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?
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:
Chat rooms:
- 0 users online
- 5 users / day
- 14 users / week
- 50 users / month
- 189 users / 6 months
- 1.39K subscribers
- 817 Posts
- 1.67K Comments
- Modlog
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.
Good point.
But dont those corporations pollute to make things for the people? So less people, less things, less pollution by corporations.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
If nobody buys their oil they will stop . So back to the original topic less people = less polution.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The problem is that big companies use legal bribery (called lobbying) to prevent governments from doing anything like that.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
It is funny how you need an environmental impact assessment to build a house but not to have a freaking child!
Bad, very bad.
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.
deleted by creator
To add, here’s a really good video by Hakim on how overpopulation is a capitalist lie.
deleted by creator
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.
A majority of German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish citizens were just fine with their fascist dictators.
I’m not sure why you’re saying that to me.
You wrote that majoritarianism isn’t fascist and that’s not true so I am pointing out how you are wrong.
So democracy is facist? If more than 50%, or even 90+% of people are in favor of something, it’s suddenly fascist?
No, literally no one wrote that or anything like it.
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.
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.
Of course. This is what I said:
What I said isn’t just about the majority. It’s also about the rules being fair, useful and for everyone.
If the votes were free and informed, then that’s literally what democracy is.
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.
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.
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.
Well, I’m not interested in mindless chatter, so please stop responding to me on this topic. Have a nice day.
Nope.
Leave me alone.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
What would be your definition?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Or very liberal abortion or infanticide, which would bring down numbers much faster. All are ethically very controversial.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator