Quote: Original post by Sirisian
I've always liked the idea of a one child policy, but obviously that's still viewed as "the government is controlling us".

I agree. Personally, I'd be fine with two-child policy. Or maybe not an official "you may only have x children" sort of policy, but instead maybe a tax that increases exponentially per child. That way, only the sufficiently-wealthy (who one would hope would be deserving of their wealth!) could afford to have more than two children, plus other, more important things to everyone already alive(like food) might not be taxed as much.

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
I could list off the stats of how much garbage 1 human baby creates over its lifetime, but it's pretty obvious if one looks at their own life.

I've yet to meet a baby that created Any garbage. I've met a lot of parents who create massive amounts of needless garbage to take care of a kid, but rarely does the garbage come from the kid itself.


This is an issue of economics and our push of "Trash for Cash", and buy cheap stuff now so we can throw it away and buy more later.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
I could list off the stats of how much garbage 1 human baby creates over its lifetime, but it's pretty obvious if one looks at their own life.

I've yet to meet a baby that created Any garbage.

To be fair, Sirisian said "over its lifetime."

Quote: I've met a lot of parents who create massive amounts of needless garbage to take care of a kid, but rarely does the garbage come from the kid itself.

Again, to be fair, the child's presence is arguably still the root cause of the garbage. That is, if the parents didn't have the child, the needless garbage wouldn't have been produced.

It's all about how deep into the hierarchy of causality you look.

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
I could list off the stats of how much garbage 1 human baby creates over its lifetime, but it's pretty obvious if one looks at their own life.

I've yet to meet a baby that created Any garbage.

To be fair, Sirisian said "over its lifetime."

Quote: I've met a lot of parents who create massive amounts of needless garbage to take care of a kid, but rarely does the garbage come from the kid itself.

Again, to be fair, the child's presence is arguably still the root cause of the garbage. That is, if the parents didn't have the child, the needless garbage wouldn't have been produced.

It's all about how deep into the hierarchy of causality you look.

Get out. So, the first thing we should get rid off in order to solve polution is babies?

That's so retarded that it deserves nothing but a police-sniper shot in the chest.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

I've yet to meet a baby that created Any garbage.

Is that baby in an Ikea crib? How much waste was produced making it?
Is it eating baby food? Is it stored in glass, plastic or paper?
Is it clothed? Clothing might be somewhat natural, but the 2 ton oil/hour cargo ship that delivered them isn't.
Does it get bathed? In warm water? How did water boiler come to be? What powers it.
Diapers? And their contents? When those are delivered on landfill - what powers those bulldozers?

But you're right - why kill cows, just get a McD burger.

Quote: I've met a lot of parents who create massive amounts of needless garbage to take care of a kid, but rarely does the garbage come from the kid itself.

If that baby did not exist - this garbage would not need to be produced.

Somewhat cynical, but technically accurate. Just as without humans, there would be no garbage as per human definition.

Nature doesn't produce garbage. Notice how in animal kingdom everything is completely recycled. At lowest level there are bacteria. Human-produced garbage is different in that regard. Its recycling rate vastly exceeds human lifespan. Some waste produced is either toxic or will never (or take thousands or millions of years) recycle into anything the rest of ecosystem can use. How long till CPUs change back into something usable by nature? Such as break down into basic elements which can be absorbed by plants.

So even if eventually everything humans produce will revert back to some basic form, the end result is not compatible with rest of ecosystem. We are producing items by converting raw materials into non-usable items.

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
I could list off the stats of how much garbage 1 human baby creates over its lifetime, but it's pretty obvious if one looks at their own life.

I've yet to meet a baby that created Any garbage.

To be fair, Sirisian said "over its lifetime."

Quote: I've met a lot of parents who create massive amounts of needless garbage to take care of a kid, but rarely does the garbage come from the kid itself.

Again, to be fair, the child's presence is arguably still the root cause of the garbage. That is, if the parents didn't have the child, the needless garbage wouldn't have been produced.

It's all about how deep into the hierarchy of causality you look.

Get out. So, the first thing we should get rid off in order to solve polution is babies?

Please point out to me where I said that.

Quote:
That's so retarded that it deserves nothing but a police-sniper shot in the chest.

I agree.

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
I could list off the stats of how much garbage 1 human baby creates over its lifetime, but it's pretty obvious if one looks at their own life.

I've yet to meet a baby that created Any garbage.

To be fair, Sirisian said "over its lifetime."

Quote: I've met a lot of parents who create massive amounts of needless garbage to take care of a kid, but rarely does the garbage come from the kid itself.

Again, to be fair, the child's presence is arguably still the root cause of the garbage. That is, if the parents didn't have the child, the needless garbage wouldn't have been produced.

It's all about how deep into the hierarchy of causality you look.

Get out. So, the first thing we should get rid off in order to solve polution is babies?

