Utopia Talk / Politics / Beloved child (demographics)

jergul large member	Mon Nov 11 10:19:40 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 Here are the highest ranking individual actions (kg CO2 per year per person): Have one fewer child 23700–117700 Live car free 1000–5300 Avoid one flight (depending on length) 700–2800 Purchase green energy <100–2500 Reduce effects of driving - Buy more efficient car 1190 Eat a plant-based diet 300–1600 ..... Stop using plastic bags 5 ================= I am not arguing social engineering, or government mandates, or anything like that. Hell, I am not even arguing change, but rather pointing out that most women in developed economies are already taking the most profound action they can (barring suicide and murder) to minimize their net CO2 foot print. A thought experiment: 50% women - 0 children 25% - 1 child 12.5% - 2 children 6.25% - 3 children 3.12% - 4 children etc What is so horrible about that if freely chosen?
Average Ameriacn Member	Mon Nov 11 10:32:30 Is it true that guns burn CO2 when fired? Would more guns be the solution to the so called global warming if it wasn't a hoax invented by the Chinese?
jergul large member	Mon Nov 11 10:42:46 The impact of guns in civilian hands in the US may very well help reduce CO2. (30 000 people*55 000 kg C02/year)/300 000 000 guns Private gun ownership is about as effective as not using plastic bags.
Paramount Member	Mon Nov 11 10:59:44 In Sweden they have started to tax plastic bags. If you do some grocery shopping and if you need something (a plastic bag) to carry all of it, then it costs you 7 SEK (for the plastic bag). Ridicilous, as our plastic bags does not end up in the ocean, like they do in countries around the Med. Sea or in Asia. We have a long tradition of re-using our plastic bags for household garbage, but yet they want to tax plastic bags. So if the The Green Party wants us to stop using plastic bags – what are we supposed to throw our household garbage in? A paper bag does not work because you can’t knot/tie it, so all of our garbage are going to spill out in the recycling container which will anger the garbage man/company who is collecting/picking up the containers. But I no longer care. I’m going to pour out all of my household garbage in the container, make it a mess and leave a note everytime that says: ”Best regards, The Green Party”.
hood Member	Mon Nov 11 11:01:20 Argument against: What is the point in preserving the planet if not for your descendants? No children, no point.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 11 11:11:48 Para "what are we supposed to throw our household garbage in?" Just buy a roll of purpose made garbage bags. I have been doing that for years (the plastic content is far, far lower than in plastic bags designed to carry a signficant load. Hood Someone who thinks that way should probably have kids.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Nov 11 11:19:22 "preserving the planet" lol
Paramount Member	Mon Nov 11 11:36:35 Jergul, ” Just buy a roll of purpose made garbage bags.” I guess I could do that. But I wouldn’t be surprised if those bags are going to be taxed as well. But how am I supposed to carry my things that I buy in the store, if we are to stop using plastic bags? Paper bags and textile/fabric bags are worse for the climate than plastic bags, I have heard. And I don’t want to carry a textile/fabric bag with me all the time just in case if I need to grocery shop. Where should I put the bag? In my jeans pockets?
patom Member	Mon Nov 11 12:10:27 We could always revert to pure garbage pails that we used in the 50's. They had a separate truck that would come around and collect food waste. The maggots were kind of gross but there were no plastic bags back then. We burned most of our paper waste in a barrel in the back yard. If I'm not mistaken, food waste was fed to pigs back then. Pork was always cooked well done.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Nov 11 13:18:54 Why would anyone mind genes self selecting themselves into extinction? I firmely believe nature must be allowed to run its’ course on this one. Your assumptions however are based on rather recent social change, it assumes linearity in how present and future cohorts will prioritize their life and pursuit of happiness. Career over family. This is not a given, at all. Even look at the padt decades birth rates fluctuate based on economic cycles and policy decision. The prognosis for Sweden is rather stable birth rates the next 50 years. I think the turn off for many in this line of thinking is precisely what Hood said. If that is the solution than it isn’t worth solving. It’s like you are stuck in this room and you are running out of oxygene, telling people ”not breathing is a profound way to take responsibility” just isn’t very appealing. We need more appealing solutions.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 11 13:48:55 Nimi Anyone driven by ideas on biological imperatives should definitely have children. But why 3 instead of 2, or 5 instead of 4? The idea of doing a lot for the environment simply by making it a consideration when weighing the merits of family expansion is something I think many might find appealing.
