Cracks in the ceiling caused by running children?

That is a rather silly conclusion, as the cause is more to be found in lifestyle than in the absolute number of individuals. But go ahead and continue your misanthropic course. Have fun.

So please no swear words.
So you think humans can still be saved? Or do you mean they can be educated? Or maybe progress will help us move forward? So what then? What is stopping them from destroying the Earth?
I see no solution other than drastic reduction.

The drastic reduction is still caused by humanity. The Earth itself will recover. We are just a blink of an eye. It is a pity that we will eventually wipe ourselves out, but due to the way of thinking (including mine) it cannot be changed. Therefore, I am not making any major worries and will continue to have children. Because I would not want to miss them.

Because if we stop exploiting Africa and polluting the air, they down there will start doing it then. [...] I am in favor of the one-child policy worldwide. For about 20 years to begin with.

The Chinese implemented your harebrained idea more than 20 years ago, just take a look at how happy they are with the result :-(

Your assumptions and conclusions are pure Eva Herman logic. (Only) if we act differently - and that is implemented faster and more radically by our offspring than by the older generations - then we give the emerging developing countries other role models. The only children in China are just reaching the age where they become the new buying potential for Dieselgate VWs. And otherwise, only children are typically not exactly "leading" in social matters. There may be fewer children - but children who have learned to share less (with others and with nature).

That must be something local. Translate it into Saxon or High German.

Heu-wä-gel-chen (little hay wagon) is a metaphorical term meaning that hot-headedness needs time to dissipate. And it gets that time when you breathe deeply as long as it takes to slowly pronounce a multi-syllabic word. The wagon used to transport the hay was often pulled by slow old animals.

Hay is bulky but light, little hay wagons rattle along leisurely. Does Saxon livestock not eat hay, or are you an urban child?

The Chinese implemented your crazy idea more than 20 years ago, just look at how happy they are with the result :-(

Your assumptions and conclusions are Eva-Herman-logic at its finest. Only if we behave differently - and that is adopted by our offspring faster and more radically than by the older generations - will we also give rising developing countries other role models. The single-child Chinese are just reaching the age where they are the new buyer potential for Dieselgate VWs. And otherwise, single children are - at least typically - not exactly "leading" in social matters. There may be fewer children - but children who have learned to share less well (with others and with nature).

Heu-wä-gel-chen is a metaphorical term meaning that hot-headedness needs time to dissipate. And it gets that when you take a deep breath as long as a multi-syllabic word is slowly pronounced. The cart that was used to transport the hay was often pulled by slow older animals in the past.

Hay is voluminous but light, Heuwägelchen jerk along leisurely. Does Saxon livestock not eat hay, or are you a city kid?

So I don’t know Eva now. Is she important?
Well, I don’t know how it is with happiness and the Chinese. Measuring happiness is difficult enough. What specific preferences the Chinese have, I can’t say. But apparently, they were so unhappy that they introduced the one-child marriage. Making the result dependent on whether only children can share worse... seriously?

I don’t believe people learn to behave differently before the planet is ruined. Looking at the results of these climate conferences. A joke.

Yeah, funny. I’m a city kid. We never had Heuwägelchen.

So I don't really know Eva. Is she important?

She was a Tagesschau chick who, if she had kept quiet, could have remained a philosopher. But she preferred to put her worldview on paper.

What specific preferences the Chinese have, I can't say. But they were apparently so unhappy that they introduced the one-child policy. To make the result dependent on whether only children can share worse... really?

The Chinese had the brilliant idea long before you, so that it can now be considered evaluated. With disappointing results. That's all. Besides, I pointed out to you that from a one-child policy it logically follows that all children are only children. Who then only get to practice in kindergarten how to deal with not being alone in the world. That makes exactly what you want to save even worse.
Eva-Herman-logic, basically.

That was a Tagesschau bimbo who, if she had kept silent, could have remained a philosopher. But she preferred to put her worldview on paper.


The Chinese had the brilliant idea simply long before you, so that it can now be considered evaluated. With disappointing results. That's all. Besides, I pointed out to you that logically, from a one-child policy follows that all are only children. They then get to practice for the first time in kindergarten dealing with the fact that they are not alone in the world. That makes exactly what you want to save even worse.
That's Eva Herman logic.

Yes, don’t claim that it’s my idea. Why is the result disappointing? Did the Chinese say that?

That’s interesting. So you think only children are so selfish and inconsiderate, they make everything worse than if there were at least two. Bold thesis. When I think of the many only children I know, they would be pretty angry about this theory.

But let’s ask differently: How do you solve overpopulation?