• kinther@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t understand why you have having such a hard time understanding that more mouths to feed, house, clothe, and provide energy for increases co2 emissions. No one is suggesting murdering children here. Having fewer children can be accomplished easily by using birth control such as condoms or the pill or any other method available.

            • kinther@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re latching on to what China did as an example and it forms the majority of your argument. I dont see anyone here suggesting we adopt a one child policy like they did, only reduce the amount of children being born.

              Yes one could arguably bike everywhere and it would reduce your stress on the environment than if you drove everywhere. One could also argue having fewer people also reduces stress on the environment as well. Both will do the same thing, one to a greater degree.

              It honestly sounds like you have children and are trying to justify your behavior despite knowing the negative impacts.

          • Corhen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the problem is, lets say 20 years from now, we now have a carbon negative economy. If we just look at the past trend lines, we would have to look at the future trend lines “each kid you have reduces carbon output by…”

            In the long run, its an over simplistic representation.

    • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is not an opinion to state that fewer people equals less consumption.

      Edit: Pardon, but if those of you mindlessly downvoting could explain your point instead of just being disagreeable, it would be appreciated.

        • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Other than the precise numbers contained in the infographic, which aspect of the original post ignores the fundamentals of science? Especially now that you’ve also agreed that fewer people equals less consumption.