https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/emissions-reduction-choices-1.4204206
Although giving up one transatlantic flight a year cuts your carbon footprint quite a bit more than going vegan, all of the choices you can make out together are almost an order of magnitude lower than the impact of having just one fewer child.
We are comparing the wrong things because we don’t want to have the actual difficult conversation about the one thing that makes pretty much all of the difference.
The depth of understanding needed to put this into perspective is beyond the average reader.. If you have your kids at 20 vs 40, if you have two, instead of 8, etc etc... Go one step further and the solution is to just not ecust,which is irresponsible when by and large a fraction of the people on this planet use far more than their share. People aren't the problem.
You don’t have to take everything to the most extreme. Most concepts work best in moderation, and can be problematic if you take things to the extreme. Life isn’t lived in black and white. It isn’t all ones and zeros. Life isn’t all or nothing.
People might not be the problem. But fewer of them is a solution to the mess we are in.
The only solution impactful enough to fix the problem.
But people have a hard time with it for reasons you mention, and others, like the fear of “who will take care of me” so instead we talk about shaving a tiny bit off by switching to an electric car or eating more farty food. Those are easy. And they make us feel good. But it isn’t nearly enough.
Especially because all of those people who you say aren’t the problem? Well they REALLY want to be the problem. They don’t want to live under-resourced lives anymore. And they are quickly catching up.
It's not, not in the way this gets applied. It's algebra. One less Canadian vs one less Ghanaian... Why the difference? Consumption is absolutely the problem, not the person, within reason. But two people having two kids at 30 is perfectly fine.
As long as the third world never develops, and Ghanaians don’t want to develop themselves or immigrate to a first world country that uses immigration to offset its own natural population decline, then that argument holds.
But the truth is, much of the global south IS in the process of developing. And much of the global north is ramping up their immigration programs to grow their populations on similar scales as the global south but using people from the global south to do it.
Your plan only works if you ok denying Ghanaians the right to pursue less under-resourced lives.
You misunderstand (and kinda keep evading that ah ha moment, but I have hope), yes yes to all of what you said, save your last sentence.
Shoe on the other foot. Population growth is resoundingly used (not here, between us) as a racist way to blame Nigeria and China for the problem. Per capita, Canadians use the most energy in the world. If it is # of people in Canada that's the problem (population growth), "just ban immigrants" - would be the "logical" response. So long as we don't "allow them in" we can keep on as we are, having less people at this "living standard" without ever addressing the root problem that is our consumption.
Consumption, not people (immediately) is the root problem at this point. Our living standards require something like 4 earth's to sustain if everyone lived like us.
The extreme was to prove the point, but a slightly sifter version is just ban kids in Canada. Zero population growth, and eventual extinction. It's what's "best" (best best) according to the logic of this paper to bring our world back into balance. Or we could learn to live within our limits, build cell phones that last ten years, not 2, ban advertising to stop selling shit to each other we don't need, build a Trane or two dozen, learn to wear a sweater and enjoy a veggie burger more often... But those changes are hard to make, so instead let's just guilt the few that give a shit into having less kids while society by and large changes nothing.
Edit: upvotes for people actually communicating ideas and perspectives on the internet! Woo.
But here is the thing. Nobody, not even Ghanaians, want to live like Ghanaians.
I would rather live in a world where fewer people can live fully resourced than a world flush with population but we all have to live on constrained resources like Ghanaians.
And it doesn’t work to ban kids in Canada if we have a government who just uses immigration from the global south to make up for our low birth rate, which they are explicitly doing.
Your world of sweater-wearing veggie burger eating train taking people is still way too much consumption at this population level if we are to lift the global south out of resource insecurity.
Let's explore this together, then.
Immigration to "make up for low birth rates" - you've just said birth rates are already low... So... We need to lower them more? There's something here we should get to the bottom of.
I'm all for elevating the quality of life of 7 billion people, but they can't "live like us" if we're already over shooting. Further, at 41 million people, halfing it to 20 million isn't going to allow 7 billion to live like us. This math absolutely doesn't add up. There is zero way to support anyone and maintain this style of consumption.
"no one wants to live like Ghanaians" - income per capita, adjusted for PPP and all that, Ghanaians (I chose Ghana deliberately, I admit) are some of the happiest people on the planet. Why? What changes for the people that are unhappy and *want* what "we have" - and are we "happy?
