Can having no children save the planet? GINK – green inclinations, no kids

Melb69 on 20/01/2019 - 07:15
Last edited 24/01/2019 - 20:51

Saw this poll yesterday and aside from whether you believe in climate change or not this post is on whether having no children is a solution to Co2 emission and thus reduction in climate change.

https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/432956 Have an opinion in that thread and poll on climate change.

The population is known to be 1 of the factors in Co2 production. We were at 1B and now heading well into 7.7b and more.

1 child produces 58.6T of emissions a year.

This is a loaded topic. Interested to see what others think and I'll make a conclusion IMO from what I've read as to whether its the right thing to do to save the planet

IN CONCLUSION: IMO and some other experts.
Not having children will not make much difference what so ever in reality. There are many lifestyle factors that need to be taken into account. As GINKs with double income no kids they are more likely to have higher income and thus more likely to spend that on non environmental friendly activities and pseudo environmental causes(well you dont just need to not have kids to be in this group). They end up travelling more by plane which is another large emissions producer. Use other non environmental friendly transport to get around on their travels. They buy an electric car that really isnt all that environmentally friendly as its charged by non green sources. At least they feel good about it. Those batteries once requiring removal as they are no longer effective become environmetal issues.

MORE: GINKs are a bit deluded if they think they can use not having kids to save the world. Just have kids and be more environmenatally aware of how you do your day to day things. If everyone makes a smaller carbon foodprint in their day to day lives it will make more of a difference.

General Discussion

Comments

            • aerom on 22/01/2019 - 08:07

              @ozhunter: Thanks for the perspective. I didn't think this way.

      • negger on 22/01/2019 - 08:26

        I don't think what I stated has anything to do with islamophobia. Its about other religions taking note of this trend and trying to protect their own interests. This can contribute to the world population increasing further.

  • Neptunesblood on 21/01/2019 - 06:32
    +2

    The quicker humans are eradicated from earth the better. A disgusting pathetic species.

    • whooah1979 on 21/01/2019 - 06:44
      +4

      Only after we get all the bargains.

    • smartazz104 on 21/01/2019 - 22:53

      Lead by example.

  • voteoften on 21/01/2019 - 07:12
    +5

    Who do you think would forego having children? It wouldn’t be the idiots and the low lifes. They will conttnie to plow out more.

    I highly recommend you watch a movie called idiocracy. It’s a comedy. In some sense a low brow comedy. But is is startlingly close to what would happen if the quality people stopped producing children. By quality I mean intelligent, non violent productive people.

    • tik tok on 24/01/2019 - 09:44

      Idiocracy - it might have been a comedy when it was made. These days I think it was a futuristic movie. Most things in it are coming true.

      • Zachary on 24/01/2019 - 14:05
        +1

        Yes, we need more people like this guy….

  • djmm on 21/01/2019 - 07:27
    +4

    We are actually cancer to this earth, spreading and multiplying, slowly destroying everything on this earth.

    Humans provide no symbiotic benefit to no species. World would be better off without humans.

    • Scab on 21/01/2019 - 07:29
      +5

      Sounds like someone needs a Snickers.

  • x2r9ypbj on 21/01/2019 - 08:02
    -1

    Having no children I know of women in later life become bitter no grandchildren and no one
    to care for.

  • tanksinatra on 21/01/2019 - 08:15
    +2

    Having no children makes a much bigger difference than being a vegan/vegetarian/whatever.

    • Scab on 21/01/2019 - 09:13
      +2

      What about a celibate crossdressing vegan/vegetarian/Klingon.

  • Cleremy on 21/01/2019 - 08:29
    +4

    This might work if high fertility populations like Africans, Indians and Asians practice this.
    Whites already have low fertility and a shrinking population so we should in fact have more kids (lack of affordable housing due to sky high immigration levels prevents this).

    Encouraging only whites not to have kids will just speed up the population replacement that our hostile elites are implementing against us.

    • lostn on 21/01/2019 - 13:03
      +1

      As countries get wealthier, they naturally will have fewer children. 'whites' have already got there. Poorer countries have more children. When we get them out of poverty, they too will have fewer children. For a while anyway.

