Red meat has a huge carbon footprint because cattle requires a large amount of land and water.
https://sph.tulane.edu/climate-and-food-environmental-impact-beef-consumption
Demand for steaks and burgers is the primary driver of Deforestation:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/marcel-gomes-interview
If you don’t have a car and rarely eat red meat, you are doing GREAT 🙌🙌 🙌
Sure, you can drink tap water instead of plastic water. You can switch to Tea. You can travel by train. You can use Linux instead of Windows AI’s crap. Those are great ideas. But, don’t drive yourself crazy. If you are only an ordinary citizen, remember that perfect is the enemy of good.
Not having a kid eclipses all of these by orders of magnitude.
I haven’t had hundreds of kids. I’m a climate savior.
you got rookie numbers. i could have had tens of thousands.
As a middle aged dude who is unlikely to have kids at this point, I’m curious about the numbers if you have some some suggested sources to peruse
Chart, Wynes et al. 2017
i regard all antinatalism as ecofascism. i’m not asking you to change my mind, i’m letting you know you might be participating in a eugenics campaign.
ecofascism is a real phenomenon. there is a cure for political illiteracy.
2 truths and a lie…the deep ecology movement and the Unabomber would seem to undermine your third claim
i’m not talking about people who don’t have kids. i’m talking about people who advocate for people not to have kids.
maybe not in and of itself, but any advocacy for it or policies enforcing endorsing or causing it surely are.
How is it eugenics if it has nothing to do with a parent’s genetic make up? Like if they said “meat eaters shouldn’t have kids” you could try and make an argument for eugenics but for nobody to have a kid or for everyone equally to have less children how is that eugenics?
you are saying this in english, to a (self-)selected demographic subset of english speakers. you are encouraging a particular set of people not to have children. that’s eugenics. unless you can find a way to convey this message to everyone, at once, in an identical message given cultural and other contexts, you will be biasing the message to be more effective among some segment of the populous.
We’ve done it. We’ve finally found the Olympic Gold Medalist for Mental Gymnastics.
Congratulations.
this is a thought-terminating cliche. what i said is true.
Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than “I said so” followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn’t leave much in the way of conversation points.
But lets give it a go.
Firstly there was no demand or proposal for any demographic to partake in the activity mentioned.
Secondly, assuming the first point wasn’t true, by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity, which it patently ridiculous.
Thirdly, the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn’t a thought terminating cliche, perhaps you could claim ad hominem but as I said before ,“I’m right, because reasons” doesn’t leave many conversational avenues open.
it is, and saying it isn’t doesn’t change that.
Indeed, but the definition does, I don’t care at all about this hill, but not being able to understand the application of the definition of words is going to make conversations difficult for you.
they are advocating for a set of actions. not simply mentioning them.
Point to the advocation.
Edit: changed my mind, no need, see my other reply , good luck.
that’s not what happened. what i said were all truth claims. you can decide whether i was wrong about any of them (i’m not), but no argument at all is needed.
Just to be clear you are saying you didn’t provide a claim of truth with no supporting argument because, and I quote
I know you aren’t going to understand how your reply doesn’t make sense but if in the future you come back to this , this kind of thing is what people call mental gymnastics.
It kinda feels like punching down at this point so I’ll leave you be.
So are you interpreting the comment as only people who speak English should not have kids?
only people who speak english can read that comment. they are only talking to english-literate people.
edit: … english-literate people who are on lemmy.
That was not my question. Do you think the OP meant that only people who speak English should not have kids?
no. i don’t think that. but i think the propaganda they’ve produced can only have that effect.
So ignoring the fact that English speaking is still not part of eugenics, do you think the only way it can be non eugenics based is if they shared those same sentiments to every country in every language in equal proportion? Or how else could they share the belief that having children is bad for the planet without it being eugenics based on your opinion?
Sorry buddy, that isn’t how this works. Great try tho. Go back to the whiteboard and come back when you have valuable input to share.
That’s one pair of philosophies that creep me out both ways. Both the anti natalists and pro natalists.
Deciding for yourself is one thing, imposing your choice on others is maddening.
I don’t know if the comment quite raises to the level of anti natalist though. Maybe it’s grading on a curve of reading some more hard core anti natalists, but that comment felt tame and felt like they wouldn’t necessarily object to a couple having one child or even two, being somewhat below the replacement level…
i’m not pro-natalist, but i am anti-anti-natalist, if there is any room for that.
What a fantastically apt username
in, as much as possible, a non-confrontational way, i’d love to hear why you think that.