Very timely piece on naive environmental anti-natalism. I myself flirted with this position briefly before being exposed to the positive effects of (economic and particularly population) growth, and modern pro-natal views by:
@tylercowen
@_TamaraWinter
@bryan_caplanhttps://twitter.com/webdevMason/status/1124867269794811904 …
The nature-as-aesthetic circlejerk is doing no good to anybody. Nuclear & lab meat are actual solutions that don't appease the would-be office hippie with a screensaver of the Amazon. All I'm suggesting is that such people give themselves a tiny, tiny taste of the real thing.
-
-
do you genuinely think that being worried about a 40% decline in phytoplankton--which produce half the oxygen we breathe--since 1950 is a "nature-as-aesthetic circlejerk"? One example among many. Nukes & lab meat are obviously necessary. Just as obviously, they're not sufficient.
-
I'm sorry, where was that on your chart? If you want to get into the real shit, let's get into the real shit. How many human beings need to die or be sterilized to prevent ecological collapse?
- 20 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.