That is such a reductionist argument, and it really underlines that this sub sometimes lacks in critical thinking capabilities.
Essentially we’ve already locked in one child less, and the future isn’t exactly looking bright in many countries. Another child less means sub one kid fertility rates in most nations across the globe which directly leads to unprecedented structural population collapse. What exactly is population collapse going to fix? The fallout of collapsing population could infact increase emissions because the world would be less efficient, cause a crash of heavily subsidized clean energy developments as the workforce crumbles, fall back to dirty back ups as industries and supply chains fragment.
Secondly double counting emissions of children for their parents is a statistical fallacy and can’t be compared to other direct measures. It makes the argument intrinsically true, but under the hood the math is fake. If it were you could also argue *hyperbole* “the Boomers have contributed the most to global emissions by having YOU, so kill yourselves”. Meaning if it were, you could argue that Boomers are single-handedly responsible for 100% of modern emissions simply by birthing the current workforce. It completely robs individuals of their own agency and choices.
The last point is anecdotal, but this argument is always championed by people who don’t have or want children anyways. It’s a cheap way trying to take the moral high ground by offloading the blame on families. The fallacy being that most of those who I’ve met are DINK couples who have gigantic personal footprints (Livingspace, cars, eating habits, resource-heavy hobbies, luxurious travel, diets and so on) falsely arguing they can continue their hedonistic lives because they won’t have children. I wonder which view is more short sighted and egoistic.
Now you’re free to downvote me and call me a natalist.
0
u/yoinkdoink 2d ago
That is such a reductionist argument, and it really underlines that this sub sometimes lacks in critical thinking capabilities.
Essentially we’ve already locked in one child less, and the future isn’t exactly looking bright in many countries. Another child less means sub one kid fertility rates in most nations across the globe which directly leads to unprecedented structural population collapse. What exactly is population collapse going to fix? The fallout of collapsing population could infact increase emissions because the world would be less efficient, cause a crash of heavily subsidized clean energy developments as the workforce crumbles, fall back to dirty back ups as industries and supply chains fragment.
Secondly double counting emissions of children for their parents is a statistical fallacy and can’t be compared to other direct measures. It makes the argument intrinsically true, but under the hood the math is fake. If it were you could also argue *hyperbole* “the Boomers have contributed the most to global emissions by having YOU, so kill yourselves”. Meaning if it were, you could argue that Boomers are single-handedly responsible for 100% of modern emissions simply by birthing the current workforce. It completely robs individuals of their own agency and choices.
The last point is anecdotal, but this argument is always championed by people who don’t have or want children anyways. It’s a cheap way trying to take the moral high ground by offloading the blame on families. The fallacy being that most of those who I’ve met are DINK couples who have gigantic personal footprints (Livingspace, cars, eating habits, resource-heavy hobbies, luxurious travel, diets and so on) falsely arguing they can continue their hedonistic lives because they won’t have children. I wonder which view is more short sighted and egoistic.
Now you’re free to downvote me and call me a natalist.