Musk and Peterson roast anti-Natalism

[Estro Felino]

In the video:

I mean... some of the points presented may be interpreted as the psychological process of projection.
I say may.
I mean...actually anti-Natalists are altruists and don't want to procreate before fixing the problems affecting the people who already exist.
That is altruism.

And besides....the wealthiest man on the planet who has lots of kids is the perfect example of what we anti-Natalists say.
The wealthy should have the kids...since they can give them a better future.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Whether people choose to have kids or be childless is their own business. Peterson and Musk seem to me to be denouncing others over strictly personal decisions that the two of them disagree with. For someone who has included "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" as one of his "12 Rules for Life," Peterson's fixation on this and other strictly personal decisions (e.g., polyamory) seems to me remarkably hypocritical to boot.

 

[Estro Felino]

Ov

Whether people choose to have kids or be childless is their own business. Peterson and Musk seem to me to be denouncing others over strictly personal decisions that the two of them disagree with. For someone who has included "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" as one of his "12 Rules for Life," Peterson's fixation on this and other strictly personal decisions (e.g., polyamory) seems to me remarkably hypocritical to boot.

Overpopulation affects the entire world...climate change and so on.
Polyamory doesn't affect the entire world.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ov

Overpopulation affects the entire world...climate change and so on.

Per-capita consumption is a massive driver of greenhouse emissions, not necessarily population per se. In 2021, Africa contributed around 4% of global greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels while having around 1.39 billion people. By comparison, Germany alone accounts for 1.75% of global fossil fuel emissions, with a population of around 84 million people. Per-capita emissions are also highest in wealthier countries; China and India now emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases due to the sheer sizes of their respective populations and both countries' pursuit of economic and industrial growth, but since the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of contribution to climate change has come from wealthier countries, which tend to have smaller populations.

Polyamory doesn't affect the entire world.

I might worry more about an average person's decision to have two or three kids when noticeable steps are taken to address the grossly outsized ecological and climatological impact of things like private jets, private yachts, the cruise-ship industry, and far-reaching environmental destruction brought about by the practices of many mega-corporations.

It's not that I don't think having only one or two children is probably for the best (I generally do, and I'm not sure I will decide to have any children myself); it's that I think the question of whether to have any kids at all is a markedly secondary issue in the context of addressing climate change.

 

[wellwisher]

In the video:

I mean... some of the points presented may be interpreted as the psychological process of projection.
I say may.
I mean...actually anti-Natalists are altruists and don't want to procreate before fixing the problems affecting the people who already exist.
That is altruism.

And besides....the wealthiest man on the planet who has lots of kids is the perfect example of what we anti-Natalists say.
The wealthy should have the kids...since they can give them a better future.

I thought fake news did not want us talking about Liberal cat ladies and the guys who do them. Another way to look this topic, anti-Natalism it is an excuse and cover for women to ego-centric and selfish. If you have a child, you become responsible for a developing human. This will make it harder to be selfish, since being selfish will have an adverse effect on this developing human being, who is depending on you, to rise above your own ego. Cat ladies do not mind polyamory; foreplay of pregnancy, as long as abortion stays on the table.

You can neglect a cat, since they are very self sufficient, if they have enough food, water and a place to extrude. Cat can supplement some of the joy of caring, but they also make being selfish less impactful, since the cat does not need so much attention. Ironically, polyamory is one of the worse path toward over population and neglected children; compared to monogamy and marriage. Abortion is needed to game the system so the obvious irony is not so obvious and egocentric can be sold as altruism.

 

[Estro Felino]

I thought fake news did not want us talking about Liberal cat ladies and the guys who do them. Another way to look this topic, anti-Natalism it is an excuse and cover for women to ego-centric and selfish. If you have a child, you become responsible for a developing human. This will make it harder to be selfish, since being selfish will have an adverse effect on this developing human being, who is depending on you, to rise above your own ego. Cat ladies do not mind polyamory; foreplay of pregnancy, as long as abortion stays on the table.

Maybe you should acknowledge that parenthood is a serious things and not all women have the parental vocation.
As not so many men have it.

You can neglect a cat, since they are very self sufficient, if they have enough food, water and a place to extrude. Cat can supplement some of the joy of caring, but they also make being selfish less impactful, since the cat does not need so much attention. Ironically, polyamory is one of the worse path toward over population and neglected children; compared to monogamy and marriage. Abortion is needed to game the system so the obvious irony is not so obvious and egocentric can be sold as altruism.

You forget that there are so many people on this world who don't even the time to have sex.
Let alone raise a child.

 

[LuisDantas]

Like I would trust either of those two men to tell me the time of the day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought fake news did not want us talking about Liberal cat ladies and the guys who do them. Another way to look this topic, anti-Natalism it is an excuse and cover for women to ego-centric and selfish. If you have a child, you become responsible for a developing human. This will make it harder to be selfish, since being selfish will have an adverse effect on this developing human being, who is depending on you, to rise above your own ego. Cat ladies do not mind polyamory; foreplay of pregnancy, as long as abortion stays on the table.

