SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Bloomberg:
Forty years ago, scientists from 50 nations converged on Geneva to discuss what was then called the "CO2-climate problem." At the time, with reliance on fossil fuels having helped trigger the 1979 oil crisis, they predicted global warming would eventually become a major environmental challenge.
Now, four decades later, a larger group of scientists is sounding another, much more urgent alarm. More than 11,000 experts from around the world are calling for a critical addition to the main strategy of dumping fossil fuels for renewable energy: there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet.
[...] The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It "must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity," they write.
Others disagree, stating
Fewer people producing less in greenhouse-gas emissions could make some difference in the danger that climate change poses over time. But whether we end up with 9, 10, or 11 billion people in the coming decades, the world will still be pumping out increasingly risky amounts of climate pollution if we don't fundamentally fix the underlying energy, transportation, and food systems.
Critics blast a proposal to curb climate change by halting population growth
Journal Reference:
William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, William R Moomaw. World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency[$]. BioScience. doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:46PM (19 children)
That's not just because they're poor though - it's because they're poor and being paid to have kids.
Most of the world where the population is growing, doesn't have welfare. And welfare could be relatively easily reformulated to not reward having kids. E.g. pay welfare to adults, enough to also support an "acceptable number" of kids, and that's it. If you want to support kids - give them free meals and and medical care, but nothing that could be converted to wealth for their parents.
Also, make sure everyone has access to practically free birth control, the same way the middle class and better does. $50/month for the pill is nothing for someone making the median household income of almost $5,000/month, but completely beyond the reach of someone trying to make ends meet on $500/month
To correct a blowhard politician: we're not paying women to have sex - they're going to have sex regardless, that's human nature. You're paying for them NOT to have kids, because it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the alternative.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 07 2019, @09:28PM (4 children)
Yep, I like UBI - UBI for everyone, even kids... well, even firstborn kids. The first kid you have gets UBI, after that... nope, you're paying for them out of pocket until they turn 18.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:42PM (3 children)
I like the idea of a child's UBI being saved up as a "nest egg" to be paid out when they reach majority. No incentives for parents that way, and everybody can afford college, or whatever other modest jump-start into adulthood they choose.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 08 2019, @12:02AM (2 children)
I like the European model of free university for all who are interested... doesn't seem to have bankrupted them, or seriously hurt the quality of their university educations offered.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 08 2019, @02:22AM (1 child)
As do I. I think that should also apply to trade schools, if it doesn't. No reason that "intellectuals" should be the only ones to benefit, mechanics and plumbers are far more essential to societies continued existence.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 08 2019, @03:05AM
I know it does in Germany, about 1/20 kids I met while travelling couldn't speak English - they were the ones on the trade school track.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:31PM (4 children)
Which kind of blows to smithereens the notion that people are having more kids just because they are being paid to do it.
Ummmm,...yeah. A few years back, Sandra Fluke was called a slut and a prostitute for suggesting such a thing. [wikipedia.org] I don't see that her idea has gained any better traction since then.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @11:33PM (1 child)
Yes, but they're not mutually exclusive and are still valid scenarios that contribute to the meat bag count.
People having more kids because there's a welfare network is a true statement. Whether everyone in welfare is doing that or whether the number of people doing that is significant is besides the point.
Ensuring welfare does get abuse like that - or any other fraud reasons, whether the number is significant or not, is also valid course of action.
There's all sorts of folks spawning children for all sorts of reasons that don't really help contribute to the better of humanity - some even hide behind religion which makes it hard to have a proper discourse with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @09:30PM
Is it? Immerman already pointed out that the places where poor people are having a lot of children are often the same places with little or no social safety net.
Actually, I think it precisely is the point. If we are going to address the over population problem, determining root causes is essential.
The betterment of humanity? Are we now going to veer off into a discussion of eugenics? Already? Well, that sure didn't take long!
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 08 2019, @02:33PM (1 child)
>Ummmm,...yeah. A few years back, Sandra Fluke was called a slut and a prostitute for suggesting such a thing.
Yep, misogynistic assholes with no grasp of reality continue to spout hateful bullshit. They're the offline version of trolls, and going to do that regardless of what we do, so why are you listening to them??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @09:35PM
Not suggesting we listen to them. Just pointing out that they exist and likely haven't changed their mind on the matter. Be prepared for a lot of push back on your idea of free accessible birth control for everyone. Good luck with that!
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday November 08 2019, @03:06AM (3 children)
In a few countries (e.g. some African ones that have child support) this is particularly bad, you get paid for each baby you have and after that there's no recording of what happens to it. So people will drop the babies in a ditch or a dumpster once the birth is recorded and their payment is set up, and then get to work on producing the next free-money token. That's the extreme consequences of what happens when you're paying people to have babies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @09:39PM (2 children)
[citation needed]
And this better be good because, frankly, it smells like rank bullshit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by driverless on Friday November 08 2019, @11:33PM
Child support worker in Gauteng province. Current case (as of a few days ago, there's a constant stream) is a lovely ten-year-old girl who's been thrown out by her parents because they don't want her any more. She's currently being housed in the local school, with various mothers taking turns to bring her lunches. If you want to adopt, PM me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Friday November 08 2019, @11:38PM
Oh, and if you want a more formal ref, there are dozens of them a quick Google away, for example this one [iol.co.za]:
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday November 08 2019, @03:25AM
Well, I am not poor - far from it - but why would I make children for free? You want people to work on your factories? You got to pay for producing them. Otherwise - fuck off - no children; not from me anyway.
On a related note - no other's children get any mercy from me. Let them all die as far as I am concerned.
Back to the original point, it takes $500K to bring up a child in the US. If you want mine - and I have good genes - I want 100% premium minimum and up front.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @04:07AM (2 children)
"Welfare queens" aren't real, and they weren't real in the 80s when they were Reagan's version of Trump's illegal immigrant rapists. There was only ever one welfare queen, her name was Linda Taylor, and she was committing good old-fashioned fraud, not profiting off a broken system.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 08 2019, @02:31PM
Not real enough to be worth worrying about anyway, but that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about women who have several kids because it's profitable - not women exploiting the system to make themselves comfortably "wealthy", just those who have given in to the government incentive to have more kids, because they're stuck at home taking care of the current ones anyway, and more kids means a somewhat larger monthly check.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday November 08 2019, @04:38PM
There was only ever one welfare queen, her name was Linda Taylor
No, her name was Leona Helmsley...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @10:16AM
DING DING DING!!
You just hit the nail on the head for the "but welfare bums leaching mine tax dollars!"