"Having more people isn't green." - Bill Maher

[Cannot think of a name]

Bill Maher isn't even a memorable asshole. He's just an asshole you kinda forget exists until someone reminds you of his existence.

Like 2 hours ago when I forgot he existed until I saw this thread. And then now 2 hours later when I forgot he existed again until I once again saw this thread. That's how boring and forgettable he is.

My Hulu app likes to play this game of "do you know where the remote is?" by giving me 15 seconds from the end of Last Week Tonight to stop it from autoplaying Real Time. That's generally speaking the most I ever think about him, mostly a 'the hell it is' when it says "Real Time is Next"

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

I hate it when people google "The cost of having kids" and paste some random figure as if its official. Data like this is always so damn particular yet it is clearly basd on speculations based on speculations basd on speculations..... who knows what was included. Did the kid live in a run down apartment or a posh mcmansion? Did the kid get homeschooled or sent to private school? Do they include medical treatment that may or may not be needed? College? Honestly I bet some people raise a kid on less than $40k while others spend millions.

[Saiwania]

Honestly I bet some people raise a kid on less than $40k while others spend millions.

This is indeed the case. Although there will be costs which are fixed and not much can be done about it to negate or reduce the price tag. What's going to cost is: Housing, Water, Food, Clothing. These are only the basics. Then you have education, medical/dental, your utilities, perhaps some entertainment costs.

The point is that its usually not impossible, but it'd certainly reduce a working adult's own lifestyle/standard of living by default. They'd now have more pressures/obligations.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

"They always wanted to, like, send more checks to people who have kids. Well, part of this bill is, anybody making $400000 gets $2000 a kid. So baby bonuses . . . isn't having kids just a choice? Aren't we picking winners and losers there . . . it's supposed to be a bill that's a green bill. Kids aren't green. Having more people isn't green."

I don't quite understand why so many laws passed by the US congress include such generous income qualifiers in bills/programs. Someone making $400,000 a year in most places is solidly rich, they shouldn't need any government subsidy or help compared to the more typical situation of someone who makes say- $40,000 a year or less. How many people do people know who really make six figures regularly who's not considered beyond the middle class in lifestyle?

If someone lived off of only a fraction of a lucrative $400,000 job or total household income for just 10 years or less in purposely living below their means, they really could retire early indefinitely if $3.6 million isn't spent too fast. It could fund a $50,000 a year lifestyle for 60+ years which is perfectly stable/good in most locales.

$400000 wouldn't get you that far in Toronto. I don't know how many American cities are comparably expensive to Toronto, but I'd rather err on the side of a law that makes a Winnipegger rich than one that leaves a Torontonian poor.

Bill Maher is an idiot. One second he's for M4A and the next he's saying it's the roadway to communism. Keeping people from having children isn't going to make a huge dent in climate change. It's another way of trying to blame individuals for climate change rather than corporations and 1st world nations who are mostly responsible for this

The USA is a first world nation. Well, at least technically, anyway.

And corporations are only catering to consumer demand amongst the public so that argument is meaningless.

[Ifreann]

Be great if Bill Maher would just praise terrorists and get taken off the air again.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Be great if Bill Maher would just praise terrorists and get taken off the air again.

Was what he said about that wrong, though? Being in the plane when it hits the building isn't cowardly. Whatever happened to "give the devil his due"? Whatever happened to honesty?

[Lord Dominator]

This is basically another edition of him being technically correct but wildly missing the point.

[-SARS-]

I don't know for a fact that Bill Maher's just opposing this to get into low-income women's pants, I just know it's true.

Women can do better.

[Saiwania]

$400000 wouldn't get you that far in Toronto. I don't know how many American cities are comparably expensive to Toronto, but I'd rather err on the side of a law that makes a Winnipegger rich than one that leaves a Torontonian poor.

The solution would be to move out of Toronto to a more affordable city. Toronto is just as if not more expensive than NYC is because its a super big international location that too many people want to live in or move to because they think it is where all the economic opportunity and nice standard of living is.

It normally isn't anywhere close to $100,000+ a year to live well. It is all down to expensive housing and constraints inherent to any large city like paying a ton of taxes.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Honestly I bet some people raise a kid on less than $40k while others spend millions.

This is indeed the case. Although there will be costs which are fixed and not much can be done about it to negate or reduce the price tag. What's going to cost is: Housing, Water, Food, Clothing. These are only the basics. Then you have education, medical/dental, your utilities, perhaps some entertainment costs.

The point is that its usually not impossible, but it'd certainly reduce a working adult's own lifestyle/standard of living by default. They'd now have more pressures/obligations.

None of those are fixed. For someone to have extrapolated data to represent tens of millions of people I sincerely doubt they had a remotely adequite sample. Let alone gathered a database on the variation in the cost of food over an 18 year period across 10 million sq kilometers.

