To save the climate we all have to be poor!!

[Nimos]

Why can't incentives involve both sexes?

The incentives could work for both sexes, I just don't think that the solution would be to give people money for not having children. But if that was the solution then it should be for both sexes.

On the other hand, the carbon or eco footprint of your average African is a fraction of that of a European or American. How do we make small or child free families popular?

If the goal is to rapidly reduce people a one-child policy might be the way to go.

Regarding the eco-footprint, we also have to be realistic. No one in developed countries wants to raise their child under the same conditions as a poor African one, so the eco-footprint that people refer to is nonsense. Neither should African children be expected to live in poverty, regardless of whether we reduce the number of children in developed countries. So a common or global solution has to be found, that allows all humans to be able to live high-quality lives. And the currently best solution to that is to get people out of poverty because it automatically results in fewer children.

There's also the economy to consider. Government isn't going to have much incentive to promote decreased family size as long as economies depend on perpetual growth.

We still need people, we can't have everyone not having kids, that would leave generations without young people. I don't know what the solution is, but to me, a one-child policy is an issue. From what I can see the majority of studies show that Earth could probably support around 9-10 billion. For how long and how well I don't know, didn't look too much into it.

Q: Why do people have children? It helps to understand causes if you expect to formulae effective solutions.

We are humans and some want a family, I think it is a natural urge a lot of people have. Obviously, we are pretty disconnected from nature now, so not having children is extremely common today, but would have been unheard of just 50-100 years ago, it was expected. So things are changing in that regard.

 

[Nimos]

Unfortunately, the decrease in birth rates among educated women takes a generation or two to manifest.
China's a unique case. Traditionally large families were highly valued status markers. After several decades of Mao's one-child policy, though, the tradition was largely broken among the younger generation. The social and economic benefits of fewer children had become clear.

And in Africa, it would take much longer, because a lot of their countries are dealing with severe issues. People need to be educated and jobs made etc. It is a massive task. I don't say that this would be a 10-year solution, if possible at all. There is a lot of corruption going on etc.

 

[Valjean]

The incentives could work for both sexes, I just don't think that the solution would be to give people money for not having children. But if that was the solution then it should be for both sexes.


If the goal is to rapidly reduce people a one-child policy might be the way to go.

I think it would be viewed as too draconian. People here in the US were crying tyranny at something as innocuous as recommending covid vaccine.
We should try a carrot before resorting to a stick.

Regarding the eco-footprint, we also have to be realistic. No one in developed countries wants to raise their child under the same conditions as a poor African one, so the eco-footprint that people refer to is nonsense. Neither should African children be expected to live in poverty, regardless of whether we reduce the number of children in developed countries. So a common or global solution has to be found, that allows all humans to be able to live high-quality lives. And the currently best solution to that is to get people out of poverty because it automatically results in fewer children.

I think we need both policies and propaganda. Environmentalism should be made all the rage. Ecologically expensive habits, toys and status markers should be made socially unpopular. We need not sacrifice quality of life.

We still need people, we can't have everyone not having kids, that would leave generations without young people. I don't know what the solution is, but to me, a one-child policy is an issue. From what I can see the majority of studies show that Earth could probably support around 9-10 billion. For how long and how well I don't know, didn't look too much into it.

Q: Why do we need people? The world got along fine before we came onto the scene.

We are humans and some want a family, I think it is a natural urge a lot of people have. Obviously, we are pretty disconnected from nature now, so not having children is extremely common today, but would have been unheard of just 50-100 years ago, it was expected. So things are changing in that regard.

Yes, we value ourselves, and have invented all sorts of purpose and necessary function for ourselves.

 

[Nimos]

I think it would be viewed as too draconian. People here in the US were crying tyranny at something as innocuous as recommending covid vaccine.
We should try a carrot before resorting to a stick.

Agree a stick is never good, as I said I think it would be the fastest way unless we go with inhumane methods Again, im not sure how big an issue this is.

Q: Why do we need people? The world got along fine before we came onto the scene.

The world doesn't need humans, we need humans and without us, nothing matters from our perspective, so humans have to have priority.

es, we value ourselves, and have invented all sorts of purpose and necessary function for ourselves.

People having children is a selfish act, they get children because they want to have them. And that should also be the only valid reason for having them, everything else would be wrong.

 

[icehorse]

I think it would be viewed as too draconian. People here in the US were crying tyranny at something as innocuous as recommending covid vaccine.
We should try a carrot before resorting to a stick.

Yes! We need to work within the constraints spelled out by motivation science. So carrots are better than sticks, but extrinsic rewards (e.g. "carrots"), are still a weak form of motivation. Better to figure out how people can be motivated from the intrinsic.

I think we need both policies and propaganda. Environmentalism should be made all the rage. Ecologically expensive habits, toys and status markers should be made socially unpopular. We need not sacrifice quality of life.

Agreed on the above, except some "modern conveniences" might have to go. That said, "quality of life" can be achieved in different ways.

==

On a related topic: We have to abandon the myth that economies must grow endlessly to be healthy. I think some variation of WELL REGULATED capitalism or free market-ism can work well in no growth or negative growth situations. I also think it's important to reward invention and innovation, again, that's back to motivation science.