nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Stop having kids to save the planet?

Upforthematch

British royals, Harry & Meagan will have a max of 2 kids they say to protect the environment.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/01/prince-harry-protect-environment-2-kids-is-enough/

Will this be a new trend? Many couples have one or two kids for plenty of reasons but is the carbon footprint one of them?

To save the planet is it the case that two will do or would you drive for five?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

skooterblue2

kneemos wrote: »

Allegations of Andrew being involved with Epstein and underage girls.

I have heard that but that contradicts breaking off relations with Saville. Epstein is something way bigger that a garden variety paedo trafficker. He is a tool for manipulating the social influencers (popstars, politicians, media, Hollywood etc etc) by the "real" establishment. This is what is getting in the way of his trial. AOC was told about him and when she went to investigate she was told something much bigger was at work. I am not saying he cannot be disposed of and replaced before tea time but there are people who have a vested interest in preventing him talking.

Harvey Weinstein

If we can forget about the pros and cons of immigration for a moment,
somethings not adding up when they're telling us to have less kids for environmental reasons, while at the same time telling us we need to increase our population.

Say my name

Stop the children's allowance and give it instead as a reward to childless people.

Problem solved!

Go even further and put a tax on each child. Have a basic social welfare but the child tax comes off that if the situation arises.

Ash.J.Williams

Is this a white thing or are we all on board?

skooterblue2

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Is this a white thing or are we all on board?

Its population replacement, most eastern european countries including Russia are not on board, still very family centered. You are on board or you are not, they are going to make it happen with rising autism rates, flouride in the water and what ever white guilt they put on us.

Bobblehats

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

If we can forget about the pros and cons of immigration for a moment,
somethings not adding up when they're telling us to have less kids for environmental reasons, while at the same time telling us we need to increase our population.

ECOLOGY vs ECONOMY.

People in developed world trying to reguglate their population at
respectable numbers but certain scumbags see the third world’s spiralling population and have adverse ideas. Know your enemy.

messinkiapina

Upforthematch wrote: »

British royals, Harry & Meagan will have a max of 2 kids they say to protect the environment.

If they feel that having kids is a detriment to the environment, shouldn't they be just having zero kids? They want 2 and they want a pat on the back for their great sacrifice?

Edit: Not to mention the fact that one of their little brats is likely to have a carbon footprint that dwarfs a commoner's.

biko

Get the snip guys!

Gurgîn Bakircioglu (35) is a Swedish-Kurdish podcast producer and media personality. In May, he caused controversy with an opinion piece in the Swedish newspaper Expressen about his decision to have himself sterilized for climate change-related reasons. “Just imagine if more people did this!”

https://medium.com/@ruwbandealaman/we-need-to-talk-about-this-not-having-babies-for-the-sake-of-the-climate-2340535fb48d

Fun fact 1
Works for Swedish TV, notoriously "progressive" institution
https://pt-media.org/2019/04/29/svt-stop-having-children-adopt-third-worlders-instead/

Fun fact 2
Vegan
https://www.facebook.com/KIT.Sverige/posts/2417103151857781/

lawred2

Upforthematch wrote: »

British royals, Harry & Meagan will have a max of 2 kids they say to protect the environment.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/01/prince-harry-protect-environment-2-kids-is-enough/

Will this be a new trend? Many couples have one or two kids for plenty of reasons but is the carbon footprint one of them?

To save the planet is it the case that two will do or would you drive for five?

Maybe these fu(king pricks could stop using private jets, helicopters, heating 88 bed mansions when there's about three of them resident in it and whatever else first.

Patronising dickheads lacking entirely in any self awareness whatsoever

bazz26

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Humans have already massively overpopulated the planet as it is. I applaud anyone who chooses not to contribute to that for whatever reason. The global population needs to drop by about half IMO.

This dude had the right idea.

ToBeFrank123

Western consumers are the number one reason for resource use on this planet so no problem with less consumers. The Chinese have taken steps to keep their population under control and so should we.

Harvey Weinstein

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Western consumers are the number one reason for resource use on this planet so no problem with less consumers. The Chinese have taken steps to keep their population under control and so should we.

The steps the Chinese took involved forced abortions and involuntary sterilisations, I wouldn't be looking to them for inspiration.

Mr. teddywinkles

messinkiapina wrote: »

If they feel that having kids is a detriment to the environment, shouldn't they be just having zero kids? They want 2 and they want a pat on the back for their great sacrifice?

Edit: Not to mention the fact that one of their little brats is likely to have a carbon footprint that dwarfs a commoner's.

If they want to be hardcore they could take the next step again

uck51js9zml2yt

I wonder if her being 37 plays any part in her decision...what utter tripe they've come out with!

Blaizes

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Western consumers are the number one reason for resource use on this planet so no problem with less consumers. The Chinese have taken steps to keep their population under control and so should we.

We could just try to consume less even starting with all the stuff we get from China.

skooterblue2

Claudia Colossal Sourdough wrote: »

I wonder if her being 37 plays any part in her decision...what utter tripe they've come out with!

Leave them alone, His father was a cavalry officer and her mother is democrat voting social worker...... its not a great genetic base to start with.

arccosh

I heard a great argument about consumerism, but not the fact that there are more people, but the fact there is more people consuming more things...

the example was, a family in Bangladesh with 6 or 8 kids (which is the norm), would consume less than your average western family with 2-3 kids, because of consumerism and attitudes to having "stuff" and throwing it away...

making the argument it's attitude rather than the ammount of people that's causing the issue.

Personally, I'm in agreement with both too many people and attitude. In fairness, there hasn't been a war or deadly epidemic to do enough damage since probably WW2, so the population is bound to skyrocket unless manually controlled.

