[000ooo000]

I can't help but feel that the performance of software with regard to its impact on the climate is a long way down the list behind far more effective but also polarising ideas such as abstaining from the consumption of animal products, limiting the number of children one has, etc.

I ran the websitecarbon.com calculator against my org's public website. For 10k/y visits, about 42kg of CO2 is emitted. Dubious how that's calculated, but let's say it's off by 10x and the emissions are closer to 420kg. Apparently, the average Australian emits 17t/y of CO2. If I were going to attempt to reduce my carbon footprint, there's probably something far more valuable I could be doing than worrying about 20kb of JS.

[blq10]

We are already below replacement TFR in most countries in the West.

"Limiting children" in that case is "human race should die because the climate" and like, no.

Please stop repackaging anti human doomerism as climate action.

[000ooo000]

Did I say limit children forever? To the point where the human race dies out? Doesn't seem like I did.

[blq10]

It is substantially implied, considering being worried about population growth when the data suggests it is declining.

[tut-urut-utut]

No need to limit forever. Just wait until you reach 60.

[philwelch]

I’m sympathetic to what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s worth arguing with antinatalists. Antinatalism is a self-solving problem.