this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
737 points (95.6% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 years ago (24 children)

This whole "have one fewer child" thing is totally bonkers, because even on the face of it, it really only makes sense for people in Western nations with their current lifestyles. It's also an average over all the people in that country, meaning it's heavily spoiled by rich kids. Essentially, 1. you can't know beforehand how your child will live and 2. emissions don't scale linearly with the number of people (again, look at the difference between countries). And then there's the anti-humane undertone of it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago (23 children)

The average environmental impact of even poor people in rich nations is many times higher than even rich people in poor nations.

a) Having fewer kids is extremely environmentally friendly, in any nation, and especially the West. Each child produces around 60x the CO2 offset by one person going vegan for life. This is just CO2. Consider the countless other ways an individual pollutes the environment during the course of their lives.

b) Migration from poor nations to rich nations is extremely damaging to the environment. Consumption matches Western patterns almost immediately.

[–] commie -1 points 2 years ago (18 children)

Having fewer kids is extremely environmentally friendly

this is some malthusian eugenicist bullshit.

[–] player2 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Humans cause pollution so fewer humans = less pollution. It's not that complicated.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fuck ecofascism. The problem is not how many we are. We are well within the planet's carrying capacity. The problem is how the richest among us live.

[–] player2 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Almost every modern human uses non-renewable resources and produces greenhouse gases either directly or indirectly. At the current rates it is unsustainable. It is the exponential growth of industry, technology, and human population that has caused the dramatic shift in climate change.

The top 10% earning Americans (>$178,000/year) created 40% of the nation's pollution according to a recent study. And that factored in the industries they worked in. That still means that the majority of climate change is caused by the activity of normal people.

[–] commie -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

doubling down on this is fucking gross

[–] player2 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Advocating for overpopulation is fucking gross. The planet is already experiencing another mass extinction event.

[–] commie 0 points 2 years ago

no one is advocating for overpopulation. I'm advocating for the silencing of malthusian and xenophobes by any means necessary.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)