Forwyn Member	Mon Nov 11 14:01:59 "3 instead of 2" 2 is below the replacement rate.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 11 14:33:33 Foryn It is.
Rugian Member	Mon Nov 11 14:53:05 Death. Cult.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 11 15:14:10 Ruggy Not at all. I think people should have as many children as they feel is appropriate.
Rugian Member	Mon Nov 11 15:34:49 But at the same time, you want to indoctrinate the populace into believing that every child they do produce will increase the risk of bringing the onset of a metaphorical apocalypse.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Nov 11 16:18:15 Jergul But that is the obstacle if the way of this idea, collectively we driven by biological imperatives. Why do we want to have children at all, it is an insane decision. They cost money, take up all your time and investment that is unlikely to pay off. In many ways they are a disaster to an otherwise perfectly functioning life you and your partner were having. They cause you pain and worry, yet we insist, because they are adorable for 3 years :,) What else are we going to do if we are going to be made redundant by AI anyway and get citizen salaries? Me and the wife set the limit at three, but it depends on the sex of the next one, if it is a girl we may call quits, another boy would raise the risk of recidivism :) Which, I guess is why you went for 3 instead of 2 :P That questions has many answers, it is mostly emotional I think.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 12 02:44:06 Ruggy I simply want it to be a consideration. Civilization is ultimately based on individual responsibility lining up with common goals. Nimi Men and women seem driven to at least going through the motions at very regular intervals, but science does indicate that going through the motions is primarily hormone driven. Collectively, whatever biological or emotional imperatives drives procreation currently seems satisfied at around 1.7 children per woman.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 12 03:44:50 Currently being the key word, in the wake of the previous social upheaval. We have no idea what future social revolutions and changes are in store. If at any point technology was to make giprocreation even easier (which it will) or feminist utopia came true and men and women were home with their children 50/50 I would expect it to go up. There is a cost for career driven women at the moment, which some groups want to lower. I am not saying I am against or for it, but the same people are usually worried about the evironment.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 12 05:24:50 Nimi In the US, birth rates have been below replacement generally since 1971 (or about the same time the birth control pill became widespread). But sure, the birth rate could go up, or down, in the future.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 12 06:08:41 I will leave you with an anecdot. The people we bought the house from had 3 sons. The husband was an only child however. The irony, they are your cookie cutter feminist couple :) trying to proactively combat the "macho culture" in the construction business (he owns a construction Company, she works there). With methods straight out of gender theory I can add. I found it hilarious when I googled them :P *Decent and honest people in every way you can imagine, don't have a bad word to say about them* Kids rebel in the strangest ways.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 12 06:08:59 had = have (they are all alive)
jergul large member	Tue Nov 12 10:28:03 Nimi A cookie cutter feminist couple would not typically have the male own a construction company and the woman work there. Nor is there any irony in a feminist couple having 3 boys :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 12 12:05:48 She is head of HR. Heh, there is this character "Lady Dahmer", she is the queen of feminist bloggers in Sweden. For years she has preached the feminist, years. Then she got kids and she took ALL the parental leave days while her husband was working full time, she is basically a stay at home mom with moderately successful blog. She made several posts defending her and her husbands right to decide for themselves :) while having prescribed different for women.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 12 13:50:54 Nimi The newest feminist ideas are that 3 months should be reserved for maternal recovery in cases where someone has given birth, then each parent should have 9 months leave (at the same time). Parental leave becoming an individual right, not a collective right.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 12 18:58:03 Lol those business class trips really put my high score up there! Anyway, how do the cost of all those things, the bulk of human consumption, add up to much less than the cost of 1 kid. 1 average kid should be equal to the average cost of all the things a human does.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 12 19:15:49 Last year i hit 115k kg. High score! This years gonna be a lot lower:(
