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?

@nromdotcom
link
fedilink
121Y

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.

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
creator
link
fedilink
41Y

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
fedilink
-11Y

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

@tskaalgard
link
fedilink
8
edit-2
1M

deleted by creator

Redstone
link
fedilink
-2
edit-2
1Y

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.

@tskaalgard
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
1M

deleted by creator

Redstone
link
fedilink
-11Y

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

@tskaalgard
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
1M

deleted by creator

@dreeg_ocedam
link
fedilink
-1
edit-2
8M

deleted by creator

@nutomic
admin
link
fedilink
71Y

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

Redstone
link
fedilink
01Y

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.

@tskaalgard
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
1M

deleted by creator

@dreeg_ocedam
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
8M

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.

@oriond
link
fedilink
51Y

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

@usr
link
fedilink
41Y

Bad, very bad.

@koavf
link
fedilink
21Y

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.

@tskaalgard
link
fedilink
14
edit-2
1M

deleted by creator

Dessalines
admin
link
fedilink
61Y

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

@tskaalgard
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
1M

deleted by creator

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
creator
link
fedilink
51Y

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

@Stoned_Ape
link
fedilink
-11Y

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
fedilink
41Y

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

@Stoned_Ape
link
fedilink
11Y

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

@koavf
link
fedilink
01Y

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

@Stoned_Ape
link
fedilink
01Y

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

@koavf
link
fedilink
01Y

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

@Stoned_Ape
link
fedilink
11Y

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
fedilink
01Y

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
fedilink
0
edit-2
1Y

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
fedilink
01Y

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
fedilink
11Y

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
fedilink
01Y

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

@Stoned_Ape
link
fedilink
01Y

Nope.

@koavf
link
fedilink
01Y

Leave me alone.

@tskaalgard
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
1M

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.

@tskaalgard
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
1M

deleted by creator

What would be your definition?

@tskaalgard
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
1M

deleted by creator

@ufrafecy
link
fedilink
5
edit-2
1Y

deleted by creator

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

@k_o_t
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
1Y

deleted by creator

@BlackCentipede
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
1Y

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:


    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