Thursday, April 29, 2021

Vox doesn't understand population growth and climate

Parachuting back to highlight a really bad article in Vox saying it's okay to have kids (no discussion of how many is okay, so I guess a quiverfull is fine) regardless of climate change. 

Bad arguments include saying that the only climate emissions that matter are the ones that happen in the next decade (and still not noticing that having kids would affect that figure). My favorite though is a cute story from the Bible that said Israelite women in Egypt wanted children when the men didn't, and one of the kids ended up being Moses. Literally magical thinking at work, "as an expression of hope".

There is the tired-yet-legit argument over personal action versus government policy, but you're really choosing the worst facts for your side if you think personal action of having (an apparently unlimited number of) kids is okay for climate. This isn't about skipping straws.

More hangovers from the horrible racism that afflicted past efforts to care about population growth.

So I'll stick with my recommendation instead - vast long-term decrease of human population on Earth, and virtually unlimited numbers off-planet.


Rachel Josh said...

A vitamin is a natural molecule that is a necessary micronutrient that organism requirements in small numbers for the appropriate functioning of its metabolism. Important nutrients cannot be synthesized in the organism, either at all or not in enough numbers, and therefore must be obtained through the diet. Essential Vitamins for Glowing Skin is accessible in supplemental shape, but they are also discovering in skincare products. Learn more concerning these essential vitamins and how they can aid you to achieve optimum skin health.

Tom said...

Population is the largest driver of human environmental impacts.

Population is a losing argument.


Barton Paul Levenson said...

Who wants their skin to glow? I suppose it might be useful for finding your way in the dark...

Ken Fabian said...

Whilst having much less people would make emissions less problematic so does reducing emissions. Controlling population looks a lot more problematic than reducing emissions. Reducing population within time frames that solve our looming environmental problems crosses into crimes-against-humanity territory. We will come against limits but it won't be climate activism that takes us there - climate action not requiring it and climate activism being inherently humane.

"... unlimited numbers off-planet." is just wishful thinking. Without an enduring healthy, wealthy Earth economy no-one will ever get to live off-planet. And self reliance off Earth requires a healthy, wealthy space economy of large scale to support the essential advanced technologies; I think it will only arise as an emergent outcome of an enduring history of economic viability as outposts of the Greater Earth economy.

A bit of healthy skepticism of claims space colonies are an option, let alone inevitable seems appropriate.

It is not the job of any government to use taxpayer funds to do bunkers or space colonies for such purposes - government built bunkers being for preserving the capability to protect their nations, not to abandon them.


If the world is not peopled, the Anthropocene is toast.

OTOH , bequeathing critical climate theory to artificial intellgence might raise its tone

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

I lean toward mandatory sterilization of everyone until they demonstrate some fitness to raise children: a job and a partner or other reliable backup, some psych testing.