Given that it is easier to have no children then there is simply no need to have them! It is now 2019, we don't have subsistence farming, so we don't have a need for children to toil in the fields. There is no need for mandatory sterilisation as we now have effective contraception and safe abortion if necessary.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Extinction Rebellion transport disruption from 17/04/2019
- Thread starter reddragon
- Start date
- Status
Given that it is easier to have no children then there is simply no need to have them! It is now 2019, we don't have subsistence farming, so we don't have a need for children to toil in the fields. There is no need for mandatory sterilisation as we now have effective contraception and safe abortion if necessary.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Not at all. But I do see the benefit of children. Not least in prolonging the human race, and continuing the pursuit of knowledge such that we can all enjoy the wonders of life and the universe.
NoMorePacers
Established Member
There are still plenty of countries in the world where children work and earn that extra bit of money for their familiies, who are usually in poverty.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
I'm surprised you don't have a little red book.
China might produce more however they have only recently overtaken the UK in terms of emissions per capita. Also do not forget, that a significant amount of emissions produced by China are for the production of goods consumed in the developed world!
Ah, you're just trolling then, sigh.
But why must it be prolonged? See, you just accept it without question. Prevailing culture assumes the human race must continue indefinitely.
Socialists believe in substantial financial subsidies for families together with generous state provision of childcare.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Agreed, I'm believing more that this is an elaborate troll.
So you don't think there is such a thing as antinatalism?
Essan
Member
Aye, if China don't build more power stations, how will be get a new iPhone every year?!
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
They're wasting their breath - eventually the sun will flare up and incinerate the planet anyway. We should be concentrating our efforts on travelling to other planets that we can muck up.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
A bit on the DLR yesterday but nothing else, I believe.
I wouldn't call the £34.40 a week my partner and I get "substantial".
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Ants seem to have a group culture where all work for the common good of the colony but it does not seem if this species have decided to reduce the number of eggs laid in order to make a check upon their numbers.
700007
Established Member
Long story short, people aren't going to stop having kids for the sake of the environment. Naturally, families in the UK and other developed economies are already getting smaller anyways.
Having no kids may stop climate change but you know what it also stops? The advancement of the world. The birth of a new generation. A new generation to appreciate the inventions and innovations we have made. It stops economic growth, success both as an economy and personal. It stops happiness, appreciation, motivation and inspiration.
I don't know about you, but I will not deprive our generation and the next generation of what could be a really cool or at the very least interesting legacy for a bunch of trees.
I am a supporter of trying to stop climate change but I find the protests pointless and I would not do something as radical as deprive myself the chance of being a parent to stop a few trees being killed.
Having no kids may stop climate change but you know what it also stops? The advancement of the world. The birth of a new generation. A new generation to appreciate the inventions and innovations we have made. It stops economic growth, success both as an economy and personal. It stops happiness, appreciation, motivation and inspiration.
I don't know about you, but I will not deprive our generation and the next generation of what could be a really cool or at the very least interesting legacy for a bunch of trees.
I am a supporter of trying to stop climate change but I find the protests pointless and I would not do something as radical as deprive myself the chance of being a parent to stop a few trees being killed.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Addressing climate change by not having children would take several decades to filter through to a significant drop in the population. That's more than the time available to do something.
Esker-pades
Established Member
97% of climate scientists. I can go through the basic chemistry of why human emissions are at least accellerating climate change if you want.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
An ever increasing population is unsustainable so it will be inevitable that the global population will end up levelling off either through large scale war, global plague, mass starvation or all three.
For the eco protestors to slow (they won't avoid) the inevitable they need to adopt three central tenets -
1. Curb population - restricting rather than stopping the birth rate
2. Ban all mechanical means of transport - even cycling as it requires industrial plants for manufacture and maintenance. Basically we walk.
3. Only consume what we require for sustenance - ban production of everything that isn't required as food.
None of those is ever likely to happen so we might as well say to hell with it and enjoy the time we have left.
For the eco protestors to slow (they won't avoid) the inevitable they need to adopt three central tenets -
1. Curb population - restricting rather than stopping the birth rate
2. Ban all mechanical means of transport - even cycling as it requires industrial plants for manufacture and maintenance. Basically we walk.
3. Only consume what we require for sustenance - ban production of everything that isn't required as food.
None of those is ever likely to happen so we might as well say to hell with it and enjoy the time we have left.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Gosh, what a depressing viewpoint. Luckily it's almost certainly largely false.
1. As BaldRick has pointed out, population tends to naturally level off once countries reach a certain standard of living anyway. The challenge will then be to sustain that level of population (maybe, 11 billion) in a way that keeps the natural environment. On a quick google, it seems that some scientists have estimated that the Earth can naturally sustain about 10 billion (based on things like land available to grow food). That doesn't seem to me to be to much of a gap for technological improvements to overcome.
2. Nothing wrong with having industrial plants - just need to make sure they are designed so as not to severely impact the natural environment. And it's perfectly possible in principle to have mechanical transport that's powered using renewable energy (eg. electricity generated from solar/wind/etc.) So no, there's no need to ban mechanical transport.
3. DItto 2. No need to ban production. Just make sure stuff is produced sustainably. Technology and environmental regulations ought to be able to sort that out eventually.
There have been experiments with rats that show a gradual drop in fertility as population density increases. This is also true in human civilisation where the affluent western population's birth rate has slowly reduced, and will be replicated in nations as they develop such as much of the far east. As has been commented above, some advanced nations now have falling (indigenous) populations - all done without legislation of socially devisive pressure from self-serving* child-haters as seems to be the solution offered by some posters.
* control births so there is an environmental capacity for them to continue to expand their lifestyle.
If only environmental impact could be expressed on a per capita basis globally, we would find that the offspring of a wealthy capitalist family has a far bigger impact that a whole family of the worlds deprived peoples. As always, these arguments tend to be skewed to suit the contributor's personal situation.
Last edited:
What will people use if there are no taxis? Buses? I thought those were being cut to save money.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Looking at the cows in the two farms that border our residence, I wonder how much of these discussed detrimental scenarios are down to global ruminants.
Esker-pades
Established Member
Commercial farming of cows (and other livestock) contribute a huge amount. That's why a lot of climate campaigners are vegetarian or vegan.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Yes, buses in central London are being cut. Realistically, all the taxis and Uber vehicles have slowed down traffic in central London so badly in recent years that using buses has become a lot less attractive. Taxis (and private cars) do use up a hugely disproportionate amount of road space for the relatively small number of people they carry in central London, and reducing their numbers would speed up buses considerably. Not only would that attract more people to use the buses, but it would make it a lot cheaper for TfL to run the buses - since faster round-trip times would mean you need fewer buses to maintain the same level of service. That ought to counteract the impact of the cuts in services.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
If you look at this country as a pinnacle of development then there is hardly such a thing as a 'natural environment' - the majority of the country is managed or shaped by the human population with there being very little natural about it.
The whole point of production in a capitalist system is based on sustained and continual growth - industrial production will never be totally green and it will always be under pressure to produce more and increase.
Pollution levels are already causing deaths yet people deem it their right to make petulant day trips by plane to Riga at cheap fares. Something somewhere really is going to have to give at some stage.
Technological and environmental rules are ignored on a wide scale the world over so good luck with policing that.
Walking and cycling more. Besides the streets becoming more pleasant and more amenable to such activities, people are also increasingly realising the health benefits.
I do this and shop locally as much as possible as I want local amenities I can walk and cycle to. I don't want to live a lifestyle where I have to drive ten miles to buy a pint of milk or a pound of apples.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I still wonder how many "wild" ruminants there are globally who can still produce their share of the problem.
- Status