      This comes with new challenges of their own though, namely an aging population. Youngsters are not replacing retirees in the workforce, fewer people will be working, but more retired folk need to be fed. Not enough hands to feed those mouths, and you need to inject youth back into the population by stimulating birth rates with something like HOward's baby bonus. But then you go back to the overpopulation problem.

  • TimApple on 21/01/2019 - 11:14
    +1

    What if your child becomes Elon Musk and start a clean energy company and solves world hunger and provides the world with unlimited clean energy and cures cancer?

    My point is, the world keeps changing and the world when your kids are 30 years old will be different than the world today.

    • try2bhelpful on 21/01/2019 - 11:23
      +1

      What is the likelyhood, out of the millions of children born, you will come up with the one that will provide the solution; rather than adding to the problem.Your argument for having a child is more preposterous than theirs for not having one.

      • TimApple on 21/01/2019 - 13:59

        Well that was just a figure of speech really.

        But my point is, I'm an optimistic person and I think we as humans will have to find a way to build sustainable and renewable energy that does not harm the environment in the next few decades.

        The kid might not be Elon Musk, but he/she could well be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

        But even if they're not, in 30 years it might not even matter. Imagine if "Ozone hole" 30 years ago caused people to stop having kids. A bit silly now, right since we pretty much solve the problem?

        • try2bhelpful on 21/01/2019 - 15:06

          Man I hope you are correct, but given we still have people who deny there is a problem getting the wheels spinning to provide a solution before it all goes pear shaped is going to be a big ask. In the meantime I wouldn't tell people to have children on the off chance they might end up with a kid that provides the solution, rather than increases the problem. People have a right to make up their own minds, either way.

  • salarweb on 21/01/2019 - 11:23

    We need Thanos to wipe out population :D

    • try2bhelpful on 21/01/2019 - 11:24

      Don't worry, eventually we will have a pandemic to do it - and it won't be as painless as Thanos' version.

  • iDroid on 21/01/2019 - 11:27

    The planet is fine.

    Humans and other life are in danger of an extinction event.

    The planet will recover.

    We, unlikely.

    Anything you do is for humans and their food (the rest of the planet's animals/plants).

    • OzzyOzbourne on 21/01/2019 - 11:39

      Recover in what state? Like Mars for example?

      • iDroid on 21/01/2019 - 11:49
        +1

        Ahh, no..

        That makes no sense, you could have said, "Like the Sun for example?" and it would be as meaningful.

        I'm NOT a climate change denier - and I DO want positive action.

        My point is, we're doing it for Humans and their food. Not the planet.

        The planet will likely be better off if we just continue as we are, become extinct and in 500,000 or 10,000,000 years the planet will be ticking along just fine. 100,000,000 years for a planet is a blink of an eye.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 21/01/2019 - 11:39

    Of course…. No humans on the planet will definitely save it from destruction by humans.

  • lostn on 21/01/2019 - 12:58

    If everyone had no kids, it would be the end of humanity within 100 years.

    And you would have a huge problem with an aging population and no one to feed you when you retire.

    Very shallow analysis.

    • RockyRaccoon on 21/01/2019 - 15:18

      How would that be a problem, you are going to die anyway, so you can either die early or dont retire. No shallowness with that.

      Without retirees a large number of people today wouldn't have jobs.

      • lostn on 21/01/2019 - 16:35

        Right. People who look after older people. Carers, nurses, doctors, specialists, etc.

        Suppose the world agreed to not have children. When the youngest people today become retirees, there will be no one to look after them.

        When everyone is retired, there will be no workers at all. No one will have any money. The government will have no money to spend, retirees will have no money, no one will be producing food and other goods the old people consume. It will be a rough final generation.

        Asking people to die early is political suicide. So is making them work when they're no longer physically able.

        And you know, some people don't want humanity to go extinct.

