4 ms·
Sorry but I have to pick a bone with you about one of your contentions: having children is a choice. Are you contributing to society? At a basic level of course
by cletus 9y ago
Sorry but I have to pick a bone with you about one of your contentions: having children is a choice. Are you contributing to society? At a basic level of course if no one had children we'd cease to exist but at the same time it's also arguable that there are simply too many of us on the planet to support, which shifts having children into a more selfish choice.
On a more personal level, I suspect you chose to had kids because you wanted kids. This is fine. But you're not doing this for the good of society.
Lastly, in the developed world we WAY overspend on child-rearing. Like... it's ridiculous. It may well be that in the US each child will cost nigh on $1m to raise. That's... ludicrous. But it also comes about from making a bunch of unessential choices (eg private school). Again, if that's what you want to do, fine. But it's another choice.
- Xeoncross 9y ago> there are simply too many of us on the planet to support No, we could easily support 10 times this many people. The problem is that people are "selfish" and will starve, steal, and kill others for power or property. Starvation isn't because of the lack of food or resources - its the governments, rebels, gangs, and guerrilla fighters.
- pizzetta 9y agoOne "hidden" cost of people over replacement numbers is "footprint". The more people the more we encroach upon wilderness. As people gain purchasing power, the more they plug-in to consumerism. It all adds-up to a leger human foot print on the planet.
- Xeoncross 9y agoCertainly, especially since everyone wants low-cost items. It creates huge pressure for non-sustainable items and processes.
- echlebek 9y agoThat's quite a claim. It's not at all clear that the world can support 70 bn people.
- Xeoncross 9y agoAs people are now I would agree. I meant simply producing enough food for 73 billion people.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cmurf 9y agoWhat happens to an economy when there's negative population growth? It shrinks unless you dramatically change the economics to permit shrinking while also not making everyone poor or otherwise destabilizing society. Thus far our societies have been predicated on positive population growth, and if that can't happen by birth rates then it must happen with immigration. About the closest approximation to a shrinking population society, is Japan. They have negative native growth and also don't bring in immigrants. And as a result they have widespread consolidation, aging, and ghost towns. And also the really unanswered questions about how to deal with an aging population with so few youth to care for the old, and where the money comes from to maintain standard of living. The main way they've done this is technological advances as an offset. OK, so is there a limit to such advances as compensatory elements of a shrinking society? Uncertain, but there probably is, and then what happens? There's way more known what happens with societies that have strong population growth than what happens to shrinking ones that also survive. Typically the shrinking societies end up in the realm of anthropology and archaeology.
- bayonetz 9y agoAKA "The Baby-Industrial Complex"