Not wanting to be overtly political, but this was in today's news. If those beliefs lead to trends, fertility rates might not lead to one's desired outcome if others don't believe:

"According to the General Social Survey data, 41 percent of Democrats are without a steady partner, compared with only 29 percent of Republicans. Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to not have a steady partner: 51 percent vs. 32 percent, respectively."

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/It-s-not-just-you-N...

I saw one of Rick's show commentaries last week and he's very specifically on a crusade of "Travel defeats ignorance"

"In racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist: it’s hammered Native Americans and Hispanics particularly hard, and hit even African Americans harder than whites generally, and certainly harder than non-Hispanic whites." [1]

Are Republicans going to have more kids than Democrats? I have no idea, Paul Ryan has had three and says he's "doing his part" [2]. The trend downward in fertility rate across the board is still obvious.

[1] https://ifstudies.org/blog/number-2-in-2018-baby-bust-fertil... (Number 2 in 2018: Baby Bust—Fertility is Declining the Most Among Minority Women)

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/paul-ryan-wants-you-have-more-kids-... (Paul Ryan Wants You To Have More Kids)

Excuse me? Everything I've ever read shows that Hispanics are having more kids than any other demographic. They might decrease that after immigrating to the US and becoming more assimilated, but even so they still lead the pack, and non-Hispanic caucasians are projected to become a minority in 2-3 decades IIRC.

The data I posted is US specific. If you have data for outside the US, post it!

I'm only talking about the US. Hispanics are having way more kids here than any other group.

That is not the conclusion of objective data.

In addition to my last response, I think you're plainly lying.

From: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-mi...

"Results from the 2010 Census showed that racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 91.7% of the nation’s growth since 2000. Most of that increase from 2000 to 2010—56%—was due to Hispanics."

"The changing profile of the nation’s youngest residents also stems from the fact that some groups, especially Hispanics, have higher numbers of children than do non-Hispanic whites."

"Among Hispanics, the total fertility rate is 2.4. For non-Hispanic whites and for non-Hispanic Asians, it is 1.8."

From: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/09/baby-boom-bir...

"In 2014, blacks and Asians gave birth to almost 17 percent more children than the national average, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Hispanics gave birth to 32 percent more than the national average."

So, in summary, why are you posting obvious falsehoods? There's plenty of data showing that your assertions are plainly wrong. This was all from a very quick Google search, one of them being the government's own census site. There's tons more.

Citation needed, because that appears to contradict reality and every article I've ever read.

If you’re so sure, why stop at not having kids, why continue being a person?

There is a major difference between killing a sentient being (including oneself) and not creating more beings.

The changes required to live a more sustainable life aren't out of reach for most people, and don't require action so drastic.

You're already here, stay for a bit.

I absolutely agree with you, which is why I would never alter my life creation activities for environmental concerns. If humans wanted to fix our energy issues we could make a serious push (perhaps 5% GDP) towards nuclear technologies.

I'm not suggesting we remove agency (yours or otherwise), but there are people out there that will accept cash to not have children. Efforts like that should be pursued as long as its entirely voluntary, as not having a child is one of the most impactful actions someone can perform to reduce damage to the planet (we're pushing limits at 7.53 billion people already). Economics is a powerful incentive.

Regarding nuclear, I'm not going to beat a dead horse in this thread.

Long-term, I'd like to see anti-aging therapies really work out so that human lifespans are greatly extended, along with contraception and fertility technologies perfected so that people only have kids when they're really, really ready for them (probably after age 50).

As for nuclear, I'll beat the dead horse: we don't need it (at least fission). We need more renewable power, especially solar, since 1500W/m^3 hits the Earth's surface all day long. We just need to figure out how to make solar panels in a more environmentally-friendly manner (better recycling of their materials, etc.), and deploy them in more places, especially in places where they don't have negative effects, such as on rooftops, over highways, etc.

Then, we need to figure out how to have humans live in a more environmental manner, by increasing density. If most of the population lived at the density of Manhattan or Tokyo, we wouldn't have all these complaints about humans taking up too much land area.

The problems associated with overpopulation can be solved with technology and policy, if we really want to.