        The only scenario in which I can see a no-children policy remotely conceivable is if we unlocked eternal life, which includes eternal youth.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/01/2019 - 13:31
    +2

    If everyone stopped having kids, then the human race would die out, so yeah that would save the planet

    • craagz on 21/01/2019 - 15:32
      +2

      Saving the planet is firstly to benefit Human and Animal life. If there are no humans and animals left, what's the use of the planet?

      • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2019 - 09:15

        The point is there would be animals. If we talk about saving the planet as making it liveable for animals, then removing the source of climate change/pollution/habitat destruction (humans) is going to save the planet.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/01/2019 - 13:36
    -1

    Seriously though, climate change is not an individual issue. It's corporations doing the damage. No, not having kids is not the answer. Not having stock holders is the answer

    • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2019 - 09:26

      70% of green house emissions can be traced to 100 companies. Climate change is literally caused by consumption for the purpose of makeing the rich richer.

      This system feels so natural, that the idea of forcing sometime to stop making money in a particular way seems worse than letting the planet become unlivable for humans.

      https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10…

  • DiscoJango on 21/01/2019 - 14:32
    +1

    Hyperbole and cobblepot!

  • Bullion78 on 21/01/2019 - 16:31
    +1

    The great George Carlin did a bit on saving the planet. The OP should check it out.

    https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c

  • Koaladeals on 21/01/2019 - 16:32
    +4

    Wow, someone needs opinions for their year 8 essay, and people on this forum are happy to provide!

  • conservative on 21/01/2019 - 16:46

    Well Islam teaches that poverty is no excuse for not having children. PRetty sure Christianity talks about the importance of children and marriage too.

    From a biological perspective, the sole purpose of humans is to procreate.

    Humans should learn to move past the barriers such as global warming and expand to other planets and clamp down on policies that destroy the environment.

    • idonotknowwhy on 23/01/2019 - 06:38

      Nah, we'd rather deploy "space junk" and trap ourselves here.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2019 - 09:27

      We would need to deal with the barriers of greed and power before we can move past anything

  • brendanm on 21/01/2019 - 17:44

    Everyone in Australia can have zero children and it won't change global population much. Have a look at global birth rates. Africa and the middle east are very high.

  • Dack Smith on 21/01/2019 - 17:50
    -1

    The planet is better off without humans anyway.

    To stop climate change, stop having children.

    Everyone commit suicide to save the planet right now.

    Nuclear endgame is also a good way, as long as it is a dirty one to ensure the absolute extinction of the human race.

  • greatlamp on 21/01/2019 - 18:55
    +6

    Hello peasants

    Me and my fellow billionaires are enjoying our lives, but there is something that money can't buy, a clean earth.

    We have realised that we no longer need a large population of poors to maintain our lifestyles with the advent of automation fast approaching. It would make our lives a lot easier if there were less of you.

    But we are not evil, we just want to encourage you to have less children. Your meagre salaries will go further when you don't have to feed children. It's a win win for everyone!

    • HighAndDry on 22/01/2019 - 12:01
      -1

      The wealthier you are, the less children you already have. So that does away with that argument. I'd rather children being raised by people with the resources to actually raise them.

  • MITM on 21/01/2019 - 20:06

    Having no kids may very well save the planet, but your lineage will certainly become extinct.

  • DiLs on 21/01/2019 - 21:41
    +2

    Your parents did not thnk this?

  • Solosurf on 21/01/2019 - 21:47
    -2

    Planet was there before humans and will be after.forget about long term, who's gonna look after our wrinkly ass when we hit old age? Who will be paying our pensions? I think it is super selfish to think having no kids. Maybe focus on eating less meat, taking public transport, not using plastic bags etc.. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed” aptly expressed by Mahatma Gandhi, elucidates that the nature earth has enough resources & means to meet the basic requirements of a man but it can't serve the endless greed of man. I think western society has become more greedy and materialistic in the last century and it is ironic without addressing the fundamental issue which is inequality ,we are complaining about over population.

    • lltravel on 22/01/2019 - 16:23
      +1

      how is it selfish if you don't want kids? I don't want kids so im selfish? Thats a very dumb way to look at things. Kids are 18 years of headache and financial burden. I would rather live comfy then spend money on a kid. Thats not being selfish, its being smart.

      a few people eating less meat isn't going to do anything. You need this to happen on a global scale.
      public transport in Australia is garbage. They can't even build roads efficiently. I would take public transport in Australia if they match how its done in hong kong, singapore etc.

