Hacker News Reader

Comment by zelphirkalt | Hacker News Reader

If you have children, then that is probably the most impactful. They will need/want the same living standards as other people. They get the full package of other impactful things you mention plus some more like house building. For example a young family does no longer live in the same small 2 person flat, but instead builds a house (or lets build). Especially in first world countries and developing to first world countries, where everyone wants to have the high living standard, having children will be the most impactful action.

Perhaps there should be a high CO2 tax on having children, which one needs to continue to pay, while the children live?

View on HN

If we are going down that line of commentary-- Large families with lots of children are usually more efficient than small single or two child families, since large families tend to spend less per person and the children learn to make do and be resourceful. Resources are pooled, everything is used, hand-me-downs are used multiple times. Reducing, reusing and recycling are parts of daily life out of necessity. More activities and entertainment are undertaken in the house and less vacations/travel are used. Things like boardgames are more feasible on a daily basis, etc. Home production is also more economical.

The wealthy people with one child lavished with entertainment, travel, and resource expenditure learn to be wasteful and buy every new fashion and gadget.

Of course, I believe we should generally leave people alone and let them go about their business instead of imposing arbitrary government requirements; but if we go down that road, then the poorer families with lots of children should just get a free pass since they are more efficient by nature.

Good point, I guess. But what is the consequence of it? Do we allow only some families to have more children, while others are not allowed to have any, to get this effect of more efficiency of resource usage? How do we get there in a fair way?

Just wanted to be clear that I think everyone should have the number of children they want to have. I don't think the government should interfere in that decision and it should be up to the couple whether they have lots of children, one or two, or none. Just wanted to point out an interesting point about efficiency of some families as a response to the parent. And I'm not even definitively saying that I'm right, but it is a perspective.

I think even families with only a few children _can_ be more efficient, but it is not the natural thing to do, and people with fewer children often do so because they prioritize higher resource consumption from a perception of quality of life or other factors.

I guess the main point is that these things aren't clear cut, there are reasons for both depending on a person's perception of life and pursuit of happiness. That's the tricky thing, even when we believe a problem is simple from out perspective, it usually isn't.

I think the point is that we don’t specify how many children people can have at all. In addition to being ethically dubious, it has a high chance of backfiring as it had in China, and likely will be ineffective, as most population growth is currently relatively localized to a few areas of the world like the Middle East and Africa. Places like the US or Europe or East Asia have already largely stabilized population wise. What remains to be done is making the emissions per person sustainable, which isn’t true especially in the West. This in turn will make the technologies required for reducing emissions cheaper and more widespread for those countries that are still growing to utilize before their emissions per capital grows to that of current rich nations. Population control is a non-starter.

It is funny, how one gets downvoted for asking someone to elaborate their point on HN.

Children are part of the goal. I mean, what's the point of preserving the planet for the future generations if we don't make future generations?

If you follow your logic to the extreme, the most beneficial actions would be things like euthanasia or just plain suicide.

Given the state of the world, and a desire to be as helpful as possible, the latter feels quite appealing to me right now.

We're living through a strange time but please do not be defeatist and try not to let alarmist (it's trying to push certain actors into action quite rightly) make you feel that like that should ever be appealing.

> If you follow your logic to the extreme, the most beneficial actions would be things like euthanasia or just plain suicide.

Absolutely. Any logic followed to the extreme will yield extreme results. It could, however, be argued without much difficulty that people that exist have more rights than people that never will exist, so expecting someone to commit suicide (an extremely angst filled action that is also likely to cause an incredible amount of suffering within the person's close social circles) is not really at all comparable to asking them to not procreate - something that may not happen anyway for a number of reasons, and which does not inflict any particular amount of extra suffering.

It could also be argued that we don't really need to be eight billion, so some/most of us not procreating does not imply that there will be no future generations.

And, it could also be argued that all other life forms on earth are not worthless, and their well being alone - sans humans - could be worth preserving a reasonable climate for.

Wouldn’t those rights include the ability to have the number of children they see fit?

Did I say it didn't? Advising against something is not the same thing as forbidding it.

In either case, this "right" doesn't change the fact that the most significant (non) action you can do to lessen environmental impact is to refrain from procreating. No matter how much you argue that this is everybody's "right" (which is ethically questionable other reasons anyway), assuming that your children won't miraculously have a significantly smaller environmental footprint than you do, it is the single action you are likely to perform that will have the largest impact.

