Thanks for the courage to express 12. Absolute anthropocentrism can’t continue indefinitely and we already see boomerang effects.
back
2 comments
The population growth trend is already declining in many (western) countries and is projected to go down in a few decades max everywhere. Best contraceptive is education, prosperity and urbanization.
IMHO the best way to limit our negative impacts is
- stop exploiting other countries (there are almost no poor countries, only overexploited ones)
- urbanization ( https://i.redd.it/fl28yusb1r5b1.jpg )
- abandoning fossil fuels (so far we're not making a dent https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/renewables-growth-di... )
- stopping animal agriculture (destruction of the environment, biodiversity, pollution, overfishing ...)
Good luck trying to convince Russia or China to stop exploiting other countries, abandon fossil fuels or stop animal agriculture.
Here is the unsolvable problem of the climate activism. They can't save the climate, but they are capable of destroying their own homeland, playing right into the hands of those authoritarian monsters.
Well then you didn’t understand the point of climate activism. It’s not about “saving the climate” but instead “keeping our home habitability”. You can choose to:
- keep packing more fellow on your homeland, our children with them. Don’t change anything but wish them good luck, the Science and Industry will solve everything as it always did anyway, right ? Guess what, it won’t make the two giants stop being authoritarian.
- not doing (much) more children in your homeland so no descents will suffer from the density. The “authoritarians monsters” will probably profit of that.
Do you really value democracy and freedom (I value it a lot, me too) so much that you continue gambling with descents’s home habitability?
It’s not about giving up but about recognizing that adding more soldiers won’t stop the war.
I absolutely agree on trying to become a better person in terms of producing less waste. My point it, little effort won't work. We need radical solutions that could work on the global scale.
I want people to think big. Instead of carrying a water bottle and use paper bags focus on how you can help a whole country like India or China or even a whole continent like Africa.
Set goal of stopping Coca-Cola from dumping their plastic waste in Afrika. This would include much more effort than just carrying a water bottle or sleeping 8h.
Don't look up!
> Good luck trying to convince Russia or China
Whataboutism. Best way to avoid doing anything.
> the unsolvable problem of the climate activism. They can't save the climate, but they are capable of destroying their own homeland
That's incredibly foolish.
No. Prisoners' dilemma.
There are two possible answers to climate change: avoidance and preparation. Avoidance means that the world reduces its CO₂-footprint to zero or less to limit global warming or even to revert it. Preparation means that, if global warming cannot be avoided, states prepare for the changes in weather, sea level, agriculture, etc.
Avoidance can only work if all nations worldwide do participate to reduce their CO₂-footprint. If some big nations do nothing, or even worse, if non-consumption of fossil fuels by western nations causes a price drop and a shift of fossil fuel consumption to the rest (instead of an overall reduction), avoidance by the west is pointless and a waste of resources. All the world has to participate for avoidance to be successful.
On the other hand, preparation mostly works on a more local level. Nations with coastlines invest to protect those, nations threatened by water shortages invest in countermeasures such as maybe desalination or storages, etc. Even if the rest of the world doesn't care, preparation will mostly work for the local community.
Both avoidance and preparation need a lot of resources. But allocation to avoidance is only sensible if every nation agrees to it, otherwise those resources are wasted and far better spent on preparation.
The problem is, the general preparation problem is even harder than the avoidance problem. How do most countries handle 60m+ sea level rises from a complete melting of Antarctica? Where is going to get to a regular wet bulb temperature above 35 degrees? Can we handle the level of ocean acidification that business as usual will result in? We need to prepare, but let's not pretend we don't also need to avoid as best we can.
Anti-natalists are the enemy of mankind.
None of the species that have gone extinct (which are over 90% of all species that ever existed) reduced their rates of reproduction voluntarily.
They'll breed themselves out, so it should work itself out over the long term.
A half billion years have passed since the invention of sex and they're still showing up. How long term are we talking?
I'm sure there were anti-natalist groups in the thousands of years of human history but well they weren't so numerous a 100 years ago, and they probably won't be so numerous a couple of hundred years from now either.
…Said the horny rat in an overcrowded cage
…Said the Easter Island native
…Said the XX century boomers
Would you elaborate on your thought? Why questioning the demography is “enemy of mankind”? Is there other subjects/sciences we should avoid completely to be friends with mankind?