[Picairn]

"They always wanted to, like, send more checks to people who have kids. Well, part of this bill is, anybody making $400000 gets $2000 a kid. So baby bonuses . . . isn't having kids just a choice? Aren't we picking winners and losers there . . . it's supposed to be a bill that's a green bill. Kids aren't green. Having more people isn't green." - Bill Maher, from this past Friday's Real Time episode.

Ew, more Malthusian bullshit. Who seriously listens to Bill Maher anymore?

[Saiwania]

None of those are fixed. For someone to have extrapolated data to represent tens of millions of people I sincerely doubt they had a remotely adequite sample. Let alone gathered a database on the variation in the cost of food over an 18 year period across 10 million sq kilometers.

Its fixed in that for most people, they have to spend money on those things which really adds up, regardless of how cheap or expensive what they get winds up being.

You need to buy food if you're not a farmer/hunter and people need to eat. You need potable water to not die of thirst and to maintain hygiene and you need clothing of some sort every few years at minimum and a place to live (whether it means a mortgage or renting) to not be homeless and endure worse conditions. Additional stuff to pay for only gets larger and not smaller if you want to enjoy life some, such as if you're getting internet or AC/heating or going out to a bar/restaurant and all the other crap people might spend money on.

[Costa Fierro]

He's not wrong.

Earth is beyond it's carrying capacity and each child born in the developed world is far more damaging for the environment than flying, eating meat, driving a gas-guzzling SUV, and almost everything else you can think of that individuals can do put together. On average, each child produces 56 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions every year.

Not having kids is the most environmentally friendly thing anyone can do.

[Kumarinadu]

Be great if Bill Maher would just praise terrorists and get taken off the air again.

Woah wait when did he do that lol

[Lord Dominator]

Also, isn’t a tax credit mainly, not just straight cash?

As in, people with kids pay 2k less in taxes per kid, as a way of making the costs more bearable?

[Cannot think of a name]

Be great if Bill Maher would just praise terrorists and get taken off the air again.

Woah wait when did he do that lol

His first show, Politically Incorrect (so you already know what kind of douchebag he is...anyone who feels the need to announce they're politically incorrect you know is just gonna be a douchebag in lieu of a personality). After 9/11 as the nightly shows came back a guest on the show called the attack cowardly and Maher disagreed, stating objectively the act of flying yourself into a building and certain death for your beliefs was not cowardly, that from their perspective at least, they were being courageous and brave.

Which is not wrong. It just wasn't the thing to say while the hole still had smoke coming out of it. Despite the fact that he was just as coked up on revenge fantasies as a lot of the rest of the nation, all that was heard was that he called the terrorists brave and the crowd that now bitches and moans about 'cancel culture' had the show cancelled.

He martyred himself from that and eventually landed on HBO where he doesn't have advertisers to offend so he can be as big a douchebag as he wants.

[Cereskia 2]

What Bill Maher says is still considered worthy of discussion?

Huh. Fancy that.

Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect?

[New haven america]

I didn't know Bill used Reddit.

He's not wrong.

Earth is beyond it's carrying capacity and each child born in the developed world is far more damaging for the environment than flying, eating meat, driving a gas-guzzling SUV, and almost everything else you can think of that individuals can do put together. On average, each child produces 56 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions every year.

Not having kids is the most environmentally friendly thing anyone can do.

No actually, the human carrying capacity is 9 billion.

The main issue is poor and wasteful/unsustainable resource management. Earth is overpopulated, but simply having a bunch of people around isn't the main negative at the moment.

[Kumarinadu]

Woah wait when did he do that lol

His first show, Politically Incorrect (so you already know what kind of douchebag he is...anyone who feels the need to announce they're politically incorrect you know is just gonna be a douchebag in lieu of a personality). After 9/11 as the nightly shows came back a guest on the show called the attack cowardly and Maher disagreed, stating objectively the act of flying yourself into a building and certain death for your beliefs was not cowardly, that from their perspective at least, they were being courageous and brave.

Which is not wrong. It just wasn't the thing to say while the hole still had smoke coming out of it. Despite the fact that he was just as coked up on revenge fantasies as a lot of the rest of the nation, all that was heard was that he called the terrorists brave and the crowd that now bitches and moans about 'cancel culture' had the show cancelled.

He martyred himself from that and eventually landed on HBO where he doesn't have advertisers to offend so he can be as big a douchebag as he wants.

Oh wow. I was too young to remember that I guess.

[Esternial]

I didn't know Bill used Reddit.

He's not wrong.

Earth is beyond it's carrying capacity and each child born in the developed world is far more damaging for the environment than flying, eating meat, driving a gas-guzzling SUV, and almost everything else you can think of that individuals can do put together. On average, each child produces 56 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions every year.

Not having kids is the most environmentally friendly thing anyone can do.

No actually, the human carrying capacity is 9 billion.

The main issue is poor and wasteful/unsustainable resource management. Earth is overpopulated, but simply having a bunch of people around isn't the main negative at the moment.

Theoretical carrying capacity doesn't mean much if so many people are dying from humanity's poor resource management.

