Have a vasectomy and save the World

[Gambatte]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...save-the-world

Do you also get annoyed such crappy article?

Nobody cares more than me about rescuing our planet.
But still, the way to do it should be by reducing overall consumption, which does not need to be making fewer children. We can cut consumption hugely and still have ultracomfortable lifestyle. Less meat, smaller cars, less driving, less hardware, smaller houses, less flying for fun...

And if people prefer not to make children, well, I don't need to mention there are various ways NOT to make children, that do not need doctors intervention.

[noel]

I find it interesting, not annoying. It surprises me that some men are taking this step and citing climate concerns as their main reason.

I think making fewer children is part of the solution, along with reducing excessive consumption. And it's not just about climate change, there's also habitat loss as more of the planet is dedicated to humans and our food. Having said that, I'm a poor advocate of this approach as we have two kids.

I agree, there are other ways to not have kids. Equally, if you're committed to it, vasectomy is probably easier than asking women to take contraception for years.

[Gambatte]

I think making fewer children is part of the solution.

I think this sends a wrong message.

Like CEO paying themselves zillions, and telling the workers: "sorry guys, I'd love to pay you more than peanuts, but just there's no money available for it". I would say a fair distribution of what is available / sustainable is the right answer. Fewer children is "the answer" only when us the rich ones continue abusing what's available.

[Mike T]

At the top of every "how to reduce your carbon footprint" list is having fewer children. Even just one fewer makes a big difference. We rich people in the UK/Europe can easily choose the number of our offspring, and we do not need them to care for us as we age. I do not see a problem in encouraging "climate vasectomies".

[Hank]

I think this sends a wrong message.

Like CEO paying themselves zillions, and telling the workers: "sorry guys, I'd love to pay you more than peanuts, but just there's no money available for it". I would say a fair distribution of what is available / sustainable is the right answer. Fewer children is "the answer" only when us the rich ones continue abusing what's available.

But fewer people means less strain on the resources we have. It's not a zero sum game and being more sustainable, fairer distribution*, etc. are essential parts of the solution too, but I can't really see argument that sensible population growth management won't be a big help to achieving, amongst other things, climate goals.

[bigfella]

Isn't the economy one big pyramid scheme though, we need more young people paying taxes to pay for us in our old age. Restricting families to one child wasn't exactly a success in China.

[Gambatte]

Guys, ok I'm in the minority but I still very strongly disagree.

Fewer people only means we can continue to overconsume (actually we cannot, but let's pretend...).

Like middle class professionals earning together 70k or whatever saying "we'd love to have children but cannot afford it financially". They CAN, just they're not prepared to trade their lifestyle to a more modest one, their choice and fine with it, but to hear "we'd like but we cannot" feels very very untrue. And a bit selfish. Not saying they're bad people or anything.

[noel]

Isn't the economy one big pyramid scheme though, we need more young people paying taxes to pay for us in our old age. Restricting families to one child wasn't exactly a success in China.

That's one of the big challenges for economies - transitioning to a state where we pay for our own old age, not expect our kids to. Japan is probably a good example here - lots of old people, low birth rate, stagnant economy.

It's hard to say whether China would have been in a better state if they hadn't have introduced the one kid rule (we don't know the counterfactual). This article thinks it didn't make much difference: https://science.howstuffworks.com/sc...ild-policy.htm - this surprised me.

Guys, ok I'm in the minority but I still very strongly disagree.

Fewer people only means we can continue to overconsume (actually we cannot, but let's pretend...).

I think we definitely need both approaches, and I'm not advocating fewer kids so we can continue to overconsume. I think we're already past the point where just having fewer kids would fix things.

Without wanting to kill billions of people (obvs), I think the world would be a much more enjoyable and rich place for those humans living in it if we could over time reduce the world's human population. As a lover of wildlife, and wide open spaces. The thought of a world with 12 billion people fills me with dread. I think a world with 4 billion would be much better for everyone. The tricky bit is how we get there as painlessly as possible.

[mr brightside]

I'm currently reading 'Limits to Growth' which deals with this is a core issue. I'm only in the first chapter, but it is quite clear about the fact that population growth is up, and exponential. Death rates are down considerably which makes the flattening of fertility rates a bit null.

Globally we're using 2.1 earths, or we were doing when the LTG '30yr update' was written.

[Mike T]

Guys, ok I'm in the minority but I still very strongly disagree.

Fewer people only means we can continue to overconsume (actually we cannot, but let's pretend...).

Like middle class professionals earning together 70k or whatever saying "we'd love to have children but cannot afford it financially". They CAN, just they're not prepared to trade their lifestyle to a more modest one, their choice and fine with it, but to hear "we'd like but we cannot" feels very very untrue. And a bit selfish. Not saying they're bad people or anything.

People on decent salaries who choose not to have children can live a relatively lavish lifestyle compared to their colleagues who procreate, and I can understand why some might see this as selfish. But equally, being childless, they could retire earlier or work part time, and so consume less overall, and thus do the planet a double favour.