Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Physical systems don't really care how distasteful ideas are. I don't mean to be rude, at all, but facts are life isn't fair. Climate systems don't sit around arguing over the equitability of development rights based on who emitted carbon when.

Rich countries burned fossil fuels for 100+ years to develop. Does anyone think those countries are going to revert to much lower standards (somewhere between European and developing country standards) to give that same advantage to developing countries? Absolutely not.

EDIT: I want to be very clear before my edit window expires; I do not believe anyone should be forced not to have kids (although I would be onboard paying folks who choose not to have kids a direct transfer payment, just as it's not taboo to pay people to have kids and many governments do it). But I also believe no one should have one or many kids if their socioeconomic circumstances don't allow for it. We should absolutely strive to empower and educate women, as you mention this causes a natural decline in fertility rates [1].

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#empowerment-of-wom...

> I don't mean to be rude, at all, but facts are life isn't fair. Climate systems don't sit around arguing over the equitability of development rights based on who emitted carbon when.

I’ll put it simpler: you are completely wrong about what needs to be done and by whom.

Accidentally or not, you are repeating the narrative of eugenicists who are obsessed with over population in the global south, rather than the actual facts on the ground. We need to focus on de-carbonizing our industry, rather than the reproduction rate of those who currently consume the fewest resources per capita.

I argue helping people live better lives through education, robust family planning options and availability, and direct cash payments is not eugenics, but feel free to call me whatever you'd like. I'm comfortable with my position based on a foundation of empathy and pragmatism. I believe all human beings should be treated with dignity and respect.

I’m not calling you a eugenicist, I am worried you’re accidentally repeating their points. We absolutely can and should do what we can to help the global south, but focusing on over population as a source of our ills is a eugenicist talking point.

The problem is, and always has been our dependence on fossil fuels to increase our standard of living. Solve that, and the difference between 7-10billion humans is moot

This is probably not a popular opinion here, but I'm actually quite optimistic on our transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Things have been progressing nicely and I expect that progress to dramatically accelerate over the next 15 years.

I’m actually feeling pretty optimistic too. The fact that my house is currently a net exporter of green energy is certainly helping my mood in this area.

Just want to say I appreciate the discussion you two are having. Excellent points from the both of you. And it's nice to see a civilized discussion for once.

> … "it's nice to see a civilized discussion for once."

I've seen far more of that here than just about anywhere else on the Web where news is discussed. I appreciate it greatly, and the world needs more of it for sure.

"But I also believe no one should have one or many kids if their economic circumstances don't allow for it."

In EU area you can have as many children you like and the social safety nets will generally carry you trough caring for your child.

I suggest you use some other means of argumentation than wealth of parents, as that is a non-issue here (mostly).

Europe is also well below its replacement rate at ~1.5 children per woman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com