New posts

Vaccines for all of us... assuming all the people under 40 left this forum.

May 20, 2021, 9:21 a.m.
Posts: 12253
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: Sethimus

but by not having kids i can consume the amount another person‘s kids would consume if i would get the chance to live longer. that would imply that the child producer must die off early in a socially accepted way of course. if we all live longer and decide to have kids too that would not work, i give you that.

The flaw in your thinking is that "saving the planet" is actually about saving humanity.  The planet will bounce back if we all die.  It has many times before.  The goal is to save the planet from destroying us and many other species due to our arrogance, but we  need children to do that or it falls apart like a house of cards when the only people around are old.  The only part of the overconsumption problem the wealthy nations are decent at is controlling population growth, so you are committed to the only thing we actually have a handle on.    It is up to parents to prepare our future generations to take care of the planet and solve these issues, so to say that breeders are selfish is really just patting yourself on the back for doing nothing to help.  You could adopt and raise a environmentally conscious person if that was a real concern of yours, but I suspect your choice to not have kids has nothing to do with the planet.

May 20, 2021, 1:55 p.m.
Posts: 2574
Joined: April 2, 2005

there will be a lot of kids, but they better come from a poorer region than from a privileged region, as the first ones will consume less.

May 20, 2021, 3:59 p.m.
Posts: 12253
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: Sethimus

there will be a lot of kids, but they better come from a poorer region than from a privileged region, as the first ones will consume less.

They do.  That is why there are so many people on this planet.  You need a fertility rate of 2.1 to maintain a population (no growth, no decline) and Canada hasn't had that since 1971.  Without immigration I doubt we would have 20 million people here.

May 20, 2021, 4:16 p.m.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Why is a fertility rate below 2.1 a problem?

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.

Prof Murray adds: "It will create enormous social change. It makes me worried because I have an eight-year-old daughter and I wonder what the world will be like."

Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?

"We need a soft landing," argues Prof Murray.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

May 21, 2021, 12:30 a.m.
Posts: 2574
Joined: April 2, 2005

what grows faster than the population? the wealth of the rich. problem solved…

May 21, 2021, 4:53 a.m.
Posts: 13216
Joined: Nov. 24, 2002

Posted by: Sethimus

what grows faster than the population? the wealth of the rich. problem solved…

What would Lemmy do.

May 21, 2021, 9:03 a.m.
Posts: 12253
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: syncro

Why is a fertility rate below 2.1 a problem?

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.

Prof Murray adds: "It will create enormous social change. It makes me worried because I have an eight-year-old daughter and I wonder what the world will be like."

Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?

"We need a soft landing," argues Prof Murray.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

^^  This is exactly what I was trying to get at.

June 3, 2021, 3:09 p.m.
Posts: 15652
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: Sethimus

there will be a lot of kids, but they better come from a poorer region than from a privileged region, as the first ones will consume less.

Shouldn't you ideally want people that consume less...?

Edit is: unless you didn't mean the first world.


 Last edited by: aShogunNamedMarcus on June 3, 2021, 3:12 p.m., edited 1 time in total.

Forum jump: