Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#21

Post by hh3k0 »

baron816 wrote: post #7
bdjsjsbdb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either: a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans) b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do You're b…

Option d) technology and good government policies enables a low/no carbon future.

It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping points from which there may not be a return to the status quo.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#22

Post by dencodev »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #9
dencodev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stu…

> I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. ... so that the planet is preserved for the descendants of less environmentally responsible human beings?

Yes. Just because someone is irresponsible and votes for governments that actively work to let these awful things happen doesn't mean they deserve to die from the effects of climate change.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#23

Post by dencodev »

spacephysics wrote: post #10
dencodev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stu…

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our…

I think people should have kids if they want them. It's a big part of being human and if we can't be human then what's the point. But I think people should be more cognizant of the impact of children and no one ever seems to mention this when discussing environmentalism. I keep this opinion to myself in person because it's not my intention to direct this sentiment at any particular person, and discussing it in person can definitely feel directed.

Have kids. But please be mindful that it has a real impact, and one greater than mostly anything else you can do.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#24

Post by tarboreus »

hh3k0 wrote: post #21
baron816 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option d) technology and good government policies enables a low/no carbon future.

It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping…

We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#25

Post by amanaplanacanal »

spacephysics wrote: post #10
dencodev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism. I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stu…

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our…

> But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern.

I’m pretty sure humanity is at no risk of dying out. 90 percent of us could not have kids, and there would still be plenty of people.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#26

Post by spacephysics »

bloak wrote: post #15
spacephysics wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our…

> if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. Are you suggesting that being an "extreme environmentalist" is an inherited characteristic? Presumably not, because that would be ... eccentric, so what are you suggesting? > social pressure, if not force In most developed countries the population is falling or would be falling if it weren't for immigra…

Regarding the first quote, not that it’s necessarily inherited, but if a tenant of an idea or movement is to not procreate, then at some point either no one will be left to procreate, or the only ones left will be those who disagree. Roughly speaking. I agree it’s not as clean of an argument as I thought when writing.

Regarding the second quote, we’ve seen what government policy’s effect is on reproductive limits, such as number of children laws in China (assuming you’re alluding your that, but perhaps not). Obviously there exist other policy options, but I’d rather not have my generation, or someone else’s, be a guinea pig for such policies. Further I don’t think any government should have a right to determine specific axis of child rearing, such as limiting offspring.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#27

Post by spacephysics »

jungturk wrote: post #12
spacephysics wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like. Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists. I’m all for doing our…

It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate). The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest. I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.

My concern isn’t with the local decisions - I agree, if your local sacrifice meets your moral expectations for yourself, and that involves abstaining from reproducing, then have at it.

The danger I see is that, with most movements, once a “critical mass” of support is reached, there tends to be a sentiment of “us vs them”.

Then it’s less about accepting other people’s different beliefs (having x children vs having y or 0 children), and more of shaming/“forcing”/coercing non-believers to your side.

We see this with cancel culture today, and various other movements in recent times.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#28

Post by maheart »

tarboreus wrote: post #24
hh3k0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping…

We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.

That's only part of the solution. Energy generation makes up ~25% of emissions, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, etc. make up the other 75%. All of these will increase as the 3rd world industrialises.

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#29

Post by hh3k0 »

tarboreus wrote: post #24
hh3k0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping…

We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.

> We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.

No, we do not. Nuclear energy is by no means emission-free.

> There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0.

-- Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University

https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-e...

Re: Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis

#30

Post by tuatoru »

jl6 wrote: post #3

But although population growth in low-impact poorer nations has a small impact today, those peoples will one day (hopefully) be wealthy and high-impact, and at that point we’ll surely wish there weren’t so many. High-impact wealthy people definitely need to ratchet down their consumption, but why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?

> why can we not also address overpopulation at the same time?

We don't need to.

Overpopulation has already been addressed. Look at the CIA's World Factbook list of countries by total fertility rate. Most countries are below replacement fertility; most of the rest are rapidly approaching that state.

There is only one region of concern, sub-Saharan Africa, and even there total fertility rate is falling quite quickly.

World population is pretty much only growing because of increasing lifespans: it's just momentum. Sometime between 2045 and 2080, momentum will work towards decreasing populations without any policy effort.

Global population momentum is pretty hard to stop, so there's a much bigger payoff for much less effort if we focus on the wealthiest 500 million people in the world.

Post reply on HN