The most pro-environment thing a person can do is to not have kids. There are way too many people given the level of consumption that people desire. Something has to give and it eventually a price will be paid unless world's population decreases to a reasonable level.
If you have children and you enjoy raising them, maybe that's the most valuable thing in the world. What I've seen so far, it changes your life completely. It turns your life around, the child is the main focus. It costs lots of money, time and effort which one can put in other places. And even if you try raising them well, you have no idea what this consciousness is goign to grow up into. You have no guarantee that you will have good relationship with them. It's a huge gamble, basically. Is it really worth it? I guess it depends on the person.
Not even mentioning, we have no idea what this planet is going turn into within the next 50 years, from what is observed, it probably won't be nice. Does one really want them living in such a world?
True... but while many advanced economies have achieved native zero growth, there are many underdeveloped economies which are contributing more to pop growth --but in those places contraceptives and sex education lags, so I'm not sure how far you're gonna get.
That said, perhaps an alternative to pop reduction would be to simply produce products with longer lifespans --that could entail slowing down product development and would mean things like making your iPhone last 10-20 years rather than 1-4 years. Of course an unintended consequence is slowed discovery.
So another alternative is better recycling through the manufacturing of products with repairability and recycling in mind.
If a certain species starts to value the environment more than its own existence, it becomes extinct. Same happens to cultures.
Those who stay around adapt instead.
If humans failed to adapt and kept hunting large animals, they could have gone extinct, having destroyed their food supply. If humans kept on cutting and burning woods to create fields, they could have gone extinct, having turned forests into more Saharas. But humans kept adapting. I suppose we should continue with that.
8 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 30.4 ms ] threadThat said, perhaps an alternative to pop reduction would be to simply produce products with longer lifespans --that could entail slowing down product development and would mean things like making your iPhone last 10-20 years rather than 1-4 years. Of course an unintended consequence is slowed discovery.
So another alternative is better recycling through the manufacturing of products with repairability and recycling in mind.
If a certain species starts to value the environment more than its own existence, it becomes extinct. Same happens to cultures.
Those who stay around adapt instead.
If humans failed to adapt and kept hunting large animals, they could have gone extinct, having destroyed their food supply. If humans kept on cutting and burning woods to create fields, they could have gone extinct, having turned forests into more Saharas. But humans kept adapting. I suppose we should continue with that.