Go to https://brilliant.org/nutshell/ to dive deeper into these topics and more with a free 30-day trial + 20% off for the first 200 people! This video was s...
I don’t understand the anti-antinatalist stuff. Having a kid is literally the worst thing you can do to the environment. Shouldn’t we reckon with that?
There is simply no way to make enough lifestyle changes to offset that. I’d have to live car-free for 55 years to offset just a single year of a theoretical child’s existence… and that kid is going to live for 70-100 years.
Reckon with human life itself being bad for the environment? No, I don’t think we should reckon with that, because the only actionable conclusions from that assumption are “we should make being alive less bad for the environment” where you end up on the same page as everybody else or “we should all die.”
I’m kind of antinatalist, but where the child is born makes a huge difference. A single USian is practically the same carbon footprint as some whole villages in Africa, SE Asia, and elsewhere
But also 70% of carbon emissions are from 100ish companies, and “carbon footprint” was coined by ExxonMobil Mobile to deflect from this fact. Or maybe it was Shell.
I don’t understand the anti-antinatalist stuff. Having a kid is literally the worst thing you can do to the environment. Shouldn’t we reckon with that?
If you’re equating a random child born anywhere in the world with a billionaire’s carbon and pollution imprint, that’s a staggering false equivalency.
The audience on Lemmy is self-evidently overwhelmingly from developed nations, where most of the ecological harm per-capita is done.
Even then, I’d argue 20 middle class kids in
don’t equate to even half of the ecological harm of one billionaire’s private jet
But by simply subtracting the number of kids I’d otherwise have by one, I’m preventing 21 tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere every year.
https://www.pawprint.eco/eco-blog/average-carbon-footprint-globally
There is simply no way to make enough lifestyle changes to offset that. I’d have to live car-free for 55 years to offset just a single year of a theoretical child’s existence… and that kid is going to live for 70-100 years.
Literal ecofascist , “muh overpopulation” talking point
Right here, in living color for you:
now compare the emissions of having a child to military activities and billionaires using their jets constantly for like 30 minute trips
Obviously those things are on a different scale, but there are 3.7 million children born in the US alone every year.
That means it would take 193 million people -per year - switching to an entirely car-free lifestyle to negate that.
Or 400 million people per year switching to a plant-based diet.
Billionaires and the military doing bad stuff doesn’t justify the ecological harm of enlarging the human population.
Reckon with human life itself being bad for the environment? No, I don’t think we should reckon with that, because the only actionable conclusions from that assumption are “we should make being alive less bad for the environment” where you end up on the same page as everybody else or “we should all die.”
deleted by creator
Yes but those 100 companies are made up of adult babies. Babies are evil.
I’m kind of antinatalist, but where the child is born makes a huge difference. A single USian is practically the same carbon footprint as some whole villages in Africa, SE Asia, and elsewhere
But also 70% of carbon emissions are from 100ish companies, and “carbon footprint” was coined by ExxonMobil Mobile to deflect from this fact. Or maybe it was Shell.