jergul large member	Tue Nov 12 19:35:58 Its actually pretty amazing how much you can fly for one kid.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 13 04:33:48 Jergul Yes, those were the things she preached, until she got children and circumstance (being umeployed) made that an objectively shitty choice. >>Parental leave becoming an individual right, not a collective right.<< From my POV the individual in question is the child that needs care. You should be allowed to give those days to grandpa, or anyone else you trust, who is living with you while you and wife are working. It is part finacial decision for most people. If I am making 3 times the salary of my wife, 90% (my employeer adds 10%) of that salary is a bigger drop than 80% of hers. But most employeers do not add 10%, so it is an even bigger drop because the limit is at 40k SEK/month i.e earnings above that have no impact. Would have been quite a big hit to the household economy for us. I am pro freedom of choice on this issue. Plan your life according to the circumstances.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 13 05:09:59 Nimi The child is however not the individual in question who is getting paid by the State to be at home. I happen to agree with offering to pay both parents for 9 months and let them figure out if they want it or not. But all of this is Nordic gooblygook. Other countries have completely different understandings of parental leve ;).
jergul large member	Wed Nov 13 05:36:29 Wow, Sweden has been below 2.1 from 1927-41 and 1968-2018 (two years marginally above). But only 5 years of negative natural population change (1997-2001). This illustrates the lag time nicely (most boomers are still alive. In Sweden the boom "began" in 43, not 46).
Paramount Member	Wed Nov 13 05:46:44 Jergul, We call that generation Köttberg (Meatmountain). http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köttberg
jergul large member	Wed Nov 13 05:52:40 Its going to be interesting to see how they impact on longlivity. Its the first generation untouched by childhood deprivation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 13 06:08:30 Jergul Without the child, no one is getting paid anything to begin with. In fact what I support was (still is to a large degree) the Swedish model, until recent changes where 1, then 2, then 3 months became individual AKA "the daddy months". So what ends up happening in reality behind the stats is that women take out far more unpaid days.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 13 06:22:03 Nimi Which is why I think the parental leave should be individual to each parent, overlap, and they can take it or leave it as they choose. 3 months maternity (barsel) for the person birthing the child, then: 9 months parental leave to each parent, then Heavily subsidized child care at 12 months
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 13 07:00:41 Jergul You position is clear, the current Swedish model is 50/50 by default, you need to actively make a choice and give your days to the other parent. I am for that choice.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 13 07:11:44 You would still have the to take or not take parental leave under a more progressive model. The difference does not rest with freedom of choice.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 13 11:19:15 Like I said, your position is clear, we disagree.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 14 07:58:01 The global population increased by 93 million in 1988 (1,84%) compared to 82 million this year (1,08%). Highest % change was in 1969 (at 2,09%. The raw number increase was 74 million). Trivia, but I found it interesting.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 14 10:36:28 Average American Guns just cut back US CO2 emissions by 360 tons a year 6x60)!
Pillz Member	Thu Nov 14 15:47:20 Brevrik was an eco warrior!
Forwyn Member	Thu Nov 14 15:59:46 77 late term abortions, the ultimate feminist
jergul large member	Thu Nov 14 19:01:11 We cannot shoot or otherwise genocide our way to emission goals. It defeats the whole purpose (climate change will be enormously disruptive and will cause harm and death - so lets do something enormously disruptive and will cause harm and death to prevent it).