I agree it isn't the main negative, but we should really be doing all we can. Humanity can focus on more things at a time...theoretically.

Honestly though, I've seen a lot of opinions in my country along the line of "why should we have to make an effort if X doesn't?" in response to being more green, which is truly disheartening.

[Ifreann]

Be great if Bill Maher would just praise terrorists and get taken off the air again.

Was what he said about that wrong, though? Being in the plane when it hits the building isn't cowardly. Whatever happened to "give the devil his due"? Whatever happened to honesty?

Who cares if he was right, as long as he wasn't on air saying dumb shit like this.

[Dakini]

Sounds like ecofascism.

Anyway, it's not the number of people on the planet that are the problem. The richest 1% cause double the carbon dioxide emissions of the poorest 50% so it's really more of a "rich people are wasteful fucks" problem than anything else.

[Socialist Republic of Mexico]

I don't quite understand why so many laws passed by the US congress include such generous income qualifiers in bills/programs. Someone making $400,000 a year in most places is solidly rich, they shouldn't need any government subsidy or help compared to the more typical situation of someone who makes say- $40,000 a year or less. How many people do people know who really make six figures regularly who's not considered beyond the middle class in lifestyle?

If someone lived off of only a fraction of a lucrative $400,000 job or total household income for just 10 years or less in purposely living below their means, they really could retire early indefinitely if $3.6 million isn't spent too fast. It could fund a $50,000 a year lifestyle for 60+ years which is perfectly stable/good in most locales.

$400000 wouldn't get you that far in Toronto. I don't know how many American cities are comparably expensive to Toronto, but I'd rather err on the side of a law that makes a Winnipegger rich than one that leaves a Torontonian poor.

Bill Maher is an idiot. One second he's for M4A and the next he's saying it's the roadway to communism. Keeping people from having children isn't going to make a huge dent in climate change. It's another way of trying to blame individuals for climate change rather than corporations and 1st world nations who are mostly responsible for this

The USA is a first world nation. Well, at least technically, anyway.

And corporations are only catering to consumer demand amongst the public so that argument is meaningless.

Cruise ships emit more co2 than all the cars in Europe. Some things we don't need in this world. The richest people in the world cause more than double the co2 emissions than the poorest 50%. It's not an individual problem it's a rich people problem.

[Dakini]

The USA is a first world nation. Well, at least technically, anyway.

Technically, the first/second/third world terminology is super outdated and stopped being relevant after the Cold War ended (first world nations were NATO-aligned, second world nations were Warsaw pack-aligned and third world nations were unaligned). Although these terms are often used as a shorthand for levels of economic development, these terms had nothing at all to do with levels of development and everything to do with which alliance you were in during the Cold War (so for example, Ireland, Sweden and Finland were third world nations, but Mozambique was a first world nation).

The modern terminology (and by "modern" here I again mean "what has been used for the last 30 years so there's no excuse for anyone to be using anything else) used for economic development levels are developed, developing and least developed.

So no. The USA is not technically a first world nation as that term has been deprecated since 1991. It was a first world nation during the Cold War and it is currently considered a developed country.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

The USA is a first world nation. Well, at least technically, anyway.

Technically, the first/second/third world terminology is super outdated and stopped being relevant after the Cold War ended (first world nations were NATO-aligned, second world nations were Warsaw pack-aligned and third world nations were unaligned). Although these terms are often used as a shorthand for levels of economic development, these terms had nothing at all to do with levels of development and everything to do with which alliance you were in during the Cold War (so for example, Ireland, Sweden and Finland were third world nations, but Mozambique was a first world nation).

The modern terminology (and by "modern" here I again mean "what has been used for the last 30 years so there's no excuse for anyone to be using anything else) used for economic development levels are developed, developing and least developed.

So no. The USA is not technically a first world nation as that term has been deprecated since 1991. It was a first world nation during the Cold War and it is currently considered a developed country.

You're right, I forgot about that aspect of the terminology. It's just that I'm so used to hearing "first world" used as a shorthand for "developed."

However, the post to which I was replying made the exact same mistake, yet I don't see you calling its author out on that. Could it be out of bias against my perspective, perhaps?

Your source on the 1% vs 50% statistic doesn't specify how much of that pollution is stuff like "private jets" (eg. not a business expense, just a personal luxury) and how much of it is stuff like farming for meat because a lot of customers still eat meat. (Eg. The customers are at fault, for if one businessperson didn't cater to consumer demand, another would.) The developed world has a disproportionate share of the blame for greenhouse gases, yes, but the USA; the country to which Bill Maher was referring; is part of the developed world, so my point still applies. Fewer Americans born would've meant fewer of them growing up to eat way too much beef, and in turn, lower concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Among other reduced environmental harms.)

And why, if this perspective is supposedly so rational, is it competing with "hurr hurr KYS antinatalists" in popularity among pronatalists? Surely they'd feel no need to invoke the "KYS antinatalists" platitude if they had something better to invoke.