Xif
stewie3128
joined 2 years ago
But by simply subtracting the number of kids I'd otherwise have by one, I'm preventing 21 tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere every year.
https://www.pawprint.eco/eco-blog/average-carbon-footprint-globally
There is simply no way to make enough lifestyle changes to offset that. I'd have to live car-free for 55 years to offset just a single year of a theoretical child's existence... and that kid is going to live for 70-100 years.
Obviously those things are on a different scale, but there are 3.7 million children born in the US alone every year.
That means it would take 193 million people -per year - switching to an entirely car-free lifestyle to negate that.
Or 400 million people per year switching to a plant-based diet.
Billionaires and the military doing bad stuff doesn't justify the ecological harm of enlarging the human population.
Right here, in living color for you:
The audience on Lemmy is self-evidently overwhelmingly from developed nations, where most of the ecological harm per-capita is done.
I don't understand the anti-antinatalist stuff. Having a kid is literally the worst thing you can do to the environment. Shouldn't we reckon with that?
Uber Eats on my Android is 280MB for some reason.
Strangely, my largest app is Samsung SmartThings at 822MB. Maybe they include every driver for every possible device or something.
That is our word and you have no right to use it
I'd love to know under what conditions this proposal is constitutional.
The supreme court is a right wing sclerotic fistula providing passage to creeping fascism, but reinterpreting Article 3 Section 1 is a tall order. By only saying that justices shall "hold their offices during good behavior" the Constitution is traditionally read to mean that only impeachment, retirement, or death will end a term.