[josephv]

This sort of hyper-sensitivity to any negative effects of your actions is absolutely paralyzing, as you clearly demonstrate.

It will keep you from enjoying anything. People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people". Or spend the $10 on a reusable bottle of water they are going to lose instead of buying the $1 and giving $9 to your cause of choice (charity, church, weed for the homeless).

The only way to really go zero-emissions, which would really benefit everyone (I guess, by this logic) is to just off yourself.

But I'd argue that you could do more good, have more potential to solve these problems you are concerned about, by exposing yourself to things outside your comfort zone. Other places, people, cultures, great works of art and engineering, and rich experiences.

All of the planes you ride on are going to fly anyway, get out there and get it!

[fwip]

Ethical consumption is a lie, and individual environmentalism is a ploy to redirect the conversation away from the incredible waste/pollution of industry and commerce.

Consider Nestle taking tens of millions of gallons of water from drought-struck California for $524 a year, even as residents are urged to cut back their water consumption.

[gph]

Hmmm, so if consumers stopped buying or using a certain product/service that produces a lot of pollution, then industry/commerce would still keep right on ahead polluting the exact same amount. Interesting thought.

Consider consumers buying millions of gallons of water from Nestle when they could just drink tap water...

I think what you mean to say is not enough people care about ethical consumption to reduce pollution to the level you think we need to be at. We should instead regulate industry so that it doesn't depend on individuals making ethical decisions with their consumption, because most of them won't. Perfectly reasonable position, but you don't have to say it like there's some vast evil conspiracy out there.

[49531]

There is a balance to be found in lifestylism. I wouldn't call it hyper-sensitivity. You can't be perfect, and your lifestyle isn't going to disrupt global systems that facilitate most of the worlds problems, but there is something to be said for reducing your negative impact on the world.

It feels gross to have a smart phone or computer built with conflict minerals (they all essentially are). It feels gross to have more than affordable clothes assembled in sweatshops. I'm not the one setting up these systems but it feels gross to benefit from them. Don't tell people to ignore those feelings, ignoring them is alienating.

Also, I think if you off yourself the carbon in your body will eventually be emitted? :P

[abalone]

> All of the planes you ride on are going to fly anyway, get out there and get it!

This is just plain bad reasoning, for obvious reasons.

It is not “hypersensitive” to care about the CO2 impact of air travel. In fact it is a large blind spot for many otherwise progressive-minded people. These travel shows genuinely espouse progressive principles of learning from other cultures and yet almost never is there any mention of the significant CO2 impact. All the little things you might do throughout the year to lower your impact and get to where we need to be in 12 years are easily wiped out by just one plane trip. It’s good to talk about it.

[fwip]

Flying from Seattle to JFK is about 600 pounds of CO2. Driving the same trip is 2500 pounds - more than 4x.

Taking the bus instead of the car to work will "pay for" like 4 cross-continental trips a year. If you take a bike instead, it's closer to 10.

[abalone]

> Taking the bus instead of the car to work will "pay for" like 4 cross-continental trips a year.

Only if you want to maintain the same levels of unsustainable CO2 output. That's totally unacceptable. We need to get to as close to zero emissions as we can as fast as we can, which means taking mass transit to work, living closer to work, and not flying so much.

> Driving the same trip is 2500 pounds - more than 4x.

Not if you do it in an electric, sustainably powered car (or better yet train).

[paleogizmo]

Where do these numbers come from? Google gives me the car being roughly equivalent with a single passenger. If these numbers are referring to a family of 4+ in one vehicle then it passes muster, but that's a big caveat.

[paleogizmo]

Like other people have said, there is a balance to be found. There's certainly a middle ground to be found instead of "I don't like the Prius so I'm going to buy an F150." Assuming no significant externalities, the more sustainable choice is also the more inexpensive choice so that's a benefit. Choosing air travel also isn't all-or-nothing, for example traveling to Cartagena from the continental USA is much less miles and carbon emissions than Phuket. Last, air lines will adjust the frequency of their routes long term so voting with your wallet matters.

[toomuchtodo]

> People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people".

This is true though. There are too many people on the planet, and you shouldn't have kids if it aligns with you beliefs.

Luckily, countries are already headed in that direction (fertility rates below replacement rate) [1]. But we should do more with carbon tax funds to further incentivize this outcome.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rates/

[hindsightbias]

Not wanting to be overtly political, but this was in today's news. If those beliefs lead to trends, fertility rates might not lead to one's desired outcome if others don't believe:

"According to the General Social Survey data, 41 percent of Democrats are without a steady partner, compared with only 29 percent of Republicans. Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to not have a steady partner: 51 percent vs. 32 percent, respectively."