    • aerom on 23/01/2019 - 08:20

      @solosurf I keep hearing this 'selfish' argument. By not having kids, one is saving the planet by one less human being for n years (0<n<100). And a possible criminal. Do you think Hiters's (or Stalin's pick your own) parents were super altruistic to have given humanity what we all know now?
      it is super mean and very lazy to brand people who don't have kids as "selfish". Seems like by branding 'selfish' you are avoiding any explanation just like ad-hominem attack ( oh wait it is ad-hominem).

    • 91rs on 23/01/2019 - 12:01

      "who will look after us when we get old" - honestly that's got to be from someone who has not had to deal with old people who are in poor health.
      While in many cultures its part of the deal, for many its not and it can be a great burden to expect your child or children to carry, it also comes at great expense sometimes which in a country as expensive as we are is a disadvantage to those who have this put on them.

      Having had several years of looking after a parents that was dumped on me I've been left with large amounts of debt when that money should have been put towards a house or normal life events to be able to create a future, it very nearly cost me my marriage (still could) and pretty much the will not to live to the same age or if I get the same health issues to take myself out rather than putting such a burden on other people.
      But yeah I'm selfish…

  • outlander on 21/01/2019 - 21:50

    I'm kind of surprised when this keeps cropping up. I had the same idea when I was 15… but I grew out of it by the age of 20. Now I'm of the complete opposite opinion.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 21/01/2019 - 22:43
    +1

    Weather us in Australia have children or not it will make little impact on the environment Australia as a whole makes up 0.33% of the worlds population. I do believe in climate change but i also believe that it is the nations that are well over populated USA, China and India that can really have the planet - however none of them care about climate change because any change to help the planet would cost them the most due to they being the biggest contributors to it.

    • yargnairod on 22/01/2019 - 09:36
      +1

      Urrrggghh.. Not this "argument" again. Borders are arbitrary and this is jingoism at it's worst. Why vote? Your one vote doesn't make a difference? You've perfectly demonstrated why the world is stuffed. The people of pitcairn islands will be glad to know they can each run their own nuclear reactor because they're only 0.00001% of the the worlds population (made up statistic). BTW Australia punches well above it's weight in terms of using resources and CO2 gas emissions.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 22/01/2019 - 09:49
        +1

        We also have a very low birth rate in comparison to the rest of the world and per capita have some of the highest migration rates which in our history has helped Australia, people came here to work. Now people come here with 10 kids sit on the doll and let there kids break into peoples houses and offer nothing to the economy but a huge tax drain…

        If you think China, USA and India care about he environment? unless they change nothing will happen that is a fact has nothing to do with a mentality it is just the reality

      • HighAndDry on 22/01/2019 - 12:02

        Borders are arbitrary

        You never been to a beach Yargnairod?

        • aerom on 23/01/2019 - 08:24

          Guess he meant countries are man made arbitrary domains. Beaches don't define borders for most countries (e.g. islands across the beach). Borders are the evidence of 'might is right' policy, either from the past or present.

          • HighAndDry on 23/01/2019 - 08:42

            @aerom: That's the thing - most borders aren't arbitrary. Rather they follow obvious geographical and/or demographic lines.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2019 - 09:31

      Uh, is not that they have lots of people that is the problem, it's that they create lots of green houses gases producing products that first world nations consume. Literally, first world nations are the problem

  • MagicOZ on 21/01/2019 - 22:53

    You can't force the mind of people to stop having child's. Only WWIII can help reduce the biggest ecological enemy to the nature - the humans. Without wars, who knows what number of people alive can be. In the wild animal world, there are natural predators that keep thee balance, but not the man kind, unless aliens but they don't bother to kill us yet.

  • NotSureAboutThatMate on 21/01/2019 - 23:24
    +8

    It's just more anti-White propaganda. They only spread this type of nonsense in White nations.

