Scott Alexander argues that concerns about climate change should not deter people from having children, presenting counterarguments to common climate-related reasons for avoiding parenthood. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against the idea that people should avoid having children due to climate change concerns. He presents three main counterarguments: 1) While climate change will be bad, it's unlikely to be catastrophic for most people in developed countries. 2) Choosing not to have children might actually harm climate action by reducing the number of future climate-conscious voters. 3) The carbon footprint of having a child is often overstated, and can potentially be offset through donations or other means. He concludes that climate concerns shouldn't prevent people who want children from having them. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a chart quantifying carbon emissions from various sources, discussing the implications and providing advice on addressing climate change responsibly. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a chart quantifying carbon emissions from various activities, lifestyle changes, and actors. He emphasizes the approximate nature of these numbers and explains the methodology behind the calculations. The post discusses the implications of these figures, including the relative impact of individual actions versus larger systemic changes. Scott also provides advice on how individuals can responsibly address climate change, such as staying informed, supporting climate-conscious politicians, and considering carbon offsets. The article concludes with an extensive list of sources for the data presented. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that eating beef is more ethical than chicken due to reduced animal suffering, despite higher environmental impact, and explores the complexities of this ethical calculus. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues that eating beef is more ethical than eating chicken from an animal welfare perspective, despite beef's higher environmental impact. He calculates that switching from chicken to beef saves about 60 chickens per year at the cost of 2.2 tons extra CO2. Offsetting this carbon costs about $22 annually, which he argues is worthwhile given the reduction in animal suffering. He then explores the complexities of comparing direct action to offsetting, discussing potential market failures in offset pricing. Despite these complications, he concludes that eating beef over chicken is likely still the better ethical choice, especially if one is not actually performing the offsets. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the concept of 'ethics offsets', exploring its applications and ethical implications from simple cases to extreme scenarios. Longer summary

This post explores the concept of 'ethics offsets', where people compensate for ethically questionable actions by performing good deeds. Scott starts with simple examples like carbon offsets, then moves to more complex scenarios involving vegetarianism and murder. He discusses the ethical implications and potential issues with this approach, such as the problem of universalizability and the crossing of moral boundaries. The post raises questions about the limits of ethical offsetting and whether it can justify any action if the positive impact is deemed greater than the negative. Shorter summary