Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Same here. We have no kids and 2 dogs. We can eat bacon every day and not even come close to the load child families create not to mention long term!
They've studied this. IIRC 3 medium sized dogs equals one kid, adjusted to be per year. So you're almost there!
But my dogs may live 10-12 years and won't have puppies. The line (and pollution) stops there. Whereas kids will make even more kids and keep increasing the total consumption
Yes that was adjusted to be per year because dogs don't live as long. After that depends on the existence of either a dog or child, which depends on the demand for dogs for that part of the equation, and is still 3 to 1 at present time.
Do you have a link to that research? I can't see how this can be true in the larger picture. I will stop having dogs when I die but children will crow up, and have children of their own who also will do the same.
Me having pets instead of children puts a stop to that chain of placing consumers into the world and stopping such a strain, must be worth much more
Sigh. The study was not about children having children which is a different matter entirely. That's a different choice, by different people, and no they won't necessarily have children just like (shock) you were a child once and decided not to have children. It's about ownership of pets, adjusted to per year because yes pets don't live as long. Jfc. This seems like you don't like the result so you're trying to get out of it. Chow.
They're also asking for a source, which you're failing to provide.
No - I'm simply stating that not having children is better for the environment than having pets especially in the long run (as I mentioned in my original comment). What I am arguing is that not having children sets a definite stop to a growing and (potentially) continually branching line of consumers and poluters. I am not looking at the comparison simply here and now, but as a whole and as a long term effect
I think we are comparing two slightly different things and thisbis why I wanted to compare what you are refering to, with what I was trying to explain