zlacker

[return to "I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]"]
1. 127361+ox[view] [source] 2024-01-27 19:42:36
>>onnnon+(OP)
It's taboo to say this, but people worldwide have had far too many children, and I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis, including climate change and pollution.

And that taboo is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology, people have a genetically driven tendency to criticize those who advocate having less children? So could there be an instinctual drive behind it?

https://www.flashpack.com/solo/relationships/dont-want-kids-...

https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/childfree-by-choice

◧◩
2. dagss+JG1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 08:14:43
>>127361+ox
I think there's 2 topics that need to be held apart here:

1) Limiting number of children in rich countries. This is what your links talk about I think. Yes, perhaps there is a taboo in place here.

Is that relevant to sustainability crisis though? Population is already declining in rich countries, quite naturally.

2) Limiting number of children in poorer countries. Well, as in the article pointed to in a sibling comment, "Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%"...

So by saying that overpopulation is the root of the crisis -- are you not saying that it may be better that 10 poor people are not born, than for rich people to do minor changes to their lifestyle?

◧◩◪
3. mytail+3M1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 09:15:40
>>dagss+JG1
The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment.

The global population is still increasing. Furthermore, as poor countries develop this is compounded by increased consumption (both resources and energy) per capita. In that respect, "richest 1% account for more emissions than poorest 66%" should be interpreted as very worrying when the poorest are getting richer.

Ultimately we don't anyone to be poor. At current population levels this would probably mean a total collapse of the environment.

Overall, the global population is indeed the root cause of our problems.

◧◩◪◨
4. dagss+KX1[view] [source] 2024-01-28 11:18:04
>>mytail+3M1

    > The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment.
No. "Obviously", the metric that matters is emissions. Or, the integral sum(person * emission of that person). When the emission per capita varies by a factors of 1000x, the distinction matters.

Look, what if you could choose between:

Option A: The 50% lowest polluting part of the world's population never existed. Would this make a dent towards global warming? No. Perhaps slow the onset by a few years. The overall magnitude of the problem would be the same.

Option B: Through reduced consumption and technology, reduce emissions of the 50% highest polluters by 80%. This would have a quite massive impact towards global warming AND also help when the 50% poorest increase their living standards.

Given these -- how can you say that "population" overall, without further qualification, is the problem?

Another factor here is that population growth isn't something that will continue as/if people are lifted out of poverty -- when people become richer and more educated, the birth rates invariably drops.

There are many other good comments on this page now about why you are wrong citing statistics and research reports, I encourage you to read them.

[go to top]