Forwyn Member	Thu Nov 14 20:33:51 If someone Thanos-snapped China, would anyone really be upset?
jergul large member	Fri Nov 15 06:10:21 Forwyn Well, if we had to thanos snap something, why not go for bang for buck? http://en....n_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 15 07:35:55 Because when it comes to CO2, per capita does not matter, it is simply about volume. If you have 1 million with CO2 output per capita 10 times a country that has 1 billion, it will have no significant impact on the global issue that your population is reduced by 50%, hell you could even go extinct and the Chinese would still (figurativly) fuck the planet up. The most woke people on these issues (Scandinavians) will have no impact on the global issue. We could all die tomorrow and it would be a blip on the CO2 graph. Wasting time and resource to solve at home what needs to solved in India and China. It is always some woke lefty feminist type who decided to sterilize themselves to save the planet. i.e someone who likely was not going to have Children in the first place. You need to sell these ideas outside the western world who is relying on importing poor people from the third world incubators (instantly raising their carbon footprint). There you have another argument for closed borders. Poor people from poor countries have lower CO2 footprint, when you raise their quality of life you also raise their carbon footprint 10 fold. KEEP PEOPLE POOR ;)
jergul large member	Fri Nov 15 09:55:21 Nimi You may want to review the per capita emissions. Sweden could accept immigrants from all kinds of countries (including Iran and china, but not India) and lower total global emissions. India is actually top of the class. http://www...nge-report-card-co2-emissions/
Forwyn Member	Fri Nov 15 11:14:32 "why not go for bang for buck?" Palau? Interesting choice.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 15 12:22:43 A bit ironically redundant as the island is about 2 feet over water as it is.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 21 02:59:23 More trivia: 250 000 books were publised in the US alone last year. I have no true idea of what the optimum number of humans is*, but I could probably live with a lot fewer intellectual creations per year. *A finite number of humans on a finite timeline will always number less than a finite number of humans on an infinite timeline. This suggests that if a maxing out on the number of humanity is important, then we should aim for the largest number of humans at any given time that still is compatible with an infinite timeline. We will max out at something just above 10 billion according to current projections (with most growth occuring in Africa).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 22 10:55:48 Jergul That is not the carbon footprint I am talking about. Per capita emission by country isn’t a fair metric, given that the end consumer of the chinese pollution are not all chinese. Products produced in third world countries like say Brazilian beef. The pollution would count at Brazilian (per capita), but the beef is consumed in France or Sweden. Individual carbon footprint is a factor of lifestyle and western life style produces alot of carbon, which is emitted from factories in Bagladesh, China, India etc. Individual CO2 footprint is closely tied to consumption and we consume aloooot more than poor countries.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 22 11:10:38 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 This sites shows gives it more justice, but not completely. It shows CO2 adjusted for trade. You see that China, India, Iran and a bunch of countries are net exporters of CO2 while Sweden and Norway is a net importer.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 22 11:11:56 http://our...based-co2-emissions-per-capita
jergul large member	Fri Nov 22 11:12:28 I was just going to ask you why you did not google that yourself :D
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 22 11:13:34 At the very end is the graph for consumption based CO2/capita. Rich countries, as expected, consume more and produce more CO2.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 22 11:17:31 There are nuances there to color my own position as well. Judging by the colors an Iranian moving to Sweden has no more or less impact, but an Indian or anyone from Africa would. I guess I can live with more Iranians and Chinese :P
jergul large member	Fri Nov 22 11:18:09 (scroll down to where my link is found for the exact data on adjusted CO2 emissions per capita). The flaw with the per capita measure is of course that the best way to lower it is to encourage population growth in the poorest segments of society to draw down average CO2 emissions. Importing a middle class someone from Iran and dumping them in Sweden would lower emissions because the someone in Iran would consume more than average there, and less than average in Sweden.