    In the last couple generations especially, we were heavily indoctrinated against having children for social and environmental reasons. Climate change hysteria and fears of overpopulation were hammered into our youth relentlessly.

    And now we have a reproductive rate below replacement, with many young couples swearing off kids in a bizarrely self-righteous way, all across the West. Simultaneously, this top-heavy and projected declining population is now used to relentlessly propagandise children and youth on the necessity of 3rd world immigration (as well as, of course, cultivating the sociopolitical climate where criticism of this madness is the most egregious taboo). All the while we are reminded of the virtues of sending billions in foreign aid overseas to support the artificially high reproduce rate of Africans.

    Lastly, I would add that it's the educated and intelligent who are highly susceptible to this propaganda. The lower classes don't care. Your average welfare-dependent single mother in the ghetto is going to produce 5 dysfunctional kids no matter where this shit is published. The academic and his scientist wife, however, will avoid a family at all costs. It's dysgenic.

    In short: Convince a people you don't like that children are awful, therefore far fewer of them have children (and those that do are disproportionately the bottom of the barrel), now you have a population of hedonists with no real investment in their future, con them into accepting hordes of foreigners from some of the worst places on Earth for equally nonsensical yet 'academic' reasons. Congratulations, that population is now screwed without you ever having to spill blood.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2019 - 09:32
      -2

      This person is a white supremacist

      • NotSureAboutThatMate on 30/01/2019 - 08:40

        Try an actual argument, instead of just calling people names.

  • imcold on 22/01/2019 - 00:54
    +1

    If your really interested in saving by the planet you can significantly reduce CO2 emissions by moving to a third world country, and live in an area with no electricity, no sewage, no access to potable water, and no roads.

    • ozhunter on 22/01/2019 - 02:09
      +2

      Na, seems too much effort. They rather cull the human population(and of course, starting with others).

      • kehuehue on 22/01/2019 - 10:12

        Im surprised at how some people are okay with the idea of starting a war or spreading disease for the purpose of reducing population - and ofcourse its the others.

        • idonotknowwhy on 23/01/2019 - 06:37

          Then you need to pick up some history books. People have been possessed by nutty ideas since we've been recording history :s

          • kehuehue on 23/01/2019 - 09:46

            @idonotknowwhy: sadly, its all talk just to portray a sense of moral high ground. in the end, its all about one group vs another.

  • ozhunter on 22/01/2019 - 02:21
    -2

    So the earth is apparently 4.5 billion years old but humans have done enough damage since the industrial revolution that now the planet is going to die? Is that what climate change believers believe?

    • idonotknowwhy on 22/01/2019 - 07:30

      So the earth is apparently 4.5 billion years old but humans have done enough damage since the industrial revolution that now the planet is going to die? Is that what climate change believers believe?

      No. Earth isn't going to "die" (until the star it orbits dies).
      It is very likely that humans have kicked off a process which changes the Goldilocks conditions which sustain human life into something else.
      It's hard for some of us to "believe" because we're not scientists, and our monkey-brains haven't evolved to consider the timescale of 4.5 billion years (that never helped our ancestors when they were being chased by a wolf while looking for water).

      https://xkcd.com/1732/

      As for not having kids to save the planet, sounds like people are trying to come up with reasons no to for some reason.
      "I don't want to" is a good enough reason imo. The "P.S. I'm saving the planet" is about as necessary as the "P.S. We're saving the world" aspect of the plot to the movie Inception.

      • Zachary on 22/01/2019 - 15:49

        Last North American pokemon go extinct

        "That is not a real fact" Nice fourth wall break there…

        Hah…..

        Invasion of the sea peoples

        What….so we have humans that are amphibians? That would be kinda cool……can just imagine those underwater cities…..

