An often overlooked aspect of reducing one’s environmental footprint is having no children or having fewer children. It’s the only ethical form of population reduction for obvious reasons, and less people means that humanity’s collective environmental impact is reduced.

To my knowledge, China is the only country to have national legislation limiting the number of children people can have through its one-child policy, which has recently been changed to allow two children per family to reduce the risk of having a population where the elderly massively outnumber young people. Of course, this policy needs to be combined with sex education, easy access to contraception, etc in order to actually work.

What would your opinion be on other countries, especially other developed countries, adopting policies like this? Do you think the environmental benefits outweigh the issues caused?

Travis Skaalgard
link
149M

Measures like this are the path to eco-fascism. At the end of the day, too, it will be the working class that is liquidated by these measures, as the bourgieoisie automate away our usefulness.

Dessalines
admin
link
69M

To add, here’s a really good video by Hakim on how overpopulation is a capitalist lie.

Travis Skaalgard
link
39M

Great video, but as always, the YouTube comments are awful!

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
creator
link
59M

Very good point that I didn’t think of. Thanks!

@Stoned_Ape
link
-19M

It wouldn’t be fascist if the majority of people are on board, and the rules are fair, useful and are for everyone. It would only be facist if it would be made in a fascist way.

@koavf
link
49M

A majority of German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish citizens were just fine with their fascist dictators.

@Stoned_Ape
link
19M

I’m not sure why you’re saying that to me.

@koavf
link
09M

You wrote that majoritarianism isn’t fascist and that’s not true so I am pointing out how you are wrong.

@Stoned_Ape
link
09M

So democracy is facist? If more than 50%, or even 90+% of people are in favor of something, it’s suddenly fascist?

@koavf
link
09M

No, literally no one wrote that or anything like it.

@Stoned_Ape
link
19M

I was referring to democracy with “majority”. I’m not sure what you understood from my first comment. I really have no idea what you’re talking about.

@koavf
link
09M

What I am saying is that majorities can support fascism. Just because 50%+1 agree with something does not make it democratic, as democracy supports minority rights and fascism does not.

@Stoned_Ape
link
0
edit-2
9M

What I am saying is that majorities can support fascism.

Of course. This is what I said:

It wouldn’t be fascist if the majority of people are on board, and the rules are fair, useful and are for everyone.

What I said isn’t just about the majority. It’s also about the rules being fair, useful and for everyone.

Just because 50%+1 agree with something does not make it democratic

If the votes were free and informed, then that’s literally what democracy is.

democracy supports minority rights

Democracy really is just a way to vote on a government, or in broader terms to participate in defining ones society. That government is making such rules as this, but only because the majority wants these rules. In a perfect democracy, the government wouldn’t do anything that the majority doesn’t want. Democracy isn’t a moral agent. The public is the agent.

@koavf
link
09M

Democracy really is just a way to vote on a government, or in broader terms to participate in defining ones society. That government is making such rules as this, but only because the majority wants these rules. In a perfect democracy, the government wouldn’t do anything that the majority doesn’t want. Democracy isn’t a moral agent. The public is the agent.

Democracy doesn’t just apply to states or how elections are run: were that true, there would be no democratic workplaces. I also never said that democracy is a moral agent. I have no clue why you keep on responding in this conversation or what your endgame is here.

@Stoned_Ape
link
19M

Democracy doesn’t just apply to states or how elections are run: were that true, there would be no democratic workplaces.

That’s what I meant with “in broader terms”. It would really be nice if you read my complete comments, and not just fragments of it.

I have no clue why you keep on responding in this conversation or what your endgame is here.

Maybe I just want to talk about this. I don’t need an “endgame”, nor do you. If you think I have an endgame or agenda, it’s no wonder that you misinterpret my comments like that.

@koavf
link
09M

Well, I’m not interested in mindless chatter, so please stop responding to me on this topic. Have a nice day.

@Stoned_Ape
link
09M

Nope.

@koavf
link
09M

Leave me alone.

Travis Skaalgard
link
19M

That’s not what “fascist” means, lmao

@roastpotatothief
link
39M

Is there even any definition of fascism? Some equate it with supremacism, others with authoritarianism. For me, the definitive thing about the fascist party was morality - they enforced morally good behaviour as laws.

Using the word at all invites misunderstanding.

Travis Skaalgard
link
49M

Fascism has a very specific definition and it’s not just “morally good behavior as law.” Also, I’m pretty sure the whole genocide thing can’t be defended from an ethical standpoint :p Please learn more about this before attempting to talk about what fascism is and is not.

@roastpotatothief
link
19M

What would be your definition?

Travis Skaalgard
link
3
edit-2
9M

It’s not about “my” definition or “your” definition. Of course the wording may vary from source to source, but here is some good information:

https://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/index.htm

https://www.liquisearch.com/definitions_of_fascism/marxist_definition

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

It is of note that eco-fascism differs from traditional forms of fascism in a few key ways, but the eugenics and authoritarianism are all there. Also worth mentioning, is that even by your original definition of “codification of ‘moral behavior’ in law” eco-fascism would fit.

@nromdotcom
link
129M

I think certainly better sex education and access to contraception is important.

Reproductive legislation probably wouldn’t do too terribly much on any sort of reasonable timeframe given how much pollution is produced by multinational corporations versus individuals and families.

If we’re going to do any sort of sweeping and binding legislation let it be against corporations rather than people.

Travis Skaalgard
link
49M

We also have tons of historical examples that sex ed and access to contraception cause birth rates to plummet organically.

@dreeg_ocedam
link
4
edit-2
3d

deleted by creator

@roastpotatothief
link
19M

Good answer. If the is a horrific means to achieve a goal, and an alternative means too the same goal, don’t do the horrific thing.

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
creator
link
49M

Reproductive legislation probably wouldn’t do too terribly much on any sort of reasonable timeframe given how much pollution is produced by multinational corporations versus individuals and families.

If we’re going to do any sort of sweeping and binding legislation let it be against corporations rather than people.

Good point.

Redstone
link
-19M

But dont those corporations pollute to make things for the people? So less people, less things, less pollution by corporations.

Travis Skaalgard
link
89M

Corporations will do whatever they can to make profit, people or not. Sustainability and capitalism are completely incompatible. There’s no profit in sustainability.

Redstone
link
-2
edit-2
9M

That’s very a simplistic view. There is no dr Evil corp that exist just to pollute the world. The real problem is that we (people) don’t give a #$#%$# about the environment when we buy stuff. So why would a company sell stuff green but more expensive than the competition? That’s a formula to go broke, as long as the consumers doesn’t care. And that where I think governments have a role. The should make rules and regulations that make the green chose the more profitable one. But a single government can’t make that policy because than production just leaves your country. Not because company’s are evil, but because if they don’t and the competitions does they go broke. That’s why we have (the beginning) of international agreements like the Paris Agreement. That in my opinion don’t go way far enough.

Travis Skaalgard
link
49M

Tell me, within the capitalist system, what incentive is there for companies to design products that last a lifetime? Products that are sustainable? Remember, in capitalism, short-term profit is the emperor of all causes and the end-goal of all human effort. How do you solve these problems while still focusing on short-term profit? There’s no “long term” in capitalism.

And also, yes, oil companies both make profit on pollution and lobby away all our other options.

Redstone
link
-19M

If nobody buys their oil they will stop . So back to the original topic less people = less polution.

Travis Skaalgard
link
39M

See, this is the overly simplistic view of things. Do you think oil companies make their revenue from private citizens buying crude oil from them? Yes, I have to buy gasoline, but do you realize how many products you buy on a daily basis are petroleum-based? Or how many contracts they have with governments or other big corporations? Remember, these corporations were able to influence wars in the 2000s. It’s far more complicated than “stop buying their oil.” That’s a vegan-tier “fix the world through consumerism” take.

@dreeg_ocedam
link
-1
edit-2
3d

deleted by creator

@nutomic
admin
link
79M

The problem is that big companies use legal bribery (called lobbying) to prevent governments from doing anything like that.

Redstone
link
09M

The problem is the politicians people vote for. If you want to change stuff get the right people in the right spot. In the USA more than 74 milion people voted for a guy whu doesn’t give an f about the environment, and quit the paris agreement. Thats the real probleem.

@oriond
link
59M

It is funny how you need an environmental impact assessment to build a house but not to have a freaking child!

@usr
link
49M

Bad, very bad.

@koavf
link
29M

To the extent that having fewer children is a desirable public policy (and that is very much debatable), there should be nudge libertarian policies that incentivize or disincentivize the free choice to have or not have children. Outright banning of reproduction is not democratic.

@ufrafecy
link
5
edit-2
5M

deleted by creator

@roastpotatothief
link
19M

Or very liberal abortion or infanticide, which would bring down numbers much faster. All are ethically very controversial.

@k_o_t
admin
link
1
edit-2
9M

deleted by creator

@BlackCentipede
link
0
edit-2
5M

deleted by creator

Green - An environmentalist community
!green

    This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


    RULES:

    1- Remember the human

    2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

    3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


    Related lemmys:

    • 0 users online
    • 1 user / day
    • 18 users / week
    • 32 users / month
    • 124 users / 6 months
    • 866 subscribers
    • 379 Posts
    • 773 Comments
    • Modlog