7 ms·
>Ethically, this is a really frightening argument. Same argument with different words: We have to have people hungering to death to provide a disincentive for p
by pliny 10y ago
>Ethically, this is a really frightening argument. Same argument with different words: We have to have people hungering to death to provide a disincentive for population growth.
Not to endorse GP's point, but people move to places with income / food before they start to starve. Like, this scenario plays out a million times a day with old ladies that put a bunch of cat food outside their house, after a couple decades there's 10x as many cats living in a 100 metre radius and the lady dies and then shortly after all the cats die too, of hunger or killed by the municipality. With no old lady to begin with the cats wouldn't have starved, they'd just spread out over a larger area so that they don't have to compete over other sources of food like vermin or trash.
- oblio 10y agoExcept that humans aren't cats.
- pliny 10y agoYes? Obviously. It's an analogy.
- oblio 10y agoYour analogy is flawed. Or you consider that some people in this world live like stray cats, which is highly insulting. People who have lots of children usually don't know how to have fewer plus they fear that many of their children will die before adulthood. They also rely on their children to be their "retirement fund". All these aspects are changing across the world.
- damptowel 10y agoHaha, i love that analogy, you should build some predator-prey model out of that.