zlacker

That is not true in the least. A hypothetical three-genetation extended (and frankly, quite large) family of 25 in Bangladesh emits roughly the same amount of CO2 as an average American.

>>polyga+(OP)
Always gets political. It’s humans. We’re doing it. No question about that. Less humans will mitigate it. No question. The conversation always goes to which humans or which political faction. Start with the fact that it’s us. It is us.

>>polyga+(OP)
What happens when Bangladesh fully modernizes and the average Bangladeshi consumes the same amount of energy as an American today?

>>bigyik+94
This is the key. They don't want the third-world to industrialize.

>>mmaund+M2
I usually like to answer this question(?) with a quote from Jordan Peterson (paraphrased), “lift people from poverty and they and their future kids will have more time to worry about a solution”. Personally speaking, to me “controlled childbirth” (unless you are instead suggesting we kill off some people) seems a contingent for the usage of humans as livestock.

>>bigyik+94
There is an implicit assumption that "modernization" equates large energy consumption. Carbon emission of a German is half of that of an American, so are Americans twice as "modern" (whatever that means) compared to the average German?

>>jonjon+Aa
Reducing the birth rate below 2.2 kids per family on average results in negative population growth. We’re already seeing it in many places world wide as a result of equality and education. Simply creating awareness of the global benefits is enough. We are already facing a catastrophic global population decline mid century which is going to shock the hell out of our forever-growth economic systems. The only question is whether we’ll see a decline soon enough. Humans as livestock? Killing people? Relax dude.