Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdjsjsbdb | Hacker News Reader

The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either:

a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans)

b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low

c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do

You're basically proposing 3, which is asking poor people to voluntarily not have kids so one day they can have what you already have by accident of birth

View on HN

> The point is that there's no future where everyone consumes as much as today's average American. You either:

> a) reduce the consumption of the globally wealthy (this includes most Americans)

> b) keep the globally impoverished poor to keep their consumption low

> c) add in some eugenics and stop the poor people from having more kids with the promise that one day you'll let them consume the same way you already do

I think there is a plausible scenario where wealth becomes even more concentrated such that most Americans join the globally poor (this reduces the number of globally wealthy without reducing their consumption, after which you can assume scenario B). This is more or less the setup for the one-season TV series "Incorporated".

Option d) technology and good government policies enables a low/no carbon future.

Certainty e) incarnate as somebody else for many lifetimes to come

Rationale: If you acknowledge you are alive and conscious reading this, why would this experience be something unique. Especially if everybody else reports the same? If not, why keep you alive?

It'd be nice if a no carbon future would be within reach but as far as I know, we do not have the technology to make this happen. Acting as if it's just a matter of time until we do... well, that is nothing short of a high-stakes gamble. Furthermore, we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere -- even if we'd go no carbon _today_. We will need to actively remove it before we have passed too many ecological tipping points from which there may not be a return to the status quo.

We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.

That's only part of the solution. Energy generation makes up ~25% of emissions, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, etc. make up the other 75%. All of these will increase as the 3rd world industrialises.

> We do have the technology. It's called nuclear energy.

No, we do not. Nuclear energy is by no means emission-free.

> There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0.

-- Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University

https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-e...

I'm an American and had a vasectomy and one of the bigger reasons was that I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans. I felt like it was the biggest single contribution I could make for environmentalism.

I also ride an electric bike, live in the PNW where I use barely any heat or AC, limit meat and dairy intake, and generally just don't buy stuff unless really needed.

> I don't want have kids that continue to contribute to the destruction of our planet by just being regular Americans.

... so that the planet is preserved for the descendants of less environmentally responsible human beings?

Yes. Just because someone is irresponsible and votes for governments that actively work to let these awful things happen doesn't mean they deserve to die from the effects of climate change.

HN downvotes the weirdest things.

And here is where environmentalism becomes anti-human, and frankly cult like.

Nothing against vasectomies, I’ll probably get one once I have a few kids. But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern. Oh well, if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists.

I’m all for doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases, and pollution. But not at the expense of human life.

First it’s “To save the planet, I won’t have kids”. Next is, “To save the planet, you shouldn’t have kids”

Regardless if you have children or not, the chilling sentiment still exists. My fear is when, inevitably, there is social pressure, if not force, to adhere to similar doctrines on a larger scale.

It's not at the expense of human life if this person's local sacrifice improves global survivability of the species (assuming some people still decide to procreate).

The parent envisions a world where the commons have been destroyed because everyone decided to pursue their self interest.

I'm not sure that's cultish - seems like calculated pragmatism about a limited resource.

My concern isn’t with the local decisions - I agree, if your local sacrifice meets your moral expectations for yourself, and that involves abstaining from reproducing, then have at it.

The danger I see is that, with most movements, once a “critical mass” of support is reached, there tends to be a sentiment of “us vs them”.

Then it’s less about accepting other people’s different beliefs (having x children vs having y or 0 children), and more of shaming/“forcing”/coercing non-believers to your side.

We see this with cancel culture today, and various other movements in recent times.

> if enough extreme environmentalists share the same thought, then there will be no more extreme environmentalists.

Are you suggesting that being an "extreme environmentalist" is an inherited characteristic? Presumably not, because that would be ... eccentric, so what are you suggesting?

> social pressure, if not force

In most developed countries the population is falling or would be falling if it weren't for immigration, and currently that's with a fair amount of government support for human reproduction. If most people agreed that the population should be reduced and government policy were to reflect that opinion then I think the population would continue to fall without the need for anything the slightest bit chilling or oppressive.

However, a minority political or religious movement could interfere with that.

Regarding the first quote, not that it’s necessarily inherited, but if a tenant of an idea or movement is to not procreate, then at some point either no one will be left to procreate, or the only ones left will be those who disagree. Roughly speaking. I agree it’s not as clean of an argument as I thought when writing.

Regarding the second quote, we’ve seen what government policy’s effect is on reproductive limits, such as number of children laws in China (assuming you’re alluding your that, but perhaps not). Obviously there exist other policy options, but I’d rather not have my generation, or someone else’s, be a guinea pig for such policies. Further I don’t think any government should have a right to determine specific axis of child rearing, such as limiting offspring.

Is there some explanation for the absence of Quakers other than the idea that children are likely to have the same religion as their parents?

So, you're an example of the worst of both worlds.

Regardless of whatever small accommodations you may make, you apparently consume at a first-world level, because "all doing our part" seems to indicate that you're not doing a lot more than those around you, and for the most part we're not doing much. Presumably you want your kids to be able to do the same. You definitely don't sound like you're talking about slashing your or their consumption by say a factor of 5 or 10.

But you also want to have "a few" kids, which usually means 3 or more, which means above replacement level.

You're not just increasing the number of people; you're increasing specifically the number of high consumers.

You can't have both increasing population and increasing per-capita consumption. In fact, you can't get away with increasing either one for the long term without at least reducing the other. And in the still-longer-but-not-that-long term, there's a floor on how far you can reduce consumption and still stay alive.

So at some point you HAVE to stop increasing the population. Or not only does the surrounding world suck, but people simply start starving.

... and people who think the "demographic transition" is going to ride in and save the day are thinking pretty wishfully. It may cause a bobble. It might even get the world 100 years. But in the end, evolution keeps running. There's going to be a heritable tendency to overcome the "demographic transition" factors and reproduce anyway. If that's not artificially stopped, there's going to be a problem.

Space travel is not going to fix this either.

I'm sorry that reality seems anti-human to you, but then the universe has never been obligated to care about humans.

I think people should have kids if they want them. It's a big part of being human and if we can't be human then what's the point. But I think people should be more cognizant of the impact of children and no one ever seems to mention this when discussing environmentalism. I keep this opinion to myself in person because it's not my intention to direct this sentiment at any particular person, and discussing it in person can definitely feel directed.

Have kids. But please be mindful that it has a real impact, and one greater than mostly anything else you can do.

> But putting the environment before the propagation of our species is unique to us, and I think a sinister thought pattern.

I’m pretty sure humanity is at no risk of dying out. 90 percent of us could not have kids, and there would still be plenty of people.

d) Limit immigration, thus reducing the population (and, according to some, economic growth) of the globally wealthy, that are almost without exception at sub-replacement fertility. No eugenics required.

Most of the nightmarish consumption growth is not from immigration but from formerly developing countries achieving lifestyles and consumption habits similar to developed ones. 3 billion Chinese, Indians, etc. are more than happy to consume large amounts of meat, dairy and drive cars to their AC-controlled homes and jobs without immigrating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com