“Willful extinction” is not a productive way to end climate change.
You won’t convince people, so it’s DOA, but it’s also philosophically weak in the face of alternative views. Alternatives which also theoretically have humans in them and don’t obliterate the environment exist, meaning you are on the back foot here to justify an anthropocentric philosophy.
“Why do you think people should exist?” Can be an interesting discussion, but as an argument it’s not a great one.
Birth rates are plummeting to maintain what will probably be around 13 billion. That’s wildly distinct from willful extinction.
I… What? You made a post saying people should do x, I responded. Yeah we’re both trying to convince people of a thing, I’m not sure I see how that is actually relevant.
Birthrates are not plummeting to zero, if thats what youre implying. As people get more educated, they tend to have fewer kids. No one is considering having “fewer” kids because of the childs lifetime GHG emissions
Birth rates are plummeting for a variety of reasons, but that is most certainly one of them. No one in their right mind would willingly bring a child into this world knowing what’s going to happen, and educated people know what’s going to happen.
There’s nothing inherently bad about eating meat. We’ve been doing it for 100s of thousands of years. It’s that there are too many freaking people. I judge people way more when I see them with offspring, then I do their dietary consumption.
And that is microscopic compared to levying massive fines on businesses that don’t go carbon neutral and passing global laws to protect the amazon and MESS UP any government that toys with it.
Vegan (or even just vegetarian) is cool, but that’s small-fry compared to if we just stopped having freaking kids.
Well… I mean I’m not having kids either, but someone has to to continue the species, nobody needs to eat meat.
Why?
“Willful extinction” is not a productive way to end climate change.
You won’t convince people, so it’s DOA, but it’s also philosophically weak in the face of alternative views. Alternatives which also theoretically have humans in them and don’t obliterate the environment exist, meaning you are on the back foot here to justify an anthropocentric philosophy.
“Why do you think people should exist?” Can be an interesting discussion, but as an argument it’s not a great one.
I don’t have to. Birth rates in the developed world are plummeting.
And unless I’m mistaken, you are the one trying to convince people right now.
Birth rates are plummeting to maintain what will probably be around 13 billion. That’s wildly distinct from willful extinction.
I… What? You made a post saying people should do x, I responded. Yeah we’re both trying to convince people of a thing, I’m not sure I see how that is actually relevant.
“[S]omeone has to to continue the species” —you, not me
Birthrates are not plummeting to zero, if thats what youre implying. As people get more educated, they tend to have fewer kids. No one is considering having “fewer” kids because of the childs lifetime GHG emissions
Birth rates are plummeting for a variety of reasons, but that is most certainly one of them. No one in their right mind would willingly bring a child into this world knowing what’s going to happen, and educated people know what’s going to happen.
There’s nothing inherently bad about eating meat. We’ve been doing it for 100s of thousands of years. It’s that there are too many freaking people. I judge people way more when I see them with offspring, then I do their dietary consumption.
I’m doing my part. The life of one person creates so much waste and pollution.
And that is microscopic compared to levying massive fines on businesses that don’t go carbon neutral and passing global laws to protect the amazon and MESS UP any government that toys with it.