Of course, you can say "screw the environment, I want kids". I didn't say you can't. I do suggest, though, that producing more people until we've figured out how to lessen the environmental footprint of each one is incompatible with caring significantly about the environment (including climate). You can lie to yourself and say "but I do other things...", but in the end, those other things will not add up to a fraction of the impact a single (let alone multiple) child has.

Then don't follow "to the extrem"? Why do you think that it has to be taken to an extreme?

There are many ways in between reproducing ever more humans and not reproducing at all. For example if people really want to have children, they can adopt children instead of making even more ones. There are sooo many children in the world, who do not have a bright future, whom one could adopt. If one really loves children for the reason of seeing them grow up, develop, learn, become good human beings, then adopting one should not be a big problem compared to making one.

Then there could be a rule similar to the following: First child is OK to make, second child needs to be adopted. If the second child is not adopted, but instead made, then there are financial penalties for that.

In any case, how do you propose to get back to perhaps half of current population?

I remember in the UK when a think tank asked do you need a family pet like a dog which lives 10+years which is almost exclusively a carnivore and needs specialist things bought for it. Turns out over a lifetime that's worse than a 2nd family car for the environment (who's have thought)...

The group was attacked for being heartless. Not to mention that they did mention family size and population growth in the same report without suggesting that be tackled. (They tries to be taken as not a doomsayer)

Then again British policy over the last 2 years has been based on a promise from a liar that 20M+ people will die in Britain alone. So if someone goes to the British govt promising the climate will kill 40M+ over all time maybe they'll listen...

> one needs to continue to pay, while the children live?

Can you kill them if you no longer afford the tax?

(any answer to this question should suggest how ridiculous a tax like this would be)

If you want to go to jail for many years and screw up your life significantly, possibly never be happy again, perhaps.

Is this supposed to be any kind of counter argument? "Parents could simply kill their children."? Seriously?

It was supposed to make it obvious that your tax proposal is absurd. If you don't plan to make murdering children legal, then what you are de facto proposing is making some people slaves. From X children forward, poor people become slaves, having to do forced labor just to pay the "child tax" that they can no longer avoid.

If you think that there are circumstances that justify slavery (they should've thought about it before having that many children!! It's a reasonable punishment for their deeds!) then, sure, I guess.

That is quite a far fetch you are making there, from implementing a financial penalty for not taking responsibility for ones actions (getting more than one child) to "slavery". I think you are mispainting or misinterpreting the picture in an extreme way. No one is suggesting slavery here. That's a strawman,

And yes, people should think before putting a child into this world. I don't know how that is even debatable.

But, how is that not the logical conclusion?

I agree on "people should think before putting a child into this world". Will you agree also on the following:

* Despite the should, some people will not think before doing X. So the punishment you propose will not just be an abstract thing that convinces people to "not do X", it will be something you actively inflict on people (otherwise it's completely meaningless, if not enforced).

So let's go back to the tax. Statistically speaking, who are the people who have lots of kids? Those who are rich (and might be deterred by an additional tax) or those who are poor and can barely feed said kids? Now, if you enforce an additional "kid tax" (and not just as a temporary thing, but as a perpetual lifetime punishment), what exactly is the effect that you think it'll have? Won't you de facto withdraw or limit "social security" exactly from the people who need it the most?

Just look at the data. Population doesn't increase when people become wealthy, on the contrary, it decreases. Rich people just don't have that many kids. Your tax could only serve the opposite purpose, while making the poor even more miserable.

I guess the GP's suggestion is to let people think twice before getting any? Children are expensive without this tax but most people don't think 1 second about that because it is somehow a right to have them so the state will provide (and in many countries here, indeed they will). If you can clearly see that you and your better half will never be able to support them until they are 18 (which goes for many people already, without any ridiculous taxation), you might think twice about having any at all?

Instead of trying to control people's lives and their very personal decision to have children and how many, we should be ensuring every women in every country in the world is provided at least basic education. A vast amount of benefits including an 'automatic' birth rate drop.

The population in the first world is dropping. Immigration from less wealthy countries is the reason for the growth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com