fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4296 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4296 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Sailor Moon]

__________________________________________________

03.

[My Hero Academia]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Ruby Tandoh from Great British Bake Off series four]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Vanity Fair (TV Mini-Series 2018)]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Jurassic World 2: Fallen Kingdom]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Kim-Joy in The Great British Bake Off (series 9)]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Breakfast on Pluto]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #615.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That's because everyone already knows what the solutions are.

Strict birth control.
You can't tell anyone not to have children, you racist fascist!

Cutting down on spending and polluting.
But, but, economy. Those other countries pollute a lot more, so we don't have to do anything if they don't do it first.

Stopping migration to fragile areas, especially forests.
Those are human lives! You can't stop anyone from going where they want!

We are fucked.

2 of those things are much less important than the 3rd

Sorry, but RE: that first one. You know exactly who'd be put on the strictest of birth control and you're damn naive if you think it wouldn't end up like that.

Birth control really isn't a solution. Countries that use the largest percentage of resources (generally wealthiest) don't have that many kids. It's poorer countries that have tons of kids, but they still use just a fraction of the world's resources.

Not sure what context the third one comes from. National parks, etc. are recognized even in developing countries, but it's true that lots of deforestation happens when poorer people don't have another viable industry. But of course, it's big companies paying for that stuff.

Those kids in the poor countries want to consume as much as the people in the richer countries, and this should be addressed before they really do consume as much, since just telling them "no, we can, but you can't" isn't going to work.

Not to mention that having a large amount of young people with no prospects tends to lead to war sooner rather than later.

putting the burden of changing primarily or exclusively on the developing world is fucked up as hell

Who said anything about putting the burden of changing primarily or exclusively on the developing world? Birth rates are already falling in the developed world, so here it is more crucial to cut down on the spending and polluting.

We should make certain that we consume a lot less, and they should make certain that they won't replace us as the main polluters.

If we're asking one population to make relatively minor changes in spending and consumption habits, and mandating the other population not have any more kids, I think there's a pretty substantial inequity there.

Free birth control and destigmatizing abortions and adoption seems like a good start, but I don't know. People are selfish and want their own babies.

We can and should do all of those things, but it's hard to tell whether that's what OP has in mind by "strict birth control"

OP here. I would prefer really strict control. I think China had the right idea with the one child policy and it should be adopted worldwide. After population has fallen to a more sustainable level (maybe 1960's level), this rule can be relaxed.

Yeah, that's stupid

Then how would you go on about it? Keep in mind that trying to lower birth rates by educating women takes decades and we don't have that long.

Cool, so you're fucking over older generations and crippling infrastructure when there aren't enough kids to replace/take care of them.

And enabling probably tons of sexism/eugenics because people will be picky about which baby they want to have.

Relying on endless growth isn't possible, that's pretty much called a pyramid scheme. We will have to make changes to the way our society works.

Ah yes clearly the best way is to entirely eradicate women's bodily autonomy

clearly

Right, China's one child policy was such a brilliant idea that they aren't at all currently having a population crisis due at least in part because of the disparity between the numbers of women versus men, because so many of those 'one baby' families did whatever they had to in order to get a son and suddenly there are very few daughters around for those sons to marry.

It's not "selfish" to want to have a baby. Adoption is an extremely long, arduous, and expensive process that can often end up in heartbreak and disappointment.

So is producing a baby that's genetically your own.

The majority of people don't want a lot of babies when they a) have the choice to prevent pregnancy in the first place, b) know most of the babies they have will survive, c) aren't dependent on their kids for unpaid labor or their only way to survive when they are old, and d) have the option of living fairly cushy lives if they don't have so many kids to drain their resources (as opposed to situations where a cushy life is not an option regardless).

So, I'm not really worried about people choosing to have lots of babies, because most won't, even if most people who want kids probably want at least one baby of their own. The global birth rate has been dropping for years. The global population is only still rising because of previous population surges - if you have a lot of women of childbearing age, then you will get a lot of babies out of them even if the average number of children per woman is low. E.g. there are lots of Millennials because there are lots of Boomers, even though Boomer women averaged fewer children than their mothers.

I think more widely and easily available birth control without wrapping it up in politics and stigma is a major fix-it. It would also be nice to have an option for men that is akin to the pill/shot or an IUD - not permanent, but not single-use like a condom. Also, working to decrease infant/childhood mortality rates and improve the health and welfare of vulnerable populations in general, in addition to just being a good thing all around, would also help reduce the birth rate.

First of all, how is migration qua migration assumed to be a net negative for climate?

Second, if human lives don't matter, why shouldn't we reduce the population by killing people?

If people move to an area where they consume significantly more than in their previous place of living, it's a net negative for climate.

Why is the assumption that people are moving to places where they consume significantly more

[ SECRET POST #4296 ]

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming

Re: global warming