Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Structure of paper, problems - Coggle Diagram

- - - - there are (at least) two methods of altering the former: improved efficiency and personal reduction
        
        personal reduction is somewhat unlikely to happen quickly or on a large enough scale, especially in developing countries
        
        population is growing, which means greater reductions/technological advancements are needed to offset this growth
        
        technological advance is non-linear and unpredictable. It is not clear that it is progressing fast enough to solve our problems
        
        Amartya Sens point about the speeding up of population growth
        
        technological advancement is hindered by non-technological issues (e.g. political lobbying)
        
        it may reveal interesting things about procreative rights
        
        AGCC is long term problem. It needs a long term solution. If population continues to grow, then continual advancements in technology will need to be made. It is not clear that this will happen.
        
        Population reduction has the advantage of not specifically harming anyone who already exists
        
        this could be rejected: not having a child is harming yourself: examine this under project 1
  - - - no coercion, minimal scale
        
        Can't coerce myself.
      - this will save/preserve a large amount of CO2 (I think around 60 tonnes/year/child, depending on where you are - get figures)
        
        this is a lot = equivalent to: convincing x many people to go vegan, planting x many trees, convincing x many people to not drive etc.
        
        therefore, it is a worthwhile project in its own right (e.g. compared to going vegan)
        
        HOWEVER: there are ways to have more impact. Go to Project 2
        
        it is also a guaranteed reduction (providing it is followed with clear and measurable impacts)
        
        very achievable
      - note: I am using Pinkert's analysis of carbon impact, rather than carbon footprint, to avoid double-counting
    - - the next best step to take is to improve the choices of people who have lots of children already. this involves improving access to education and contraceptives and quality of life in general
        
        this is not so much of a problem where I live. I can see little way for me personally to make an impact in this area
        
        therefore go to Project 3
        
        there are of course other reasons why these things should be enacted anyways.
        
        these options are good because it has wide scale efficacy AND can be seen to be an actual reduction in coercion
    - - especially important in developed countries where population is still growing/staying steady
      - involves changing what people think without any force/implications to back it up
      - so, a series of posters to raise awareness of the problems of AGCC, and population with it. With the intention of convincing people to have fewer children, preferably less than 2.
      - this would also be applied in developing countries
      - (HRE) we already live in a pronatalist society, so nudges against natalism might be seen as a balancing of the scales rather than unfairpersuasion
  - - - Benatar's paper will be useful here: the limits to reproduction in which he argues that there are certain cases in which procreation will lead to harm, at which the right to reproduce falls down
        
        It seems like someone has a right to exist, to emit minimally, and perhaps even to emit luxuriously. However, it is sometimes thought that rights, or entitlements end where they begin to hurt someone else (the right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose). If we expect that a child raised in a society will consume in a way that will cause harm to someone else, does their right to come into existence, or does my right to procreate end?
        
        from here, go to Project 1.
        
        an important point from this is that if a non-procreateive harm is unnacceptable (as we seem to think driving cars are) then procreative harms are similarly unnacceptable
        
        the riskier procreation is, the less tolerant we need to be. reckless driving is still punishable. So how serious is someone's contribution to climate change?