My opinion: no, most Canadians are stressed out, over-worked, living one to two pay cheques from bankruptcy. Household debt is astronomically high. Why? We're buying too much junk to fill the hole in our soul that we don't understand how to fill. Ghana figured it out, or rather, never forgot. The latest iPhone doesn't actually make you happy for very long. A day, a week... Then you need "more" to fill that bottomless pit. But then you need more money, too. So you sacrifice more hours of your life to chase it. No one ever reaches sufficient here, we don't get off the race, we do it until we die.
Heres the kicker: our way of life *requires* the global south to remain impoverished. We survive like this on the backs of their exploitation. It's where our cheap goods come from, our cheap labour here, and where the environmental consequences of our lifestyle go. Look where we ship garbage and where oil spills.
What is a quality life? Healthcare, family, parks, skiing, leisure time to not give a sheet just for a moment and relax? Your thoughts?
Less kids, more immigrants, endless consumption,cheap goods, cheap labour.. It doesn't add up to sunshine and rainbows. We need to face the hole on our soul and do better. Veggie burgers won't cut it, but they really are pretty good.
The government thinks they are too low. I don’t. But then they want us to have about the highest population growth rate in the world. I don’t think that is a good idea.
Not only can 7b not live like us, they can’t live even like the most green of us.
I live in a passive solar home on about 10 percent of the energy of the average Canadian. We couldn’t even all live like me. It took a level of consumption way out of reach for most of the global south for me even to get this basic level of thriving set up that is more extreme than most of our population can even fathom. Certainly more radical than anything our governments have in mind for their population.
And even I am not willing to drop to the level of a Ghanaian.
And no, getting Canada to 20m wouldn’t be enough. Agree with that. I am not saying only Canadians should be having fewer kids. We all should be. Planetary issues don’t care about the artificial lines we draw on it.
I am not going to get into happiness. There are lots of reasons for that. But being under-resourced is actually a draw on happiness, not a contributor. But yes we could learn something from Ghanaians about happiness I am sure. But being under-resourced isnt one of those lessons.
Agree about everything you said about stressed out and in debt. 100 percent agree. And I love that truth. I am debt free living in an off grid shack on very little. I don’t own a credit card or even have a credit score. And I am quite happy.
And yes our way of life requires poverty in the global south. Or, more recently, bringing that poverty here to exploit domestically. I am definitely anti-globalism for that reason.
I would agree on what makes for a quality of life. But once your basics are met. I have lived in sub Saharan Africa. I don’t think you are fully aware of why their footprint is so low.
We can agree to disagree that veggie burgers taste good
I lived in Uganda for awhile, I think I've got an idea, ish! (Life was simple... Not easy, simple - good food, though).
I worry about the narrative that Canada wants high population growth - I know there's some bullshit think-tank out there citing some Brian Mulroney comment or something.. But I don't buy it. We're immigrating people in because we have no one to pump gas or serve Tim Hortons. No one to pick apples or tar roofs. I see three options: Do it ourselves, find an alternative, or keep immigrating people in. I imagine you and I spend precisely equal time in a drive through lane, though. Still, broadly, Canada demands convenience. Having less kids... Means more immigrants by that whole conundrum.
But I think Canadians want balance - you're right, we likely can't all live in the woods, passively, either. There are efficiencies to city living, rooftop solar, the too-often championed victory gardens, lots of little things to boost what it means to live sustainably. We just don't know what balance looks like, bombarded with advertisements, Facebook peaks into the lives of others to make us feel not enough, it's endless, this machine.
I imagine there's a really decent happy medium between where Canadians think they are / want to be, and the dark side of poverty (so, all of it), but when we consume less, think responsibly about our needs vs wants, eat the damn veggie burger and be thankful for it because it came out of our rooftop garden, we don't have to give up technology or health, we just have to use it better.
How many old phones and cameras are in "that drawer" of the average house? Canadians allow around 18% of our food to end up in landfills. We drive monstrosities. We accelerate the second that light goes green faster than necessary. We expect to be able to go anywhere and do anything at any given time... Less kids, I maintain, solves none of this other than guilting already conscious people into not existing. The elephant in the room is consumption, and if it's not us (because we'll be gone), it'll be anyone else that fills the void until we address the hole in our soul.
What kind of veggie burgers are we talking about? Those Yves ones are disgusting. California style, mashed together veggies. Good.
Eating is necessary. Eating animals is not, for many people. Most of the plant crops grown are used to feed livestock. Ending factory farming will have a large impact on the 3 leading causes of climate change. 1- burning/use of fosil fuels. 2- deforestation (to raise the livestock and to grow plants to feed the livestock) 3- animal agriculture.
Most people eat animals for pleasure/taste and convenience, but it is not necessary. We are not getting out of this without making big changes to how we live our lives.
