Don't have kids - AGW nonsense

[The Green Barbarian]

Yes, this is just how stupid the AGW cultist morons have gotten. Just disgusting. What complete boneheads.

Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.
We need to stop pretending kids don't have environmental and ethical consequences.

A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.

Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That data was recycled this past summer in a paper showing that none of the activities most likely to reduce individuals’ carbon footprints are widely discussed.

The second, moral aspect of the view — that perhaps we ought to have fewer children — is also being taken seriously in many circles. Indeed, I have written widely on the topic myself.

But scientific evidence and moral theorizing aside, this is a complicated question with plenty of opponents. In what follows, I will address some of the challenges to this idea. Because while I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn't have environmental and ethical consequences.
The argument that having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint depends on the view that each of us has a personal carbon ledger for which we are responsible. Furthermore, some amount of an offspring’s emissions count towards the parents’ ledger.

Most environmentalists accept this sort of ledger view when it comes to recycling, driving, and flying, but support begins to decrease when applied to family planning. The opposition is typified by Vox writer David Roberts, who argues that “such an accounting scheme is utterly impractical” because it seems to entail that one is never responsible for one's own emissions. Because "we don’t want to double-count,” as Roberts says, this means parents are really only responsible for their kids’ emissions.

The flaw in this objection is the plausible-sounding caveat: “we don’t want to double-count.” Because why wouldn’t we want to double-count? If moral responsibility added up mathematically, then double-counting would be a serious problem. But I think it’s clear that we should not accept a mathematical model of responsibility.

Consider a different case: If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.

Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children: Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility. Moral responsibility simply isn’t mathematical.
If you buy this view of responsibility, you might eventually admit that having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect, for standard environmental reasons: Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/s ... ncna820781

The first step in countering this nonsense is to tell people like this that the man-made climate change hoax is garbage, so who cares how many kids you have. Then this whole insane argument just falls apart.

[Queen K]

Children are merely high cost luxuries who will make undesirable emissions on the whole World? Seems they want people to plan to have NO children as a "family plan." What an oxy-moron. And it's setting up people to be labelled as "immoral" for even having children!!! Okay, GB, I'm with you on this one, the AGW is "boneheaded."

This could be argued to be just part and parcel of a whole World de-population plan perpetuated by the World's elite.

We know certain populations are stagnate or declining in replacement population, such as Canada. Which is why the JT govt is bringing in immigrants.

But this AGW edict is saying, even further enforcing, "don't have kids at all." So what does that say to woman and men who want to have families? Oh the guilt! My children are going to destroy the World! No, unbridled greed is making inroads to doing so already.

I'm having a difficult time with this one.

Oh and if one wishes to bring up relative moralism, here we go, the CNN write up on the moral vacuum in America today is a singular publication on what we're all thinking, how has it all gone wrong?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/ ... index.html

[Queen K]

I am certainly not arguing that we should shame parents, or even that we’re obligated to have a certain number of children. As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think there is a tidy answer to the challenging questions of procreative ethics. But that does not mean we’re off the moral hook. As we face the very real prospect of catastrophic climate change, difficult — even uncomfortable — conversations are important. Yes, we should discuss the ethics of making babies with care and respect; but we should discuss it.

OOOHHHH, the ethics of making babies combined with morality? Sounds like the one-child only China policy, which failed.

[Bsuds]

Of all the reasons not to have kids, global warming would be way down the list.

[Queen K]

http://americanpregnancy.org/infertilit ... fertility/

What does this say to couples who are infertile? That by default somehow they are ethical and more moral than couples who are out to destroy the World by having children?

[Catsumi]

Globally, human population at EIGHT (8) Billion people.

How many is enough? How long can world's resources support this number and their inevitable offspring? In my lifetime the population has increased by 3 billion. Jaw dropping.

Even rats turn on their own when crowded. We are already emulating the rodent with wars, pillage, push and shove, rich/poor at each others throats, eating ourselves right off the planet.

I recall watching a "horror" film about 50 years ago where this idea was taken to its conclusion. It depicted standing room only, people upright for 18 hours a day and then, reprieve, going to your assigned cot to lie down and sleep 6 hours. That film made a lasting impression on me but can't recall its name.

Sorry to be so grim, but I never thought it could get this bad. We are destroying the natural world, the oceans and even the air we breathe but we NEED to increase our numbers?

[Queen K]

I understand perfectly what you're saying Catsumi. I've made many a post here railing about the loss of habitats of various kinds, land, air and water. I have a bleeding heart for wildlife (right GB? ) and I even recall making a post about all the sushi restaurants in the World creating a demand for more and more fish. Drag netting? Don't get me started. Overharvesting of everything, collapsed fish stocks, bird population losses, mammal depopulation, and paved paradises. I too am heartsick.

AverageJoe and I have posted many articles and ideas about the Elite's depopulation plans for the World. I believe it's happening.

But when having children is turned into moral vs immoral, ethical vs unethical, I am having problems with laying that kind of guilt down at families feet.

I never had children and sometimes I'm glad I didn't bring any into this World.

[Queen K]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3070201/real ... -the-rise/

In BC alone Infertility rates are getting higher? Why? But in some countries there doesn't seem to be a problem, right, I think of India topping a billion people and China too, same thing.

