Everyone is entitled to their own ideas, but are we really associating 'peak baby' with global pollution? Humans certainly contribute to pollution, but we should address some ethical questions first.
Well, yes.
And, what are the ethical questions we should address first?
Regarding China: China accounted for 95% of the world's new coal power construction activity in 2023, according to the latest annual report from Global Energy Monitor (GEM). Construction began on 70 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity in China, up four-fold since 2019, says GEM's annual report on the global coal power industry China started construction on 70.2 GW of new coal-power capacity last year, almost 20 times the…
China is simultaneously also adding much more solar, wind and nuclear power than any other country, plus much of the new coal construction is also meant to replace old, horrifically inefficient/polluting ones.
Also China's population are moving from the frozen north to the warm south, construction standards are increasing (better insulation), cooking is being outsourced (fewer kitchens), and they lead the world in mass transit / ride hailing / vehicle sharing / portable e-vehicle (scooter/wheel types). China has possibly reached peak personal vehicle. Local governments frequently spray water along main roads to bring down air pollution levels - surprisingly effective for PM2.5 - and most cities are pushing industrial land use far out of town.
> - Peak baby - 2013. [2] I think your source's claim that "The planet will never see more babies than it has in 2013" is open to question. To just use the US as an example: mainstream Americans have a declining fertility rate, and we have no reason to think that is going to reverse in the foreseeable future. Immigrants have higher fertility, but they tend to converge to the mainstream after a generation or two. So,…
Putting aside the considerable statistical skepticism, the natural next question we all have at noticing these trends is - is there any way for secular society to get some of the "special sauce" these ultra-religious groups have, before the aggregate supply of everything starts to fall? Secular pronatalism doesn't seem like it has a lot of staying power with most people as an ideology. But I've been on board for a lo…
I’m sceptical about how successful secular pronatalism can be. Large families, generation after generation, can come at a substantial personal cost, and it is a difficult sell for individuals if it is just a matter of principle, as opposed to something backed by promises and threats of post mortem reward and punishment. Furthermore, many religious pronatal groups reduce defections by socially ostracising and demonising defectors, making defection expensive. That kind of behaviour is much easier to justify given religious premises than secular ones. So I doubt secular pronatalism is ever going to be as successful as religious pronatalism. At its best, it might see some success under particularly favourable circumstances, but religious pronatalism will thrive in far less favourable conditions
> - Peak baby - 2013. [2] I think your source's claim that "The planet will never see more babies than it has in 2013" is open to question. To just use the US as an example: mainstream Americans have a declining fertility rate, and we have no reason to think that is going to reverse in the foreseeable future. Immigrants have higher fertility, but they tend to converge to the mainstream after a generation or two. So,…
Putting aside the considerable statistical skepticism, the natural next question we all have at noticing these trends is - is there any way for secular society to get some of the "special sauce" these ultra-religious groups have, before the aggregate supply of everything starts to fall? Secular pronatalism doesn't seem like it has a lot of staying power with most people as an ideology. But I've been on board for a lo…
The special sauce seem to be forbidden contraceptives and limited opportunities.
Yes, there's also a kind of mandate in the bible to be fruitful and multiply, and the fact that if you grow up in a larger family you tend to have a larger family, but I would bet the other factors matter more.
If economic and political capture fail to destroy civilization before climate change does I’ll be glad because we have science for the latter but not the former. Science almost always gives you a fighting chance but there seems to be no motivation let alone research directions on unchecked income inequality. I’m from the United States, a very wealthy country if you use the arithmetic mean to calculate prosperity (whi…
The problem is that the two are entangled. Those at low incomes (heck even middle income), will be disproportionately hurt by climate change.
I think the problem is that the best and brightest (of which HN’s readership is a plausible sample) dislikes this observation: a great many people who rarely use anything but hard rationality still believe that not only will they be the one to join the tiny elite (can’t be all of them, most are wrong by construction), but that this is acceptable.
Of secondary importance is what a depressing commentary this is on the ethical caliber of our intellectual elite.
Of primary importance is that only a tennis court and a guillotine will stop them, something one hopes we’d all like to avoid.
> - Peak baby - 2013. [2] I think your source's claim that "The planet will never see more babies than it has in 2013" is open to question. To just use the US as an example: mainstream Americans have a declining fertility rate, and we have no reason to think that is going to reverse in the foreseeable future. Immigrants have higher fertility, but they tend to converge to the mainstream after a generation or two. So,…
I heard the retention of their offspring was 20%, so they have 5x more offspring, but only 20% of that stays 'in the group', net result 0.
> - Peak baby - 2013. [2] I think your source's claim that "The planet will never see more babies than it has in 2013" is open to question. To just use the US as an example: mainstream Americans have a declining fertility rate, and we have no reason to think that is going to reverse in the foreseeable future. Immigrants have higher fertility, but they tend to converge to the mainstream after a generation or two. So,…
The fact that these are still very much niche interests after many generations indicates that the social indoctrination processes needed to maintain such cultures are not scalable.
We may not yet have had the war that ends all wars. Whenever I think about protecting the environment, I think about preventing the catastrophes that are wars.
It would seem politicians, especially in the West do not care at all about that concern.
> - Peak baby - 2013. [2] I think your source's claim that "The planet will never see more babies than it has in 2013" is open to question. To just use the US as an example: mainstream Americans have a declining fertility rate, and we have no reason to think that is going to reverse in the foreseeable future. Immigrants have higher fertility, but they tend to converge to the mainstream after a generation or two. So,…
I heard the retention of their offspring was 20%, so they have 5x more offspring, but only 20% of that stays 'in the group', net result 0.
Kiryas Joel, New York, is growing over 50% per decade. That is not consistent with “net result 0”.
If you look at the actual statistics on the growth of ultra-Orthodox Jews in the US and Israel, and Old Order Amish in the US, the actual figures are inconsistent with “net result 0”
Putting aside the considerable statistical skepticism, the natural next question we all have at noticing these trends is - is there any way for secular society to get some of the "special sauce" these ultra-religious groups have, before the aggregate supply of everything starts to fall? Secular pronatalism doesn't seem like it has a lot of staying power with most people as an ideology. But I've been on board for a lo…
I’m sceptical about how successful secular pronatalism can be. Large families, generation after generation, can come at a substantial personal cost, and it is a difficult sell for individuals if it is just a matter of principle, as opposed to something backed by promises and threats of post mortem reward and punishment. Furthermore, many religious pronatal groups reduce defections by socially ostracising and demonisi…
To be successful, I think we need to bring back the "it takes a village to raise a child" mentality. We need to take some of the burden off of the parents.