Please point out to me where I said that.

Quote:
That's so retarded that it deserves nothing but a police-sniper shot in the chest.

I agree.

My bad. We're thinkin the same thing :)

The biggest problems facing us aren't directly population related, at least not from "developed" nations. In fact, the best proven way right now to control global population is to simply improve the "developing" countries standard of living and bring them up to "developed" status.

Lower mortality rates and higher standard of living with longer life expectancy actually promote smaller families and stable or declining populations... But this won't really lower global pollution or the impact humans are having on the environment which is a separate issue.

Some fertility numbers here

So it's actually entirely wrong-headed to assume you need government controls on birth rate to cap population in most cases (for the countries pumping out the most pollution).

Ignorant people suppose fewer people = less pollution, but unfortunately while this is true to a point (ie: no humans = no human waste), this is not the primary function of pollution. For example, non-industrialized nations which are typically increasing the most in population do not actually produce the most pollution. (Edit: example)

We need to investigate cleaner sources of energy, learn better ways of recycling and packaging products (everything from cars to computers/components and more), and generally solve the possibly impossible problem of doing these things while maintaining standard of living and health which we have established for ourselves because otherwise nobody is going to buy into it. The real issue is that cushy chair you're sitting on, the shoes and clothing you are wearing, the glasses on your face, the keyboard you are typing on and the computer it is attached to. The real problem is our addiction to oil as a form of "free energy" and the commute into work each day.

All the malnourished children living in huts or shanty towns in Africa probably produce a smaller carbon footprint than you do in a single day. This is not to trivialize overpopulation which can have negative environmental effects, but the fact is that isn't a primary issue we are struggling with in North America.

[Edited by - M2tM on September 1, 2010 9:35:51 PM]

Quote: Original post by Antheus

Quote: Original post by Talroth

I've yet to meet a baby that created Any garbage.

Is that baby in an Ikea crib? How much waste was produced making it?
Is it eating baby food? Is it stored in glass, plastic or paper?
Is it clothed? Clothing might be somewhat natural, but the 2 ton oil/hour cargo ship that delivered them isn't.
Does it get bathed? In warm water? How did water boiler come to be? What powers it.
Diapers? And their contents? When those are delivered on landfill - what powers those bulldozers?

But you're right - why kill cows, just get a McD burger.

Quote: I've met a lot of parents who create massive amounts of needless garbage to take care of a kid, but rarely does the garbage come from the kid itself.

If that baby did not exist - this garbage would not need to be produced.

We could always look at one of my classmates. He takes part time classes, and spends most of his time on one of the few Subsistence Farms I know of. He and his wife had a kid a few years ago.

The baby's crib is a solid hard wood masterpiece made by my classmate's grandfather. (30 or so kids in their family were raised with it over the decades.)

The baby eats a lot of food out of glass jars. That were filled with what was grown on the family farm, or on other local farms. Some of the jars are as old as I am.

The baby mostly wears clothes made from materials grown locally.

90% of their hot water is passive solar. (The rest is wood/farm waste fired.)

Diapers, Real diapers, made of (get this) a diaper weave fabric, don't end up in land fills. The padded crap bags most parents put on their kids aren't diapers.


Garbage is a Choice, not a fact of life. That child has added NOTHING to local landfills.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Antheus

Quote: Original post by Talroth

I've yet to meet a baby that created Any garbage.

Is that baby in an Ikea crib? How much waste was produced making it?
Is it eating baby food? Is it stored in glass, plastic or paper?
Is it clothed? Clothing might be somewhat natural, but the 2 ton oil/hour cargo ship that delivered them isn't.
Does it get bathed? In warm water? How did water boiler come to be? What powers it.
Diapers? And their contents? When those are delivered on landfill - what powers those bulldozers?

But you're right - why kill cows, just get a McD burger.

Quote: I've met a lot of parents who create massive amounts of needless garbage to take care of a kid, but rarely does the garbage come from the kid itself.

If that baby did not exist - this garbage would not need to be produced.

We could always look at one of my classmates. He takes part time classes, and spends most of his time on one of the few Subsistence Farms I know of. He and his wife had a kid a few years ago.

The baby's crib is a solid hard wood masterpiece made by my classmate's grandfather. (30 or so kids in their family were raised with it over the decades.)

The baby eats a lot of food out of glass jars. That were filled with what was grown on the family farm, or on other local farms. Some of the jars are as old as I am.

The baby mostly wears clothes made from materials grown locally.

90% of their hot water is passive solar. (The rest is wood/farm waste fired.)

Diapers, Real diapers, made of (get this) a diaper weave fabric, don't end up in land fills. The padded crap bags most parents put on their kids aren't diapers.


Garbage is a Choice, not a fact of life. That child has added NOTHING to local landfills.

Was that child born in a hospital?