If you kill yourself, you are choosing to not have kids, but if you go on a murder spree, you’re also choosing for those people not to have kids, so the effect is multiplied.
Rigor mortis?
1 Like
it assumes that any person killing themselves for carbon footprint reduction would already not have kids. so if that is a means for reducing it I did not consider it because one would already have to be childless.
I mean what the fuck, are we really going to allow NBZ to advocate for WW3 and mass murder now?
Just to be pedantic here–the sheer # of people isn’t quite an issue in and of itself. Like if someone solved fusion power tomorrow and we were off of fossil fuels in a year and had a billion carbon scrubbing mini-stations up and running, we’d be fine and could probably add another four billion people without a second thought.
I mean even as far as space goes, we’re not close to having an issue. I think the stat I’ve heard is that if you packed everybody in at the population density of a city like Paris, the entire world pop would fit inside the Texas border.
1 Like
Is that what he’s doing?
I’m just pointing out the math. It’s up to you if you want to do something. Is it to so wrong to suggest WAAF if everyone is ethical?
They may or may not have kids. If they cannot have more kids, they don’t have the ability to reduce their carbon footprint by not having kids. If they can have more kids, they have the ability to reduce their carbon footprint by not having kids by they have the ability to reduce it further by committing suicide.
As NBZ points out, killing people is of even greater consequence.
It all underscores that the logic of telling people to not have kids is not sound. Most people are not willing to part with things they consider fundamental to being human–thing like the desire to survive, form communities that protect each other, and the desire to reproduce–to reduce their carbon footprint.
Golly gee, who can say?
Another thing: if you’re down to telling people not to have kids to reduce their carbon footprint, you probably should be against immigration, too. Millions of people in Haiti live essentially carbon neutral lives. People in Mexico are much closer to it than we are (about an 80% reduction from American levels). That’s in part due to poverty; nothing lowers carbon footprints like being impoverished.
But to me it’s fundamental that humans should have freedom of movement. Stopping immigration to reduce climate change marginally is off the table.
Do you take everything literally?
Japan’s loosened its immigration laws. idk if it will be enough.
I think iron81 is looking for members to join his anti-extremism caucus.
1 Like
Im not following this? The predictions of temperature increase eventually leads to a situation not suitable for human life not just not suitable for white life.
I am the least traditionally educated person in this forum and scalability is intuition at this point. Even to me.
You don’t need a scientific understanding to grasp it. You can just study war and history to get it. Or even just listen to NPR.
This constant group pressure that feels the need to doomify every take on here is unbalanced.
I’m far from a doomer here. I’m just being accurate about something I happen to know a little bit about. I wish it was likely to be an immediate big thing. Cheers.
The fact is no one individuals carbon footprint matters. If you want to help don’t worry about your footprint. Spend your time trying to influence policy. That is the only place you can have an actual effect.
It’s like voting. One vote doesn’t matter.
3 Likes
Will you merge this into the other Climate thread? That thread title is an eyesore.
I’m not a mod anymore. Sorry.
If you can convince a lot of people to do a little more - drive/fly less, recycle, use less gas/electricity - it’s probably going to have more of an effect than trying to get self-centered politicians to change policy.
1 Like