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/It-s-not-just-you-N...

I saw one of Rick's show commentaries last week and he's very specifically on a crusade of "Travel defeats ignorance"

[toomuchtodo]

"In racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist: it’s hammered Native Americans and Hispanics particularly hard, and hit even African Americans harder than whites generally, and certainly harder than non-Hispanic whites." [1]

Are Republicans going to have more kids than Democrats? I have no idea, Paul Ryan has had three and says he's "doing his part" [2]. The trend downward in fertility rate across the board is still obvious.

[1] https://ifstudies.org/blog/number-2-in-2018-baby-bust-fertil... (Number 2 in 2018: Baby Bust—Fertility is Declining the Most Among Minority Women)

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/paul-ryan-wants-you-have-more-kids-... (Paul Ryan Wants You To Have More Kids)

[magduf]

Excuse me? Everything I've ever read shows that Hispanics are having more kids than any other demographic. They might decrease that after immigrating to the US and becoming more assimilated, but even so they still lead the pack, and non-Hispanic caucasians are projected to become a minority in 2-3 decades IIRC.

[toomuchtodo]

The data I posted is US specific. If you have data for outside the US, post it!

[magduf]

I'm only talking about the US. Hispanics are having way more kids here than any other group.

[vibrato]

If you’re so sure, why stop at not having kids, why continue being a person?

[miles]

There is a major difference between killing a sentient being (including oneself) and not creating more beings.

[toomuchtodo]

The changes required to live a more sustainable life aren't out of reach for most people, and don't require action so drastic.

You're already here, stay for a bit.

[vibrato]

I absolutely agree with you, which is why I would never alter my life creation activities for environmental concerns. If humans wanted to fix our energy issues we could make a serious push (perhaps 5% GDP) towards nuclear technologies.

[toomuchtodo]

I'm not suggesting we remove agency (yours or otherwise), but there are people out there that will accept cash to not have children. Efforts like that should be pursued as long as its entirely voluntary, as not having a child is one of the most impactful actions someone can perform to reduce damage to the planet (we're pushing limits at 7.53 billion people already). Economics is a powerful incentive.

Regarding nuclear, I'm not going to beat a dead horse in this thread.

[magduf]

Long-term, I'd like to see anti-aging therapies really work out so that human lifespans are greatly extended, along with contraception and fertility technologies perfected so that people only have kids when they're really, really ready for them (probably after age 50).

As for nuclear, I'll beat the dead horse: we don't need it (at least fission). We need more renewable power, especially solar, since 1500W/m^3 hits the Earth's surface all day long. We just need to figure out how to make solar panels in a more environmentally-friendly manner (better recycling of their materials, etc.), and deploy them in more places, especially in places where they don't have negative effects, such as on rooftops, over highways, etc.

Then, we need to figure out how to have humans live in a more environmental manner, by increasing density. If most of the population lived at the density of Manhattan or Tokyo, we wouldn't have all these complaints about humans taking up too much land area.

The problems associated with overpopulation can be solved with technology and policy, if we really want to.

[Bulkington]

How about your supply chain choices? Do you shop Amazon or ship/receive via FedEx?

https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/21/amazon-air-expands-with-10...

If no, then I applaud your sacrifice; preach it, brother. Spreading awareness and sensitiivty is critical.

If yes, then we get into the nasty business of setting goals and priorities. Or, rather, the nasty business of having our priorities set for us. Or can you see an achievable path that doesn't lead to a green coat of paint on the status quo?

[jstarfish]

> The only way to really go zero-emissions, which would really benefit everyone (I guess, by this logic) is to just off yourself.

Your decomposing body will release nitrates, methane and all sorts of other toxic crap into the air and groundwater. Not to mention the resources consumed in building a casket and your permanent occupation of landspace even after death. Graveyards are all-around terrible for the environment.

Cremation is a little better but emits a ton of greenhouse gas. Burning formaldehyde and mercury is bad news, not to mention the environmental destruction involved in extracting the natural gas needed to do it.

Even going into space and launching yourself into the sun has a tremendous environmental cost.

Everything we do produces emissions. The closest one can come to a zero-emission death might be a sky burial.

[fastball]

That's not a great rebuttal, as you will always die regardless, so all of the things you just mentioned would happen even if you didn't kill yourself.

Killing yourself is absolutely the best way to help the world if your biggest concern in life is global warming and the only way you know how to help is by limiting your own consumption / CO2 production.

Of course, you shouldn't kill yourself, because there are many other, much better ways to help the environment than limiting personal consumption.

Arguably the best way would be to help push for more nuclear power.