You can neglect a cat, since they are very self sufficient, if they have enough food, water and a place to extrude. Cat can supplement some of the joy of caring, but they also make being selfish less impactful, since the cat does not need so much attention. Ironically, polyamory is one of the worse path toward over population and neglected children; compared to monogamy and marriage. Abortion is needed to game the system so the obvious irony is not so obvious and egocentric can be sold as altruism.

Wow, talk about condescending.

 

[Revoltingest]

Musk is clearly a smart, albeit very strange man.
My theory: He's sucking up to Trump & Magas
by aping Trump's stupid claims, beliefs, & antics.
He sees himself as the Chosen One's heir apparent.
(Vance is too dull & weird to fill Trump's shoes.)

 

[anna.]

Musk is clearly a smart, albeit very strange man.
My theory: He's sucking up to Trump & Magas
by aping Trump's stupid claims, beliefs, & antics.
He sees himself as the Chosen One's heir apparent.
(Vance is too dull & weird to fill Trump's shoes.)

Very weird.

 

[anna.]

Musk is clearly a smart, albeit very strange man.
My theory: He's sucking up to Trump & Magas
by aping Trump's stupid claims, beliefs, & antics.
He sees himself as the Chosen One's heir apparent.
(Vance is too dull & weird to fill Trump's shoes.)

How far Musk has come from "[for] Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally."

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Per-capita consumption is a massive driver of greenhouse emissions, not necessarily population per se. In 2021, Africa contributed around 4% of global greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels while having around 1.39 billion people. By comparison, Germany alone accounts for 1.75% of global fossil fuel emissions, with a population of around 84 million people. Per-capita emissions are also highest in wealthier countries; China and India now emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases due to the sheer sizes of their respective populations and both countries' pursuit of economic and industrial growth, but since the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of contribution to climate change has come from wealthier countries, which tend to have smaller populations.



I might worry more about an average person's decision to have two or three kids when noticeable steps are taken to address the grossly outsized ecological and climatological impact of things like private jets, private yachts, the cruise-ship industry, and far-reaching environmental destruction brought about by the practices of many mega-corporations.

It's not that I don't think having only one or two children is probably for the best (I generally do, and I'm not sure I will decide to have any children myself); it's that I think the question of whether to have any kids at all is a markedly secondary issue in the context of addressing climate change.

You make a good point, though I think that in the future, there will be two sides of this that are presented as being the center of the main debate. One side will want to keep population higher and regulate resource usage, and the other will argue to keep population lower, to expand resource usage somewhat among individuals. I think the latter option is the one that would be preferable, so that for example, meat can be affordable and lower impact, and amenities with an energy cost can still be used

We do use resources inefficiently in western countries (I know some may dislike the term, but I honestly don't know of a better one), as for example, we are opposed to high-speed rail, and our cities really need an alternative to being so clogged with driving (they should just have horses). We have excellent potential farmland in the mid-west that we build houses on, which surely must have some unforeseen food cost externalities. Cold weather surely drives up energy uses.. It got down to 38 degrees Fahrenheit last night, so I turned the electric radiator on near the old cat's bed, for a while

But all of that only matters if resource use / population pressure goes above the supposed EO threshold, from what I can tell. If we live below the EO threshold line, individual resource use can go way up without it mattering - nature is able to reabsorb it. If we live right near that line, then everyone has to regulate the resources they use, which would not be fun.

 

[Altfish]

Ov

Overpopulation affects the entire world...climate change and so on.
Polyamory doesn't affect the entire world.

Musk is driving over population

 

[amorphous_constellation]

And also, I would posit that crowding, even if resource use is lower, might have other externalities to a broader social situation. I venture to say that space gives people more productive capacity, which can potentially be put to good use. Crowding might tend to lock down those who can do this, as it is seems like a densely populated environment might impose a sort of energy cost on the attention potential, of those in a group with more potential to contribute useful things. This is a very broad assertion, but perhaps there's something to it

 

[Secret Chief]

Ooh two of my favourite people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The wealthy should have the kids...since they can give them a better future.

He has a bunch of kids by multiple women, is not presently married or in a relationship at all with any of them and at least one of his kids hates his guts. He's an absent father and into drugs. Having children is wonderful, but you should be married to the one you're having kids with and actually be a parent to them, which means being in their lives. Wealthy people fail at these things just as much or even more than those lesser off. I'm pro-natalist but we must have standards and Musk falls well-below standards for rearing kids.

 

[crossfire]

Musk is clearly a smart, albeit very strange man.
My theory: He's sucking up to Trump & Magas
by aping Trump's stupid claims, beliefs, & antics.
He sees himself as the Chosen One's heir apparent.
(Vance is too dull & weird to fill Trump's shoes.)

Wasn't Musk born in South Africa? Not presidential material.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wasn't Musk born in South Africa?

Think that would stand in the way of the Presidency?
We live in a post-Constitution age.
But I'll bet he's angling for a cabinet position.

 

[crossfire]

Think that would stand in the way of the Presidency?
We live in a post-Constitution age.
But I'll bet he's angling for a cabinet position.

Of course he is.