don't have babies

I cannot control politicians, industry or billionaires. But I have chipped away at my own 30 tons of CO2. Gardening, planting trees, dramatically reducing the energy I use, and heating with a rocket mass heater. No sacrifice - everything is about making a better life AND it happens to chip away at my CO2. I think I am now in the space of chipping away CO2 for others.

How many kids you have and are they doing the same? That is pretty big part of a carbon foot print many might think isn't politically correct to talk about: how much resources does one person's kids, their kids and so on (the whole coming lineage) use compared to a person that doesn't have any kids. I know it's never going to happen, but I often think how many problems we would solve with a some global 1 child policy for some time. If we let the population drop to say 1/10th of what it's now on this planet, obviously that would solve almost all our problems because almost all our problems are due to limited resources, scarcity and humans affecting or polluting the planet in some way negatively. Less humans = less negative effects from humans. The other alternative would obvoiusly be to find another suitable planet and figure a way to get there, but I suspect that is going to take much longer if it will ever happen.

That is an excellent question that opens up a dozen even darker doors. To answer that question, I wish to first try to zero out my 30 tons, and then zero out the 30 tons of another. And another.  And maybe three more. And then write a book about how to do this and share it will a million people. And maybe one out of ten of the kids you are concerned about will grow up clutching this book.  And THAT will be enough.

There are 23 million different cookbooks currently in print.  I would like to see one thousand cookbooks out there about how to erase 30 tons without sacrifice.

James MacKenzie wrote:not having children is not equivalent to "dead babies" - there is no baby

paul wheaton wrote:

James MacKenzie wrote:not having children is not equivalent to "dead babies" - there is no baby

Fair point.  

I guess I am whipping up a bit of dark silly combining the "don't have babies" with the "kill yourself" message.

James MacKenzie wrote:not having children is not equivalent to "dead babies" - there is no baby

there are too many people on the planet and ESPECIALLY to many modern industrial society people

no amount of wishing billions of people "become" different will change that... i have given up preaching self sustainably/reduced consumption/waste.. those who want already do... everyone else gears up for holiday after celebration after trip after new car..

however, seemingly paradoxically, more affluence equals less babies and there may well be witnessing a persistent trend to aging populations and falling birthrates so who knows - the problem might just be taking care of itself anyway

paul wheaton wrote:Answers about not having babies, and dying, added up to about 95% of all the answers.  So dark.

r ranson wrote:I wonder...

And quite frankly, I don't have time for those dark views as some kids are coming over to learn chicken care for the newly hatched chooks, and I need to do the prep work for a class on creating textiles.  And build a barn and harvest some more cucumbers for breakfast salad....and... write up some discoveries on toxic free art hacks that no one is sharing online ...and...oh, do I have time to make green apple chutney from the blowdowns?

So I wonder too if the cure for these dark views could be something like https://permies.com/wiki/skip-pep-bb

James MacKenzie wrote:
again - this is an unfair and misleading equivalence. not all realistic scenarios that involve less children on earth are "dark" and not all people that chose to have less children are somehow emotionally deficient or unhappy.

Tiago Simões wrote:You know, we're all just mere humans. Why would we be able to actually understand anything properly, much less make really good decisions about it?

If we humans are lucky enough, maybe some historians and sociologists a couple of centuries from now will have enough hindsight to figure out what we should have done. But who's to tell today that what we permies are doing is actually the best way to invest our time and energy? We can only do our best, and it will have to do. We believe in what we're doing.

Future generations will look back on us mostly like we look back on our ancestors: some really knew what they were doing, but most were clueless to the point of being harmful. What changes is mostly the context (society, ecology, etc.), but humans are and will remain only human.

Have kids, or don't have kids, mostly your decision, depends more on your particular context than on some global ideas about "shoulds". I can't have kids, don't have a choice, and have made peace with that. Not having kids frees up a lot of time to build a better life for me and my wife, make mistakes, figure stuff out, and hopefully serve as an example, but that's just as out-of-my-hands as the hypothetical life choices of my hypothetical kids.

Be the best version of yourself you can in all ways you're capable of, be really useful and caring towards others, and also demanding when that makes sense, keep the humility of remembering you might be wrong at any time... you know, the usual stuff. If you become a really good, strong, happy, fulfilled person, many around you will feel motivated to become like that as well, and the world gets a bit better.

It doesn't matter much whether those people around you are your kids or someone else's. Just be a really good you.

P.s. dear Paul, I write very little here, so please allow me this opportunity to thank you deeply for what you have done with your life so far. You have enabled many to become better humans.

r ranson wrote:

James MacKenzie wrote:
again - this is an unfair and misleading equivalence. not all realistic scenarios that involve less children on earth are "dark" and not all people that chose to have less children are somehow emotionally deficient or unhappy.

eh?  
That's an interesting read into what I wrote.

As a childless individual, I didn't know I was supposed to be emotionally deficient and/or unhappy.  thanks?

James MacKenzie wrote:

r ranson wrote:

James MacKenzie wrote:
again - this is an unfair and misleading equivalence. not all realistic scenarios that involve less children on earth are "dark" and not all people that chose to have less children are somehow emotionally deficient or unhappy.

eh?  
That's an interesting read into what I wrote.

As a childless individual, I didn't know I was supposed to be emotionally deficient and/or unhappy.  thanks? I never had kids, 1 because I never was a kid person, more a furbaby person, and 2, it just never was in the cards. I find it a lot easier, and cheaper, to be childless, and you can do things on a whim, where you can't with kids. You don't have to worry about the govt and their latest plans for them, (although I would homeschool, anyway), you can sleep in, and just do whatever it is you want to do. May seem selfish, but I'm just being honest. 🤷‍♀️

i allowed a nerve to be hit - it is my reaction without asking that is at fault - i owe you a big apology - i am so sorry.

paul wrote:I love hearing about how some people find the better world book to be the best book ever.  

marita wrote:I'd like to buy your book.