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?

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
64M

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

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

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
creator
54M

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

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
44M

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

@Stoned_Ape
14M

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

@koavf
04M

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

@Stoned_Ape
04M

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

@koavf
04M

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

@Stoned_Ape
13M

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
03M

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
0
edit-2
3M

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
03M

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
13M

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
03M

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

@Stoned_Ape
03M

Nope.

@koavf
03M

Leave me alone.

That’s not what “fascist” means, lmao

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.

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.

What would be your definition?

Travis Skaalgard
3
edit-2
4M

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.

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.

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

Dreeg Ocedam
4
edit-2
4M

I think it’s more sex ed, access to contraception AND access to decent healthcare, especially to children.

The last one is important as it leads to lower infantile death rates, which is one of the major reason why families used to have a large number of children (and it’s still the case in the poorest regions)

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
44M

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
-14M

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

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
-2
edit-2
4M

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.

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
-14M

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

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.

According to many here, the issue is not the people, but rather the system (capitalism) that pushes both individuals and corporations to put their own interests first, even when the damages caused is huge.

Personally I don’t think that there currently is a better system than a market economy, however governments should much more strongly incentivize actions that benefit everyone, and de-incentivize the rest. I don’t think there is a simple, perfect solution to this, but carbon taxes for example should have been put in place decades ago, and be much higher than the ones currently in place.

I also think that companies should be held accountable for damages that they do, even when “they didn’t know about it”. If a new technology is invented, they also should be responsible for proving its safety/small environmental footprint.

But the point that you bring is good, it is really hard for any country to implement such policy, because it would just cause them to fall behind other countries. It’s sad that we’re still not able to just realize how much we are in trouble and do something about it.

@nutomic
admin
74M

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

@redstone
04M

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
54M

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

ufra
54M

having no children or having fewer children. It’s the only ethical form of population reduction for obvious reasons

you could also legalise euthanasia, something which many have argued gives very ill elderly the right to die with dignity as an ethical and rightful choice.

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

@usr
44M

Bad, very bad.

@koavf
24M

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.

@BlackCentipede
0
edit-2
4M

Generally, it can be pretty bad.

For every idea that seems good in benevolent world, need a hard cold douse of reality on it to illustrate a much more complete picture of that idea. There are a lot of problems with this idea and it can lead as other said, “Eco-fascism.”

You might say, “Why not restrict it in constitutional amendments so it wouldn’t spiral out of control?” And I would say, “If it were that easy, we would’ve already abolished Citizen United via Constitutional Amendments. It’s exceedingly difficult to implement an idea that doesn’t backfire, just ask Lenny on how his attempt to implement communism turns out for him.” Politically, this is something that would end up taking too much attention and effort away from something else that we really need to focus on to improving the environmental impact and energy resources in the country.

We can tackle the general overpopulation and environmental impacts cases by making pushes toward certain directions politically and in community:

  1. Stop restricting the rights of LGBT
  2. Push for Nuclear Fusion, Renewable Energy, and other experimental/commercial technologies
  3. Impose Carbon/Environmental Waste Taxes and Penalties (If that is at all possible politically?)
  4. Try changing diet a little bit to make less environmental impacts if possible (not asking to go full vegan here.)
  5. Rights to Repair and We need to make electronic components modular and swapable so that we can re-use existing boards and other chips that are still working, so we can minimize electronic waste.
  6. Fix the building code and make a push for super-sustainable homes that shouldn’t need to be broken down and rebuilt every 20 to 50 years. Earth ship home? Concrete dome home? Anything else really? All of those can withstand tornado, flood, earthquake and other stuff quite easily.

P.S. If you disagree, feel free to post a comment, this server doesn’t really keep track of upvote/downvote.

@k_o_t
admin
1
edit-2
4M

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
    • 9 users / day
    • 15 users / week
    • 32 users / month
    • 94 users / 6 months
    • 570 subscribers
    • 248 Posts
    • 443 Comments
    • Modlog