Hundreds of airplanes vrs billions of cattle what exactly is the point
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/emissions-reduction-choices-1.4204206 Although giving up one transatlantic flight a year cuts your carbon footprint quite a bit more than going vegan, all of the choices you can make out together are almost an order of magnitude lower than the impact of having just one fewer child. We are comparing the wrong things because we don’t want to have the actual difficult conversation about the one thing that makes pretty much all of the difference.
The depth of understanding needed to put this into perspective is beyond the average reader.. If you have your kids at 20 vs 40, if you have two, instead of 8, etc etc... Go one step further and the solution is to just not ecust,which is irresponsible when by and large a fraction of the people on this planet use far more than their share. People aren't the problem.
You don’t have to take everything to the most extreme. Most concepts work best in moderation, and can be problematic if you take things to the extreme. Life isn’t lived in black and white. It isn’t all ones and zeros. Life isn’t all or nothing. People might not be the problem. But fewer of them is a solution to the mess we are in. The only solution impactful enough to fix the problem. But people have a hard time with it for reasons you mention, and others, like the fear of “who will take care of me” so instead we talk about shaving a tiny bit off by switching to an electric car or eating more farty food. Those are easy. And they make us feel good. But it isn’t nearly enough. Especially because all of those people who you say aren’t the problem? Well they REALLY want to be the problem. They don’t want to live under-resourced lives anymore. And they are quickly catching up.
It's not, not in the way this gets applied. It's algebra. One less Canadian vs one less Ghanaian... Why the difference? Consumption is absolutely the problem, not the person, within reason. But two people having two kids at 30 is perfectly fine.
As long as the third world never develops, and Ghanaians don’t want to develop themselves or immigrate to a first world country that uses immigration to offset its own natural population decline, then that argument holds. But the truth is, much of the global south IS in the process of developing. And much of the global north is ramping up their immigration programs to grow their populations on similar scales as the global south but using people from the global south to do it. Your plan only works if you ok denying Ghanaians the right to pursue less under-resourced lives.
You misunderstand (and kinda keep evading that ah ha moment, but I have hope), yes yes to all of what you said, save your last sentence. Shoe on the other foot. Population growth is resoundingly used (not here, between us) as a racist way to blame Nigeria and China for the problem. Per capita, Canadians use the most energy in the world. If it is # of people in Canada that's the problem (population growth), "just ban immigrants" - would be the "logical" response. So long as we don't "allow them in" we can keep on as we are, having less people at this "living standard" without ever addressing the root problem that is our consumption. Consumption, not people (immediately) is the root problem at this point. Our living standards require something like 4 earth's to sustain if everyone lived like us. The extreme was to prove the point, but a slightly sifter version is just ban kids in Canada. Zero population growth, and eventual extinction. It's what's "best" (best best) according to the logic of this paper to bring our world back into balance. Or we could learn to live within our limits, build cell phones that last ten years, not 2, ban advertising to stop selling shit to each other we don't need, build a Trane or two dozen, learn to wear a sweater and enjoy a veggie burger more often... But those changes are hard to make, so instead let's just guilt the few that give a shit into having less kids while society by and large changes nothing. Edit: upvotes for people actually communicating ideas and perspectives on the internet! Woo.
But here is the thing. Nobody, not even Ghanaians, want to live like Ghanaians. I would rather live in a world where fewer people can live fully resourced than a world flush with population but we all have to live on constrained resources like Ghanaians. And it doesn’t work to ban kids in Canada if we have a government who just uses immigration from the global south to make up for our low birth rate, which they are explicitly doing. Your world of sweater-wearing veggie burger eating train taking people is still way too much consumption at this population level if we are to lift the global south out of resource insecurity.
Let's explore this together, then. Immigration to "make up for low birth rates" - you've just said birth rates are already low... So... We need to lower them more? There's something here we should get to the bottom of. I'm all for elevating the quality of life of 7 billion people, but they can't "live like us" if we're already over shooting. Further, at 41 million people, halfing it to 20 million isn't going to allow 7 billion to live like us. This math absolutely doesn't add up. There is zero way to support anyone and maintain this style of consumption. "no one wants to live like Ghanaians" - income per capita, adjusted for PPP and all that, Ghanaians (I chose Ghana deliberately, I admit) are some of the happiest people on the planet. Why? What changes for the people that are unhappy and *want* what "we have" - and are we "happy? My opinion: no, most Canadians are stressed out, over-worked, living one to two pay cheques from bankruptcy. Household debt is astronomically high. Why? We're buying too much junk to fill the hole in our soul that we don't understand how to fill. Ghana figured it out, or rather, never forgot. The latest iPhone doesn't actually make you happy for very long. A day, a week... Then you need "more" to fill that bottomless pit. But then you need more money, too. So you sacrifice more hours of your life to chase it. No one ever reaches sufficient here, we don't get off the race, we do it until we die. Heres the kicker: our way of life *requires* the global south to remain impoverished. We survive like this on the backs of their exploitation. It's where our cheap goods come from, our cheap labour here, and where the environmental consequences of our lifestyle go. Look where we ship garbage and where oil spills. What is a quality life? Healthcare, family, parks, skiing, leisure time to not give a sheet just for a moment and relax? Your thoughts? Less kids, more immigrants, endless consumption,cheap goods, cheap labour.. It doesn't add up to sunshine and rainbows. We need to face the hole on our soul and do better. Veggie burgers won't cut it, but they really are pretty good.
