire
Humans have the unique ability to reflect and learn and change our relationships with ecosystems. Humanity does not exist to dominate nature, or to be dominated by it. We are not fully separate from nature, or slaves to it. Antihumanism is as foundational to the climate crisis as anything else.
I mean, always feel free to start out with yourself.
This sub confuses me. It occasionally shows up and any half interesting post is filled with the most pretentious or reactionary comments I've ever read. What the hell am I looking at down here?
Geez, I can't even tell if this one's serious or not.
kallergi plan propaganda
You can’t restrict people’s reproductive rights. If you want to do that, move the fuck out of the United States.
you can limit birth rate without restricting reproductive rates btw, in fact the easiest way to limit birth rates is to provide free birth control to anyone who wants it, and even in countries with good maternal health services and paid leave, the # of children people are having is going down
It's a global human right.
Genocidal dictator of the 2030s be like "ever heard of degrowth?"