  • aerom on 22/01/2019 - 03:51

    Qucickly scrolled through comments , amazing no one mentioned this. I believe this is the core of the issue here.
    Population is one variable to play with to reduce environmental impact, other is technology, so much junk (energy) is used that it covers up for any savings from reduced population.That is one of the reasons why "poorer" countries even with their large population emit far less carbon dioxide than countries with high income and low population (e.g. Australia).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT

  • hypie on 22/01/2019 - 08:33
    +1

    These conversations always remind me of this cult classic Idiocracy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9nVLXMhPc

  • BrendaEagles on 22/01/2019 - 11:12
    +1

    eliminate the people that think like that and the reduced population will live a better quality life with more resources and the average intelligence worldwide will increase ten fold

  • locknuts on 22/01/2019 - 12:08

    Climate change isn't as critical a problem as the alarmist media and politicians will have you believe. The results of climate change so far have been net-positive including global greening and increased crop yields. It might turn negative with rising sea levels and extreme weather events, but the truth seems to be that nobody actually knows. I think the best solution is to adapt to any changes that come rather than demonising fossil fuels that developing nations need to increase their standards of living. The only way to ensure that we can continue to adapt is for smart people to have more children. I'm not sure how to incentivise smart people to breed but I think that's a start. Adaptation may include moving food crops to higher altitudes to compensate for the increased temperatures where they can also benefit from Co2 enrichment.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.…

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0143116050003368…

    • greatlamp on 23/01/2019 - 14:03

      I'm all for limiting oil consumption, its a rigged market.

      Taxing CO2 is a tax on the poor. Greenhouse gasses are exponentially more harmful to the environment than CO2, yet no policy ever touches them.

      How about we tax the heat your home produces, just as pointless. The entire global warming conversation is full of half facts, and any criticism is called denial.

      It doesn't help that the loudest critics are imbeciles

      • locknuts on 23/01/2019 - 15:19

        Oil is a 'rigged' market? Budum tish! Seriously though I totally agree with you. The conspiracy theorists don't help either. All I see are people with obvious incentives to push the agenda.

  • Bid Sniper on 22/01/2019 - 12:23
    -1

    Going to kickstart a sub orbital biological weapon in order to reduce carbon emission by wiping out the human race.

    Hoping Space X will be able to give a good deal. Not sure what payload at this stage, thinking Botulism but I think Russia have something better.

  • huntress_love on 22/01/2019 - 12:54
    +1

    This is so stupid, it's like saying like just kill off half the world to save the Earth.
    When they are so many ways we can use the elements, sun, wind, water to produce energy, the only reason that's progress in such area is so slow, is because the large organisations that make money from what we currently use, go out of their way to hinder it. All comes down to greed really!

  • altitudinous on 22/01/2019 - 13:34
    +3

    Ha, this reminds me of the first few minutes of the Mike Judge movie "Idiocracy"

    The movie is well worth a watch, but just the first few minutes are relevant here.

    You are going to make no difference whatsoever in not having kids. However, if you are selfish and wish to perpetuate some myth that you are making a difference and want to make others lives miserable by telling them all about it then go right ahead and have no kids.

    Just like your green tendencies in reducing Australian emissions will make no difference in climate change. Only 1.3% of the worlds emissions come from Australia, so even if we were to switch off every light, destroy every car and nobody or their animal was to fart, the world emissions would still be 98.7% of what they are now. However, if you are selfish and wish to perpetuate some myth that you are making a difference and want to make others lives miserable by telling them all about it then go right ahead and reduce your emissions.

    • UFO on 22/01/2019 - 15:19

      Saw your comment after making mine below linking the movie intro ;).

      Spot on!

  • trapper on 22/01/2019 - 13:36
    +1

    You could always go one step further and remove your own 58.6T of emissions a year.

  • releasethekr4cken on 22/01/2019 - 14:15
    +1

    Having less kids is a slow way to fix the problem, alternatively have more kids, raise them to be biological weapons by not immunising them. Currently no laws against that.

  • UFO on 22/01/2019 - 15:16
    +2

    Smart people are being 'outbred' by dumb people. The intro to the movie Idiocracy should be enough to explain where we are headed.
    The truths in that movie that have unfolded in the last few years have been scary.

    Idiocracy Intro:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

    • idonotknowwhy on 22/01/2019 - 16:21
      +2

      It's already happened man, I found Ow My Balls to be hilarious!