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 22 11:18:46 Just use my link. I linked it directly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 23 07:13:53 It is good that we can show it with data, so I had to google it, but I knew this to be true from memory of other measurements. To some degree it seems self-evident based on what we know of consumption habits. You have access to a lot more products and services in Sweden compared to Iran, your consumption goes up, I can on a personal level verify this. Your purchasing power is much higher with regards to the high end products that are imported. The minimalist lifestyle of decreased consumption has not taken root in the Iranian culture yet, status via "stuff" is a big thing. Iranian average vs Swedish average, isn't relevant for your total individual carbon footprint or globally where it is simply a matter of quantity. i.e if your average in Iran is x and you double that in Sweden, but that is still below Swedish average, that would be still be worse in global warming terms.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 23 14:39:44 Nimi Data does not support that claim. A high income person in Iran becoming a low income person in Sweden would have a lower CO2 cost. That is given by the assumption that emissions correlate to income and that someone well-off in Iran becoming a refugee in Sweden would fall dramatically in his relative position in society. Emission efficiency in Iran is horrible (a lot of CO2 per dollar spent (.5kg CO2 per ppp dollar gpd, compared to .1kg CO2 per ppp dollar gdp in Sweden) http://dat...EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD?locations=IR
jergul large member	Sat Nov 23 16:02:49 That last link is actually pretty interesting. Middle income countries have horrible emission efficiency (I suspect because they have small service sectors). There is a lot of carbon free growth to be had giving each other haircuts.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 24 03:52:07 http://www...0412019315752?via%3Dihub#f0015 Source on poorer households in the US having a much smaller footprint than wealthier households (12.5 to 28.6 tons CO2 per person). I think it correct to say a wealthy person in Iran becoming a poor person in Sweden will lower his CO2 footprint significantly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Nov 28 10:22:48 You first link is, again, a measure of the CO2 emitted in that specific country, not based on consumption. What you posted is a measure of CO2 efficiency for economic output. Sweden is more efficient by this metric compared to Iran, in part due to what you mentioned, larger service based sector, but also stricter environmental standards. However Sweden being a richer country and it's citizens having a better purchasing power than Iranians, consume more stuff, which your second link illustrates internally in the USA. The first link we both posted showed that consumption based CO2 emission in Sweden and Iran were the same. This is still not the entire picture. A quick look at consumption index, number of cars/cellphones/washing machines etc per capita will show that Swedish people consume more things. I think the subsidizing of gasoline aged car fleet and fossil based energy production are large contribution to the Iranian number being so high. The period you spend as relatively poor in Sweden as an immigrant is very short, especially for Iranians who usually have degrees when they come here or get degrees and jobs.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 11:07:57 Lots of words not to contradict anything I said. An Iranian (or any refugee) will also tend to have less children if in Sweden. Having one less off-spring is by far the most profound way of reducing a CO2 footprint.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 29 04:56:45 You don't see the contradiction because you don't understand the data you are linking. Obvious when you again link to CO2 emission per capita (GDP-PPP) when we are talking about consumption and the end users CO2 footprint.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 05:33:54 Nimi I think you will find that you do not understand the data. Gadgets are not what drives CO2 emissions. Households are responsible for about 80% of a country's emissions, so emissions per capita is a good placeholder. Utilities and fuel are the two main contributors to a household's CO2 emissions. Both have a significantly lower CO2 footprint in Sweden than Iran. A rich guy moving to Sweden from Iran will have a lower utility CO2 footprint and a lower transportation footprint. Compound that by him having a child less in Sweden than Iran and it clearly best for the environment that he move to Sweden. http://the...reenhouse-gas-emissions-119968
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 07:03:04 2019 is looking good incidentally. The bottom fell out of US coal production and globally, coal should be down 3%. Energy use globally will increase by about the same amount, so CO2 emissions should remain the same as in 2018 (emission free production increases being around 3%). Peak CO2 emissions is still set at 2030, but with luck, it might be reached before then.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 03:30:43 Life expectancy in Norway increased by 0.2 last year as mortality to stroke and health disease continues to plummet (down 45% over the last decade). Live 5 years, get 1 free :)
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: