196

16450 readers

2058 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

211

Antinatalism Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

294 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, having kids probably reduced my household resource consumption, compared to the dual income no kid lifestyle that my wife and I had before kids.

Population growth is so far disconnected from resource consumption, because people's resource consumption does not resemble a bell curve. A private jet produces more CO2 in an hour (about 2 tonnes) than the average Indian produces in a year (about 1.9 tonnes).

The poor people having children aren't destroying the planet. Rich people, childless or not, are. (And yes, I acknowledge that I fall under the "rich" category here.)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't know you, but you probably don't fall on the category of "rich" in my mind.

Richer than an Indian farmer. Ok. I'm also rich then. I live in a house (not mine) and don't go hungry.

I don't even consider billionaires on the scale.....that is just an afront on humanity and shouldn't exist.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think my personal resource consumption, if scaled up to the world population, would be devastating. That's what I mean by categorizing myself in the "rich." I might not be a billionaire, but I'm far, far above the global average, and still significantly above the national average for my nation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Points to you, for self-awareness.