  • psylence on 22/01/2019 - 15:53
    +2

    You say

    "They buy an electric car that really isnt all that environmentally friendly as its charged by non green sources"

    Can you please reference where you got this from because from my research -

    Electric cars created 40% less CO2 per mile than petrol or diesel cars in 2018, even when using electricity from coal-fired power stations.

    https://www.drivingelectric.com/news/821/electric-cars-creat…

    • Melb69 on 22/01/2019 - 21:56
      -2

      I think unless you are in SA. Power from in the rest of the States is primarily from coal. Sure we have hydro electric. The green power sources will catch up when it becomes more reliable. We should go nuclear.

      • psylence on 23/01/2019 - 07:53

        Agree that we should go nuclear the article I referenced was from coal fired powerstations.

  • AlienC on 22/01/2019 - 23:03
    +1

    Problem isn't the kids but the people making the kids. Gotta change society at the root cause otherwise nothing will change. First step if this is a serious thread is to change the way we process and manage food as it is one of the biggest things to impact our planet.

    Things like self sufficiency and zero waste movement are some great starters then we move on to waste management and then really think about the necessities.. this is a made up figure but if I were to look at my family and friends and peers about 1/2 of the stuff they own is technically useless and really not needed. I could say maybe giveaway 1/2 of the stuff I own as it is useless and not needed and could either be reused or recycled or better stop someone else from over consuming.

    Once we get the 100% efficiency part right which I estimate to take still thousands of years maybe more depending on how long society clings to overabundance then we can consider other avenues like reductions in other areas or maybe even complete total new ways of doing business and living our lives.

    One day we will reach that beautiful nirvana some day.

    • wolomolo on 23/01/2019 - 22:26

      agree, its more about resource management and getting the government aligned with people's view on the environment and stopping corporate greed…

      having less children or letting smart people produce more children does not necessarily change how we use our resource.. the cause of the problem is right education and understanding of how consumerism and eating meat is slowly destroying the environment we live in

    • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2019 - 09:38

      Currently our planet has enough food to feed every person. People still go hungry. Why? Because feeding every person doesn't make profit.

      If we have more efficient food production, less people to feed, whatever, it won't change the fact that the people who control the food are gonna use that to make profit, and are gonna let others starve if it doesn't benefit them

      • AlienC on 27/01/2019 - 15:17

        I know but the less it costs for the big guys to feed the starving guys the better. They are more inclined to let go $1000 worth of food than $1000000 worth of product.

        Basically when food production and costs becomes a non issue food will become a non issue like getting water in Australia is now. Getting water good clean water can be a difficulty in other countries easily because their infrastructure is not there to process it and handle it.

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 22/01/2019 - 23:27

    I don't think anyone really cares about the planet. Or anything for that matter.

    You're either running on that hamster wheel or watching others have their turn.

  • nurbsenvi on 23/01/2019 - 03:37
    -2

    I have a child
    I love him to death
    But I regret bringing him to such a harsh world
    Everyone’s life is some form of tregedy
    Best to end it with you.

    If you are not rich, tall, smart and handsome
    Do not bring another tregedy to the world
    He/She will end up being a slave or NPC for some rich guy

  • kazza2115 on 23/01/2019 - 05:55

    "carbon foodprint" hahaha sounds alright to me.

  • happirt on 23/01/2019 - 09:30
    +1

    such a short sighted perspective. where did you pull out figures like
    1B and now heading well into 7.7b and more?

    and do you actually trust these figures like whoever came up with those figures have a crystal ball and able to predict the future? it sounds like these figures are just based off past and current trends. how credible are they to predict the future?

    or ever thought about the countries (mainly developed countries) that are in the population shrinking phase and how human living standards can impact population and human behavior?

    or where the significant emissions are being generated?

    or how space travel might impact population in the future?

    or,…

    • idonotknowwhy on 23/01/2019 - 09:58

      or how space travel might impact population in the future?

      We can't spend the resources on exploring that mountain yet, we have to solve the cave issues first. /s

      • happirt on 23/01/2019 - 10:54

        im pretty sure last time I checked some peoples resources are being invested as we speak right now…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join