[ZetsuBouKyo]

I have an extreme slippery slope idea.

If they want to protect children, shouldn't they sterilize everyone?

Every child born, regardless of wealth will inevitably suffer injury, illness, and psychological setbacks. Therefore, the best way to protect them would be not allowing people to have children.

By the way, not having children is also more eco-friendly, because an infinite series simply converges.

I wonder if I’ll see this ridiculous scene in my lifetime.

[AnthonyMouse]

> By the way, not having children is also more eco-friendly, because an infinite series simply converges.

This one isn't actually accurate. Younger people have longer time horizons (i.e. aren't expecting to be dead as soon) and are therefore more likely to support policies like electrifying transportation and generating power from lower CO2 sources, and policies get enacted when they have majority support, so causing the population to skew older by reducing the number of children is ecologically very bad.

[lukan]

In theory. In reality the number of young people concerned about climate change is high, but the number of those willing to then not take a airplane for a few days of vacation is pretty low in my experience.

So supporting policies, "that somebody should do something" sure, also my generation thinks like this and the older one. But supporting policies that also actually affect themself, different story.

Because there is also the effect of doomerism. If the world is doomed anyway, then I can at least enjoy my vacation while I am still alive.

[AnthonyMouse]

> In reality the number of young people concerned about climate change is high, but the number of those willing to then not take a airplane for a few days of vacation is pretty low in my experience.

Probably because air travel is something like 2% of CO2 emissions, driving long distances also emits CO2 so the actual reduction is more like 1%, and people understand what a cost/benefit ratio is.

Meanwhile they're significantly more likely to do things like buy an electric car or hybrid or install rooftop solar, which makes a much larger actual difference.

> But supporting policies that also actually affect themself, different story.

Who is more likely to support voting to fund car chargers, working people who are tired of buying gas or retirees who want to use that money to increase government retirement benefits?

> Because there is also the effect of doomerism.

Doomerism itself comes from being in the minority.

[jurgenburgen]

I would support air travel taxes even though I’ve used a plane 5 times this year already.

Just because I don’t believe in voluntary action doesn’t mean I wouldn’t accept society-wide policy. I want impactful societal action, not self-harm disguised as feelgood ecohobbies.

This problem can only be solved by coordinated government intervention.

[noisy_boy]

Forced sterilisations for population control has been a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttawar_forced_sterilisations

[samcarter1]

Ashen vibes

[roncesvalles]

They should just mandate 1 spouse should stay at home (working remotely or not working) or you must hire a full-time nanny. I'm only half joking. If your kid has enough unsupervised time to be watching porn on a regular basis, wtf is going on?

[Saline9515]

The solution is obviously to force CCTV inside homes, with data analyzed and hosted in a government cloud. If you are against this proposal, you support child abuse.

And no, this money couldn't be used to improve the life of families.

[subscribed]

Yeah, but that means your child cannot have unsupervised sleep or rest time.

Showers will nanny, sleeping with the parent. What next?

But I applaud your only mildly extreme idea, builds on the insanity of these lying tools well.

[vixen99]

Worth remembering that eugenics was the smart idea among many intellectuals in the earlier 20th century. The fascinating list of eminent adherents include J. Maynard Keynes, Winston Churchill, T. Roosevelt, Francis Crick, Linus Pauling, Herbert Hoover, J.H. Kellogg (of corn flake fame), Oliver Wendell Holmes, GB Shaw, Sidney Webb (early socialist, co-founder of the LSE & the Labour Party) and William Beveridge who created the British National Health System (NHS). Apparently Hitler wrote "There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.". (Mein Kempf).

[Saline9515]

Eugenics is double-eged sword. It can lead to mutilation on social basis and dubious science.

It can also mean that disabled parents won't have to bring to life disabled children, which is a great relief.

[odiroot]

A modest proposal?