4 ms·

> First, we don't need more mining, we need much less, preferably zero. I don't disagree. We will have some mining forever though, whether that's here on earth

> First, we don't need more mining, we need much less, preferably zero. I don't disagree. We will have some mining forever though, whether that's here on earth or elsewhere. > We should be living more sustainably, with less consumption per person. I hope I didn't give you the impression that I think the opposite of that. I am all for sustainability. Including population sustainability. > As to wealthy people having children, that's a non-sequitur: wealthy people are such a small portion of the population that even if they all had 6 kids, it wouldn't make a detectable difference. It's the middle class that you want having kids. ? I want fewer kids and fewer people. I want those with the means to (rich or upper middle class) to have kids, at least until we get the population of the planet much lower. So yes, a small amount of people having a few kids isn't a non-sequitur at all. > No POVs Dude/dude-ette... you should read my posts! I'm all for that :) Thanks for your perspective.

gorkonsine 9y ago
>We will have some mining forever though, whether that's here on earth or elsewhere. Yes, of course; the need for raw materials is never-ending. I just want mining on Earth to mostly stop, or at least be done in the most environmentally-sustaining way possible. Moving a lot of mining offworld would accomplish this. >I want those with the means to (rich or upper middle class) to have kids I'm not so sure this is such a great idea. Rich people can already have all the kids they want; it's not like financial concerns are holding them back from it. And I don't see how they're going to do a better job of it than regular middle-class people; in fact, rich people generally seem to be much worse and more sociopathic human beings, and their kids frequently come out awful--look at Paris Hilton for instance. I don't see why we should be encouraging them to have more; we don't need more sociopaths in the world. And again, there's so few wealthy people it wouldn't make a significant difference.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  Sure, so what's good about this is if we limit reproduction to those with the means to provide, then will be able to reduce the population. You mentioned "won't make a significant difference" and like, yeah that's exactly the point. If they are having only a few children and then nobody else is having kids, we'll shrink the population.

gorkonsine 9y ago

>We will have some mining forever though, whether that's here on earth or elsewhere. Yes, of course; the need for raw materials is never-ending. I just want mining on Earth to mostly stop, or at least be done in the most environmentally-sustaining way possible. Moving a lot of mining offworld would accomplish this. >I want those with the means to (rich or upper middle class) to have kids I'm not so sure this is such a great idea. Rich people can already have all the kids they want; it's not like financial concerns are holding them back from it. And I don't see how they're going to do a better job of it than regular middle-class people; in fact, rich people generally seem to be much worse and more sociopathic human beings, and their kids frequently come out awful--look at Paris Hilton for instance. I don't see why we should be encouraging them to have more; we don't need more sociopaths in the world. And again, there's so few wealthy people it wouldn't make a significant difference.

muninn_ 9y ago
Sure, so what's good about this is if we limit reproduction to those with the means to provide, then will be able to reduce the population. You mentioned "won't make a significant difference" and like, yeah that's exactly the point. If they are having only a few children and then nobody else is having kids, we'll shrink the population.