this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
549 points (99.8% liked)

People Twitter

6793 readers
783 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
549
What can we do (feddit.org)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
123 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Mastodon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 32 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Forgot the biggest one: don't have children (1)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)
  1. People give this world a meaning. Who cares what happens to the world if there is no one to care.
  2. You need children for the next generation to exist. I believe this one is obvious.
  3. You need people to solve problems. Our generation may have fucked up. But at least give a next generation a chance. I mean do not multiply like rabbits. But maintaining population is important.
  4. You can raise your children, so they will make the change or vote for the people who will make the change.
  5. Climate change is not the only problem. And there are a lot of things to consider when you decide on having kids. Even on individual level I believe it is very beautiful thing to give another human being a chance to experience life. Especially if you do not see the world/life only as bad. But the question "Is it morally good to bring the children to this (broken/beautiful) world" is mostly philosophical and IMO boils down to optimistic vs. pessimistic view on the world.
[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Plenty of other lifeforms will still be there to enjoy this world 👍 and they'd be better of too

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You would not be there to care about animals, plants or rocks. Just animals eating each other and still rocks.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Exactly

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is there any reason why would anyone want that?

Is it just "I care about animals/rocks soo much I would like humans go extinct."

Because without us to give animals more meaning, they are just some random life forms eating, raping and reproducing on a giant rock floating through universe until this rock crashes into sun. Why would you care if there are more of such life forms due to humans leaving earth.

Is there anything more to it? Am I just too dumb to understand it?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is there anything more to it?

The point of view "why care about nature if it's not for human pleasure" isn't shared by everyone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But humans are also animals of this world. Part of this giant floating rock. Do you also have other specific animals you hate? Do you hate all carnivores? What about animals that are destroying plants? Or beavers destroying whole ecosystems? Or animals that have wars? Or just humans because we change our environment the most?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do you also have other specific animals you hate? Do you hate all carnivores? What about animals that are destroying plants?

I'm unsure why you think I hate animals?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Your wishes for extinction of human race got me to believe you hate humans. And since humans are animals, I am just asking if humans are the only animals you hate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Your wishes for extinction of human race

Not sure where I said that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That would be the inevitable consequence if everyone decided to not have children.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (4 children)

That's not what your source says though.

It says "having one fewer child" is the recommendation that should be given, and logically so

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago

How do I choose which one to put down? It doesn't mention that.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Apply recursively

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

You called?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Having a child adds approximately 58.6 tonnes CO2e per year.

The maximum average CO2e per person per year to reach the Paris climate agreement goal of a 1.5 °C, is about 3-10 tonnes. We could do this with a 0.01 fertility rate for a few decades, until we're not catastrophically overpopulated anymore.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Well they did say children, a child is ok.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yall can afford children!? I thought we doing late stage capable now?