Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FantasyThrowaway321 t1_iv0s38h wrote

Reply to comment by FredPolk in ‘Carbon timebomb’: climate crisis threatens to destroy Congo peatlands by sector3011

I don’t think ‘facts’ means what you think it does in this situation. sure it’s going to happen, but it’s hard to talk out of one side of your mouth saying you want to help prevent and improve it and then also having kids knowing what we know is OK because, well, ‘I can afford it’ like you said. And that’s not even to say those living in situations currently will be safe or habitable in 10 years.

“Having a child is 7-times worse for the climate in CO2 emissions annually than the next 10 most discussed mitigants that individuals can do,”

6

FredPolk t1_iv1unuw wrote

If he doesn’t have the kid though, someone else will. It’s the same for any animal species. There is a limit and a certain sustainable population. If humans are going to experience some die off, it’s still better to have more population than less even if population is the catalyst. I think it is obvious at this point that we aren’t going to change the course by choice. It will be forced upon us. The losers will be those in 3rd world countries who can’t afford to relocate or simply get stuck in the path of destruction and they can’t afford to rebuild homes and infrastructure. E.g. Haiti after earthquake and hurricanes. Climate change isn’t a nuclear armageddon and deciding not to have children will do nothing to change the course. It just means someone else will unless the entire world agreed to a child policy which isn’t practical or realistic. Eugenics should have been further researched and enforced 100 years ago.

1