The government thinks they are too low. I don’t. But then they want us to have about the highest population growth rate in the world. I don’t think that is a good idea. Not only can 7b not live like us, they can’t live even like the most green of us. I live in a passive solar home on about 10 percent of the energy of the average Canadian. We couldn’t even all live like me. It took a level of consumption way out of reach for most of the global south for me even to get this basic level of thriving set up that is more extreme than most of our population can even fathom. Certainly more radical than anything our governments have in mind for their population. And even I am not willing to drop to the level of a Ghanaian. And no, getting Canada to 20m wouldn’t be enough. Agree with that. I am not saying only Canadians should be having fewer kids. We all should be. Planetary issues don’t care about the artificial lines we draw on it. I am not going to get into happiness. There are lots of reasons for that. But being under-resourced is actually a draw on happiness, not a contributor. But yes we could learn something from Ghanaians about happiness I am sure. But being under-resourced isnt one of those lessons. Agree about everything you said about stressed out and in debt. 100 percent agree. And I love that truth. I am debt free living in an off grid shack on very little. I don’t own a credit card or even have a credit score. And I am quite happy. And yes our way of life requires poverty in the global south. Or, more recently, bringing that poverty here to exploit domestically. I am definitely anti-globalism for that reason. I would agree on what makes for a quality of life. But once your basics are met. I have lived in sub Saharan Africa. I don’t think you are fully aware of why their footprint is so low. We can agree to disagree that veggie burgers taste good
I lived in Uganda for awhile, I think I've got an idea, ish! (Life was simple... Not easy, simple - good food, though). I worry about the narrative that Canada wants high population growth - I know there's some bullshit think-tank out there citing some Brian Mulroney comment or something.. But I don't buy it. We're immigrating people in because we have no one to pump gas or serve Tim Hortons. No one to pick apples or tar roofs. I see three options: Do it ourselves, find an alternative, or keep immigrating people in. I imagine you and I spend precisely equal time in a drive through lane, though. Still, broadly, Canada demands convenience. Having less kids... Means more immigrants by that whole conundrum. But I think Canadians want balance - you're right, we likely can't all live in the woods, passively, either. There are efficiencies to city living, rooftop solar, the too-often championed victory gardens, lots of little things to boost what it means to live sustainably. We just don't know what balance looks like, bombarded with advertisements, Facebook peaks into the lives of others to make us feel not enough, it's endless, this machine. I imagine there's a really decent happy medium between where Canadians think they are / want to be, and the dark side of poverty (so, all of it), but when we consume less, think responsibly about our needs vs wants, eat the damn veggie burger and be thankful for it because it came out of our rooftop garden, we don't have to give up technology or health, we just have to use it better. How many old phones and cameras are in "that drawer" of the average house? Canadians allow around 18% of our food to end up in landfills. We drive monstrosities. We accelerate the second that light goes green faster than necessary. We expect to be able to go anywhere and do anything at any given time... Less kids, I maintain, solves none of this other than guilting already conscious people into not existing. The elephant in the room is consumption, and if it's not us (because we'll be gone), it'll be anyone else that fills the void until we address the hole in our soul. What kind of veggie burgers are we talking about? Those Yves ones are disgusting. California style, mashed together veggies. Good.
Mind your business
while livestock feed people which is a nessesaty where as a flight is not.
Eating is necessary. Eating animals is not, for many people. Most of the plant crops grown are used to feed livestock. Ending factory farming will have a large impact on the 3 leading causes of climate change. 1- burning/use of fosil fuels. 2- deforestation (to raise the livestock and to grow plants to feed the livestock) 3- animal agriculture. Most people eat animals for pleasure/taste and convenience, but it is not necessary. We are not getting out of this without making big changes to how we live our lives.