# Will having children solve climate change? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2019, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598 "2019-03-27T10:33:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/141 "2019-04-03T14:28:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yeah, it’s not difficult. I want lower taxes and a generally-less-meddlesome federal government. So does Senator Lee. That’s no reason to pretend he’s not an idiot. Just admit that he’s an idiot but you support him because you think he’ll give you your way. ---
**Author:** ![wguy123](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wguy123/32/3161_2.png) [@wguy123](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wguy123)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/142 "2019-04-03T14:29:12Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sure. I’m wondering how far your “I want lower taxes” goes. Say Senator Lee came to you and said “HurricanDitka, you won’t have to pay ANY taxes next year, but we are completely disabling the SNAP program” > > Would you be cool with that? I believe that is two big wins for HD. And according to the Lee playbook, just have more babies and one of them will eventually solve the poverty issue along with climate change. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/143 "2019-04-03T14:31:36Z")
Nm ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/144 "2019-04-03T14:32:36Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sure. I’m wondering how far your “I want lower taxes” goes. Say Senator Lee came to you and said “HurricanDitka, you won’t have to pay ANY taxes next year, but we are completely disabling the SNAP program” > > Would you be cool with that? Yes ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/145 "2019-04-03T14:37:20Z")
Is this because you think doing so would produce superior results, because you think anyone on assistance should have that assistance withdrawn in the name of punishment, or because lower taxes? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/146 "2019-04-03T14:45:42Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Is this because you think doing so would produce superior results, because you think anyone on assistance should have that assistance withdrawn in the name of punishment, or because lower taxes? Mostly because of the “zero taxes” thing. I also don’t think the federal government’s responsibilities include welfare programs, and generally think the welfare programs, as they exist today, do a good job of incentivising the wrong things, so a bit of “superior results” too I guess. “Punishment” is not a factor or consideration. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/147 "2019-04-03T14:52:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes So let’s just game out the possibilities here. Do you not know that dismantling SNAP will cause a significant portion of the 42 million people who rely on it to go hungry, [along with aggravating numerous other problems the program helps effectively fight](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/23/15675892/food-stamps-snap-evidence-health-poverty-hunger)? Or do you not care, because lowering your taxes outweighs all of those benefits to recipients and society as a whole? If the former: wow - I don’t understand your insistence on commenting on politics on a political forum if you’re so fundamentally ignorant of politics. It’s not shameful to not know things, but you just flat-out said “yes”, without any talk of “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know much about SNAP”, so I’m kind of at a loss. It would be a bit like me barging into a discussion on Touhou to vigorously dispute that Cirno is best girl\*, and when pressed, responding with, “I actually don’t know what Touhou is. It’s some anime thing, right?” If the latter: _wow_. Follow-up question - if you could legally sell your neighbors into slavery for a quick buck, would you? \*I don’t know if Cirno is best girl. But I’m also not going to pretend I know all that much about Touhou other than that it very quickly gets a bit too hard for me. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/148 "2019-04-03T15:04:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes Well, thanks for answering honestly. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/149 "2019-04-03T15:11:40Z")
[“We can’t feed all these people, that would only create dependency.”](https://me.me/i/we-cant-feed-all-these-people-that-would-only-create-19122188) ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/150 "2019-04-03T16:17:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think there have been a good number of imagined crises throughout our history that have been resolved through improving technology. For example, in 1968 Paul Ehrlich published _The Population Bomb_ which started with this terrifying prediction: > > If you can’t see echoes of that in the current global warming frenzy, and thus some merits to Senator Lee’s argument, I don’t know what else to tell you. > For the GND? Very. There are some problems that arise and in the end can be solved by technology. But relying on that is foolish. For decades we’ve been trying to develop controlled fusion power, and to cure cancer. As it happens these problems turned out to be more difficult than originally thought. Not every problem necessarily has a technological solution. In order for a solution to be discovered that solution has to exist in the first place, and there is no guarantee that it does. As Scotty used to say “Ye cannae change the laws of physics”. Using specific examples to say, here is a place where technology saved us, therefor we will be saved in this case (or alternatively here are examples where science was wrong and so it is wrong in this case), is like pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger under the assumption that since there are scads of examples of guns misfiring, you should be safe. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/151 "2019-04-03T18:35:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Mostly because of the “zero taxes” thing. I also don’t think the federal government’s responsibilities include welfare programs, and generally think the welfare programs, as they exist today, do a good job of incentivising the wrong things, so a bit of “superior results” too I guess. “Punishment” is not a factor or consideration. Ah, but the federal government’s responsibilities Do include welfare programs, and always have. Ladies and gentlemen, the preamble to the US Constitution: > [@](#): > > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. See? Promote the general welfare. It is one of the foundational purposes for which the US government was established. While we’re here, let me point out that “preventing socialism” and “promoting capitalism” are not included. Hard to imagine what would be more disruptive to domestic tranquility than an ongoing climate disaster. So, yup, it is the federal government’s responsibility, all straw men and conspiracy theories about “liberals” and “I have a blind, baseless faith that the government can never do anything right” notwithstanding. But conservatives don’t really care about the Constitution, do they? They talk about it when convenient, but really intend to eschew the foundational principles of the government in favor of cutting taxes for the wealthy. I can see why religious people are attracted to the GOP (note: not really.) ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/152 "2019-04-03T18:52:59Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Ah, but the federal government’s responsibilities Do include welfare programs, and always have. Ladies and gentlemen, the preamble to the US Constitution: > > See? Promote the general welfare. It is one of the foundational purposes for which the US government was established. … It feels tedious explaining this yet again, but I don’t subscribe to the view that “promote the general welfare” in the preamble means that the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants, so long as it labels it with “this will promote the general welfare”. You probably don’t either, if you think about it a bit. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/153 "2019-04-03T19:02:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Mostly because of the “zero taxes” thing. I also don’t think the federal government’s responsibilities include welfare programs, and generally think the welfare programs, as they exist today, do a good job of incentivising the wrong things, so a bit of “superior results” too I guess. “Punishment” is not a factor or consideration. So let’s take it as given that it’s okay to brutally slaughter the poor and use them as fertilizer if that results in lower taxes, or whatever. The details of which particular parts of this nimrod’s platform that you like are ultimately unimportant. If a politician has a platform that you like, does that make him incapable of saying stupid things? Does that make him incapable of being wrong? Does that make ignoring problems until they magically go away on their own a good general-purpose solution to problems? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/154 "2019-04-03T19:03:11Z")
Ah, but feeding people? Preventing a preventable disaster? Seems pretty “common defense” to me too, now that I think about it. Not sure what part of my post you derived “unlimited power” from. Sure looks like a strawman. Are you going to bring up Sharknado next? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/155 "2019-04-03T19:12:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > … If a politician has a platform that you like, does that make him incapable of saying stupid things? Does that make him incapable of being wrong? … Of course not. > [@begbert2](#): > > … Does that make ignoring problems until they magically go away on their own a good general-purpose solution to problems? I don’t believe Senator Lee was advocating a “general-purpose solution to problems” in this speech. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/156 "2019-04-03T20:19:01Z")
Keeping in mind that climate change is a problem that is manifestly going to get worse over time if left unchecked, AND that Lee explicitly said “Climate change is no joke” and thus his ‘arguments’ can’t be written off as sarcastically mocking the idea that the problem exists: > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Of course not. Is proposing “In response to this progressively worsening situation that I admit exists and is a serious and pressing problem, we should just fuck around (literally) for thirty years doing nothing and hoping that at the end of that time some kid becomes like the scientists we ignore,” a smart statement, or a stupid statement? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t believe Senator Lee was advocating a “general-purpose solution to problems” in this speech. Do you believe that he was advocating ANY kind of solution? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/157 "2019-04-03T20:33:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It feels tedious explaining this yet again, but I don’t subscribe to the view that “promote the general welfare” in the preamble means that the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants, so long as it labels it with “this will promote the general welfare”. You probably don’t either, if you think about it a bit. Of course, regarding the subject of the thread, it is clear that people like your senator think that the welfare of the nation is not important. Virtually nothing then should be done with this issue to prevent ocean rise, prevent ocean acidification, increase in droughts, increase of seasonal floods, in some regions an increase in the intensity of snow storms, also seasonal. And that is very likely to cause more migration and other issues. > **[Hey, Mike Lee: Climate change is going to fry your state](https://theweek.com/articles/809317/hey-mike-lee-climate-change-going-fry-state)** > > Turns out climate disasters are not cheap > [@](#): > > Hey, Mike Lee: Climate change is going to fry your state > > … > > Of course, the Colorado River is not just a place for recreation, it’s also a key water source for tens of millions of people across the entire Southwest, including Utah — which is already the second-driest state in the country. And that’s the sort of possibility where the damage of climate change could go from severe to apocalyptic. Wiping out most or all of Utah’s recreation economy would be a huge blow to the state, but it would be possible to recover. But a collapse in water supply — exacerbated by chronic extreme heat and other climate disasters — might push it beyond its ability to adapt. Instead of growing, it might hemorrhage citizens and become a sort of internal American Sahara Desert, largely bereft of people. > It may not be likely, but it’s certainly possible — and even scenarios well short of a Max Max dystopia would be worth a Herculean effort to avoid. Instead, Utah has Mike Lee, twiddling his thumbs. It’s a vile betrayal of his fellow citizens. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/158 "2019-04-03T20:54:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course, regarding the subject of the thread, it is clear that people like your senator think that the welfare of the nation is not important. … I know Senator Lee well enough to say that I am confident this is false. He thinks “the welfare of the nation” is very important. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > … Virtually nothing then should be done with this issue to prevent ocean rise, prevent ocean acidification, increase in droughts, increase of seasonal floods, in some regions an increase in the intensity of snow storms, also seasonal. And that is very likely to cause more migration and other issues. … There’s probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and “virtually nothing”. ---
**Author:** ![wguy123](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wguy123/32/3161_2.png) [@wguy123](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wguy123)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/159 "2019-04-03T20:59:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There’s probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and “virtually nothing”. Where does having babies fall on that scale? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/160 "2019-04-03T21:39:49Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I know Senator Lee well enough to say that I am confident this is false. He thinks “the welfare of the nation” is very important. Regarding this very important issue the evidence is clear: \*\*he does not care. \*\* > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There’s probably an excluded middle somewhere in there between the Green New Deal and “virtually nothing”. He actually gave nothing for that middle, and no, having more babies is not helpful. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598.md?page=9)