[reitzensteinm]

You're making my point. The US went through the same process, with the same birth rate interrupted only by the great depression until two generations ago.

There aren't countries, there are humans responding to the same conditions similarly. Economic development will slow their reproductive rate, like clockwork.

If you point to a family in the 60s in the US and a family in India today and find only one of them irresponsible, your thinking is flawed.

I assume you're following through with your convictions and will remain child free?

[wtdata]

> I assume you're following through with your convictions and will remain child free?

No, I will remain with my child at replacement rate (a little below actually), like my parents and my grandparents did (and all parents and grandparents on average here), and I expect them to be entitled to a lot more resources than someone who lives in a country where (on average) their parents, grandparents and themselves didn't follow the same principle.

As a fact, India's CO2 emissions per unit area are almost the same as EU. We are using the same share of ecological resources (assuming roughly they are equivalent on average per area), so there is nothing to give or to take from both sides.

P.S.: A family in USA in the 60's, 1st: didn't had any idea that there was such thing as a catastrophic global warming incoming, 2nd: had a 4x smaller population density than India has today. But sure, go ahead and keep pretending that Earth's resources magically increase anytime someone decides to have a new child, so that you can tell yourself we are all entitles to the same amount of resources, no matter the size of our immediate family.

[reitzensteinm]

I had a hunch.

[wtdata]

I also had a hunch that you interest isn't really about saving the planet but in supporting the implementation of your ideological agenda.

[reitzensteinm]

I have no ideological agenda other than not engaging in casual racism to construct a boogeyman to point at to absolve myself of the substantial impact I've made to the climate.

[wtdata]

What do you mean?

It's not your racism that has you stating that someone in a country with a very good track record when it comes to CO2 emissions (and a number of other environmental aspects) should stop having children, so that someone in a overly populated country, with an appalling record when it comes to all kinds of pollution can have even more children?

If it's not racism from your part that makes you ask for that, than you should clarify what it is. But one thing is for certain, it's not environmentalism for sure.

[reitzensteinm]

I'm not telling you not to have children, but it does make you a hypocrite.

I'm accusing you of casual racism for drawing a false distinction around the behavior of Indians. They are doing what everyone else has done in the same circumstance. Just because we have gotten our growth spurt and dirty economic development out the way doesn't entitle us to waggle our finger at those that took longer.

It's on the first world to fix things first. The wealthiest should have the lowest per capita emissions, not the highest. Shouting at the third world for their high population count isn't environmentalism, it won't work, and it doesn't give you the moral high ground.