• federalreverse-old@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • JasSmith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Having fewer kids is extremely environmentally friendly

        this is some malthusian eugenicist bullshit.

          • acargitz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.