[Glacier]

Those who think we shouldn't have kids are delusional. Look at Japan, which has by far the highest debt in the world. Trudeau is right when we says we need to up the the number of immigrants to Canada because we are not having enough children. The global population is going to peak in 30 years at 10 Billion and then go down. Of course, the racists among us are going to say, "ah, but the blacks in Africa are having too many. Screw the blacks. Screw the Muslims. Screw the First Nations. They don't deserve to go through the evolution we went through to where are today. Nope, we shouldn't focus on bringing them wealth so that they'll have fewer kids. Nope, we should just moralize them and tell them to be like the white man, and stop having kids, and tell them they are immoral human scum for having children even though the white man had kids in high numbers when we were that poor."

[Catsumi]

We know that we, Castanuts, do not make policies but can only react to ideas put out there for us to chew on. We can discuss this as adults without getting into labelling and name calling; without projecting unsaid and unintended meanings onto each other.

My thoughts:

I am trying to see the issue of population growth from a global view without regard to skin, religion or financial status.

If a huge overpopulation is such a good thing, then it would follow that countries with burgeoning numbers would be the wealthiest, best fed, best educated of all, right? Instead they seem to be the worst off in those regards. People wish to migrate from and not to those countries.

As to debt load: It would seem that had governments been more circumspect in the past and present about freely spending us and future generations into debt servitude, we would not be looking at that overbloated elephant now. On the moral side, is it the "right" thing to do to invite in immigrants to help cope with debts of our making? Compassion, my foot.

The overpopulated countries have a decided gulf between the very rich (low in numbers) and the very poor (high numbers) with not much in the way of a middle class.

Our world seems to be at a tipping point environmentally. To me, it would be a good thing to have serious discussions about producing more humans. I don't believe in dictatorships (Chinese for one) regulating anything so personal, however, on the other hand, they clearly saw that large numbers were not needed to further their mandate.

The world's real estate isn't growing to accommodate more people, it's finite. The space program won't be whisking us off to go forth and multiply any time soon.

[The Green Barbarian]

Globally, human population at EIGHT (8) Billion people.

How many is enough? How long can world's resources support this number and their inevitable offspring? In my lifetime the population has increased by 3 billion. Jaw dropping.

Even rats turn on their own when crowded. We are already emulating the rodent with wars, pillage, push and shove, rich/poor at each others throats, eating ourselves right off the planet.

I recall watching a "horror" film about 50 years ago where this idea was taken to its conclusion. It depicted standing room only, people upright for 18 hours a day and then, reprieve, going to your assigned cot to lie down and sleep 6 hours. That film made a lasting impression on me but can't recall its name.

Sorry to be so grim, but I never thought it could get this bad. We are destroying the natural world, the oceans and even the air we breathe but we NEED to increase our numbers?

These are points to talk about all right, in a thread about over-population, but what I object to is that this AGW ding-bat is trying to use the man-made climate change hoax to shame people into not procreating. It's one thing to tell people that there are already too many on the planet, but to say that you have to feel guilt and shame for the "emissions" that your children are going to generate, then you have a mental illness. You have to take a solid look at yourself, and wonder how you became this brain-washed by a cult. That's my issue here. Using a fairy tale to guilt people into stupid life decisions just is beyond the pale.

[Jlabute]

Children are merely high cost luxuries who will make undesirable emissions on the whole World?

So, undesirable emissions begins with undesirable emissions. lol.

The world is also going through a population growth deceleration. It is unlikely to explode out of control.
http://blogs.worldbank.org/futuredevelopment/futuredevelopment/rapid-slowdown-population-growth

[Catsumi]

Okay, I see your point GB. It is your thread post after all.

But, once past the outrage and condemnation of the link, what more can be said if that's all that is allowed. No discussion, no ideas presented = dead thread.

I thought it was a great opportunity for a grownup discussion as I see a kernel of truth in the article. Maybe a big kernel.

Humanity has suffered through dictators, Popes, cults, tribalism, goofy religious leaders and much pig-headedness telling us that we are not to consider birthcontrol and that we must increase our numbers to either overwhelm the "others" or for use as slaves of one sort or another.

Now we have someone saying "for pity's sake, slow down, or we'll kill humankind off for good".

[JLives]

These are points to talk about all right, in a thread about over-population, but what I object to is that this AGW ding-bat is trying to use the man-made climate change hoax to shame people into not procreating. It's one thing to tell people that there are already too many on the planet, but to say that you have to feel guilt and shame for the "emissions" that your children are going to generate, then you have a mental illness. You have to take a solid look at yourself, and wonder how you became this brain-washed by a cult. That's my issue here. Using a fairy tale to guilt people into stupid life decisions just is beyond the pale.

We get it. You don't understand science. More people = more carbon. More carbon = bad. We need a reasonable amount of carbon to slow climate change. Instead we are emitting too much. Less people = less carbon emissions. It's science but not rocket science.

[Jlabute]

So, a better way to curb emissions is to stop immigration? Bringing people from energy poor countries to our country is also very wasteful.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/16/nbc-having-a-child-is-one-of-the-worst-things-you-can-do-for-the-environment/