• Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    No, the ‘number one’ way to help the planet is to not have children, undeniable fact. Diet is number two

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That’s your DNA’s raging narcissism speaking. Not to impugn yours specifically, of course. The interests of an intelligent mind are not the same as the interests of the biological system that hosts it. Consider what’s actually important to you as more than a pile of meat. Reproduction is so selfish when there are so many humans with unmet needs already reaching out for your help.

    • r1veRRR@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’ve not had 20 kids, so now I get to eat a bunch of animals, and fly a bunch of private jets, and roll coal all day long!

      Also, your decision to eat meat in a western country DOES actually cause as much damage as some entire families existence in the poorer countries like Nigeria.

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I think the assumption is that he’s talking about people changing their diets. Can’t / probably shouldn’t advocate for parents getting rid of their children.

      That said, there are probably more direct actions one can take for our ecology that eclipse consumer choices.

    • Senal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s a lot of absolutism for someone not specifying a defining context.

      No definition of “help”, “the planet” or “diet” means it’s wide open to contra-examples.