• iii
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    Forgot the biggest one: don’t have children (1)

    • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s not what your source says though.

      It says “having one fewer child” is the recommendation that should be given, and logically so

      • iii
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Apply recursively

      • Jack@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Having a child adds approximately 58.6 tonnes CO2e per year.

        The maximum average CO2e per person per year to reach the Paris climate agreement goal of a 1.5 °C, is about 3-10 tonnes. We could do this with a 0.01 fertility rate for a few decades, until we’re not catastrophically overpopulated anymore.

    • ajdndkk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      3 days ago
      1. People give this world a meaning. Who cares what happens to the world if there is no one to care.
      2. You need children for the next generation to exist. I believe this one is obvious.
      3. You need people to solve problems. Our generation may have fucked up. But at least give a next generation a chance. I mean do not multiply like rabbits. But maintaining population is important.
      4. You can raise your children, so they will make the change or vote for the people who will make the change.
      5. Climate change is not the only problem. And there are a lot of things to consider when you decide on having kids. Even on individual level I believe it is very beautiful thing to give another human being a chance to experience life. Especially if you do not see the world/life only as bad. But the question “Is it morally good to bring the children to this (broken/beautiful) world” is mostly philosophical and IMO boils down to optimistic vs. pessimistic view on the world.
      • iii
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Plenty of other lifeforms will still be there to enjoy this world 👍 and they’d be better of too

        • ajdndkk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          You would not be there to care about animals, plants or rocks. Just animals eating each other and still rocks.

          • iii
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Exactly

            • ajdndkk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              Is there any reason why would anyone want that?

              Is it just “I care about animals/rocks soo much I would like humans go extinct.”

              Because without us to give animals more meaning, they are just some random life forms eating, raping and reproducing on a giant rock floating through universe until this rock crashes into sun. Why would you care if there are more of such life forms due to humans leaving earth.

              Is there anything more to it? Am I just too dumb to understand it?

              • iii
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                Is there anything more to it?

                The point of view “why care about nature if it’s not for human pleasure” isn’t shared by everyone.

                • ajdndkk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  But humans are also animals of this world. Part of this giant floating rock. Do you also have other specific animals you hate? Do you hate all carnivores? What about animals that are destroying plants? Or beavers destroying whole ecosystems? Or animals that have wars? Or just humans because we change our environment the most?

                  • iii
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Do you also have other specific animals you hate? Do you hate all carnivores? What about animals that are destroying plants?

                    I’m unsure why you think I hate animals?