Also, about the China thing, they are seeing detrimental effects now, where they went too far in some areas and now you have an aging population in some areas with no younger people to look after them. In the likes of poorer regional areas, a big family was pretty much your pension pot.

Mr. teddywinkles

Economic stability equates consume + consume. Environmental preservation equates to stop that **** or find alternative sources. In turn capitalism equates to self destruction?

budgie412

biko wrote: »

Get the snip guys!

https://medium.com/@ruwbandealaman/we-need-to-talk-about-this-not-having-babies-for-the-sake-of-the-climate-2340535fb48d

Fun fact 1
Works for Swedish TV, notoriously "progressive" institution
https://pt-media.org/2019/04/29/svt-stop-having-children-adopt-third-worlders-instead/

Fun fact 2
Vegan
https://www.facebook.com/KIT.Sverige/posts/2417103151857781/

I remember when i wanted bakircioglu to score...

Woodsie1

Zaiden Mango Thumb wrote: »

The ones who care about the environment will have less children to pass those values on to, while the one's who couldn't care less will have plenty of children to pass that attitude to? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Great post.
This man has too much common sense for the internet.

[Deleted User]

Poor Harry. The minute I saw her walking down the aisle on her own, I feared the worst.

margo321

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If they’re soooooo worried about the environment maybe fly less?

so true. easy to have morals in their ivory tower with land rover parked outside.

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

Poor Harry. The minute I saw her walking down the aisle on her own, I feared the worst.

For who? She is a bit of a nutter in her own right and a misfit for the family. She wont allow him to go hunting with William. I suspect that those are the least of her nutty ideas.

Edgware

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Economic stability equates consume + consume. Environmental preservation equates to stop that **** or find alternative sources. In turn capitalism equates to self destruction?

WE'RE ALL DOOMED SO **** IT ANYWAY

mvl

Soon to be added to the politicians agenda, an "ethical" way to get to having less kids: "Stabilize global population -- currently growing by 200,000 people a day -- using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls"
- from https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/11/05/238208/more-than-11000-scientists-from-around-the-world-declare-a-climate-emergency

Graces7

Odd assumption that kids adopt the ideas and ideals of their parents.. so education counts for nothing?

Up to choice re how many children. It is not a privilege available to well to do folk only.

[Deleted User]

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Western consumers are the number one reason for resource use on this planet so no problem with less consumers.

Source?

Having lived in China, and India, I would query that statement. The amount of food eaten, plastic bags, pollution, etc that happens in Asia is staggering.

The Chinese have taken steps to keep their population under control and so should we.

The one child policy has been gone for a few years now. Even when it was in effect, people found ways around it. If your sister or cousin didn't have kids, then you could take their allotment. Families with more money or political favor could have larger families too. I've got colleagues in their 30's who are from families with 7+ children.

In any case, the one child policy has been removed. The "average" family size here is 2, although those with money are going for 3 or 4. Rising costs as China becomes more of a 1st world nation will limit further population growth but they're already at an estimated 1.4 Billion. Estimated. Nobody can really trust the local census reports due to demands for funding from Beijing. The actual population is thought to be much higher by most Chinese people.

Europeans don't need to limit their populations. If anything they need to have more children to maintain the native population versus immigrant populations. This is not an anti-migration statement. It's simply that not doing so will mean the end of European culture within a few decades, since most migrants are not embracing European culture and values. They're retaining their own identities.

This idea of limiting population growth in Europe is retarded. Africa, Asia and South America will continue to grow their populations, along with seeking industrialization, or first world status and their contributions to the environmental problems will easily dismiss any small improvements made by European sacrifices.

TBH these kind of initiatives are incredibly naive. We should be investing more in science to find realistic discoveries to reduce the pollution and take the pressure off on limited resources. A surge in interest for space exploration and colonization is far more reasonable than limiting 1st world populations which are already quite low comparatively speaking.

Idle Passerby

Graces7 wrote: »

Odd assumption that kids adopt the ideas and ideals of their parents.. so education counts for nothing?

I agree. Since when do intelligent, informed adults blindly parrot the ideals their parents espoused 30 or 40 years ago?

Having "only 2" isn't a radical decision. It's pretty average for most couples in the western world. Those intending to churn them out, generally have to start earlier than these two have anyway.

mvl

Deleted User wrote: »

Europeans don't need to limit their populations. If anything they need to have more children to maintain the native population versus immigrant populations. This is not an anti-migration statement. It's simply that not doing so will mean the end of European culture within a few decades, since most migrants are not embracing European culture and values. They're retaining their own identities.

Totally true. One can be pro-european without being anti-immigration.
- Think I read that by 2050 the European population would be 7% of the world population, where currently it is 12%.
So part of me would want to ask our politicians what are we realistically planning to do on this subject with the unskilled refugees-migrants that are getting in on Europe's welfare system, as part of the integration policies.

It is not OK to continue discouraging European working/professional families from having more children (by the lack of support or burdens from current taxation systems, mortgages, childcare support) - while the un-educated/un-skilled welfare peeps keep adding weight on the welfare system by having too many children.

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH these kind of initiatives are incredibly naive. We should be investing more in science to find realistic discoveries to reduce the pollution and take the pressure off on limited resources. A surge in interest for space exploration and colonization is far more reasonable than limiting 1st world populations which are already quite low comparatively speaking.

And how can you do that if not by encouraging STEM towards children who are having higher chance of being receptive to STEM (and dare to say, majority of these would be exactly the children of professional parents that are not encouraged to have more children today ...)

Stewball

I can't understand why anyone would want more than two kids.
I don't have any and I never want them. Friends & family have kids and to be honest they're way too much hassle.