Rachel, in response to this quote of yours: "Given our carbon emissions are increasing every year, threatening to trigger cascading feedback loops which could render parts of the earth uninhabitable, should we consider those who are alive as having the right to weigh one’s the decision to procreate?"
What is more likely to render parts of the earth uninhabitable is the environmental destruction zones that will be caused a transition from a fossil fuel based global economy to a mineral based global economy, because the latter will require new mining to take place in very many places where mining wasn’t previously done.
A new industrial economy directed by policies in the Global North would require enormous amounts of mineral resources that are primarily (but not only) found in the Global South. Consequently, the anticipated impacts on the environment are expected to be VERY severe, explaining why language that refers to environmental destruction zones is used (in fact, stronger terminology is used). This needs to be addressed, because it is ironically environmentalists that are unwittingly [?] promoting a process that will result in much more environmental destruction than before.
Yes. Also, as always, the devil is in the details.
Much depends on what we mean when we say "ours". If it means we each choose for ourselves as freely self-determining choosers, each choosing according to our own individual and personal morality, that is a Neoliberal fantasy that has no reality in lived experience.
Lived experience tells us that most of the choices that shape the world we shape for ourselves, as humans, are made socially, through institutions of agency/purpose, authority/power and accountability for authenticity and integrity in the institutional exercise of authority and power true to institutional agency and purpose.
The responsibility is ours, as individuals acting together, in society, to hold our institutional accountable. But the authority given to our institutions to choose for us, as our agents. And different institutions are held accountable in different ways.
So what is needed is a new sociology of these social institutions for social decision making, for a new accountability. To us.
I agree, both overpopulation and overconsumption need to be addressed. I agree media could and would need to be used. However, I think the message needs to come from the top down, communication of a visionary plan and the benefits that could confer, the biggest one maintaining an inhabitable planet. It needs to be communicated we are at the end of endless growth. We must learn to value time over money. Of course, the problem is rooted in the very nature of capitalism, and restructuring our economy to a sustainable model is no simple task. The banks and billionaires who run the planet won't willingly give up this system they benefit from. Although, the Green New Deal has some good features, it falls short of the action we need to take as the weather grows more destructive from the #ClimateEmergency. We are already entering the phase of merely bouncing from disaster to disaster, which itself is unsustainable. There has been a plan for decades now that gets no discussion in political circles, conceived by science, that would bring consumption under control and equity to poor nations. It's called #DeGrowth as I'm sure you know, Rachel. Here are the basics of it for interested readers. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/degrowth-the-vision-we-must-demand
Another thought provoking article. I feel some of the contradictions of inspiration vs coercion when it comes to Policies directing National Outcomes. Ps you have a typo in the first paragraph . Thanks for this article
Rachel, in response to this quote of yours: "Given our carbon emissions are increasing every year, threatening to trigger cascading feedback loops which could render parts of the earth uninhabitable, should we consider those who are alive as having the right to weigh one’s the decision to procreate?"
What is more likely to render parts of the earth uninhabitable is the environmental destruction zones that will be caused a transition from a fossil fuel based global economy to a mineral based global economy, because the latter will require new mining to take place in very many places where mining wasn’t previously done.
A new industrial economy directed by policies in the Global North would require enormous amounts of mineral resources that are primarily (but not only) found in the Global South. Consequently, the anticipated impacts on the environment are expected to be VERY severe, explaining why language that refers to environmental destruction zones is used (in fact, stronger terminology is used). This needs to be addressed, because it is ironically environmentalists that are unwittingly [?] promoting a process that will result in much more environmental destruction than before.
https://energyshifts.net/the-bottleneck-ahead/
"The choice is ours."
Yes. Also, as always, the devil is in the details.
Much depends on what we mean when we say "ours". If it means we each choose for ourselves as freely self-determining choosers, each choosing according to our own individual and personal morality, that is a Neoliberal fantasy that has no reality in lived experience.
Lived experience tells us that most of the choices that shape the world we shape for ourselves, as humans, are made socially, through institutions of agency/purpose, authority/power and accountability for authenticity and integrity in the institutional exercise of authority and power true to institutional agency and purpose.
The responsibility is ours, as individuals acting together, in society, to hold our institutional accountable. But the authority given to our institutions to choose for us, as our agents. And different institutions are held accountable in different ways.
So what is needed is a new sociology of these social institutions for social decision making, for a new accountability. To us.
I agree, both overpopulation and overconsumption need to be addressed. I agree media could and would need to be used. However, I think the message needs to come from the top down, communication of a visionary plan and the benefits that could confer, the biggest one maintaining an inhabitable planet. It needs to be communicated we are at the end of endless growth. We must learn to value time over money. Of course, the problem is rooted in the very nature of capitalism, and restructuring our economy to a sustainable model is no simple task. The banks and billionaires who run the planet won't willingly give up this system they benefit from. Although, the Green New Deal has some good features, it falls short of the action we need to take as the weather grows more destructive from the #ClimateEmergency. We are already entering the phase of merely bouncing from disaster to disaster, which itself is unsustainable. There has been a plan for decades now that gets no discussion in political circles, conceived by science, that would bring consumption under control and equity to poor nations. It's called #DeGrowth as I'm sure you know, Rachel. Here are the basics of it for interested readers. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/degrowth-the-vision-we-must-demand
Another thought provoking article. I feel some of the contradictions of inspiration vs coercion when it comes to Policies directing National Outcomes. Ps you have a typo in the first paragraph . Thanks for this article