5 ms·
It's interesting that the two comments that touch the overpopulation side are being downvoted. Why? Does the people downvoting care to explain? There's a huge
by narag 8y ago
It's interesting that the two comments that touch the overpopulation side are being downvoted. Why? Does the people downvoting care to explain?
There's a huge contradiction here. Either you do "something" to control population or else all the measures to control climate change are stillborn. We are struggling with the current population!
- spiralx 8y agoBecause world population is already forecast to peak and then decline over the next few decades, economic development has already "done something" about this issue, unless you're proposing mass murder or something equally implausible.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoWould paying people in countries with high birth rates to not have children be exploitative?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ufmace 8y agoI would guess that a lot of the sub-populations with the highest birthrates are disconnected enough from the global economy for money to be meaningless for them.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jfk13 8y agoIndia tried that, more or less, during Indira Gandhi's "Emergency"; a stereotypical example was offering a transistor radio as reward for a vasectomy, though that's extremely mild persuasion in comparison to some of what went on. The episode is not favourably looked on, in general. https://www.pop.org/a-once-and-future-tragedy-indias-sterilization-campaign-39-years-later/ https://www.pop.org/a-once-and-future-tragedy-indias-sterili...
- okal 8y agoI didn't downvote the GP, but my impulse to disagree with population control is due to the likelihood that, in my experience, it's not the population groups that have the largest adverse impact on the planet (highly industrialised, middle to high income societies) that are generally the target of this sentiment.
- Namari 8y agoMaybe but if you reduce the population from whatever group, there is less needs for everything and because everything is related it will an worldwide impact. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8 and you'll see that all is linked and the more we are the more we will consume this planet.
- okal 8y agoI know how the principle works. My comment is addressing the ethics of it. I'm expressing my belief that if we're to choose this path, as a species, we should prioritise reducing the population of societies with a large per capita footprint. That won't fly, because those are also the societies with the most firepower.
- maxxxxx 8y agoI wrote "Ideally we would stop breeding" but I am aware that implementing any kind of population control will be extremely hard to impossible and has lot of potential for abuse. It's more like a dream where at some point in the future humanity as a whole will have some level of discipline and stay within the limits of the planet. This would also include respecting the environment. I am aware that this probably won't happen in a harmonious way so my prediction is that we'll keep growing and exploiting the planet but hopefully technology will keep up. Ideally we'll load ourselves into computers and don't need the physical environment anymore.
- narag 8y agoThat's funny. This post is about the effects of extending high income activities to the rest of mortals.
- dionidium 8y agoBecause the notion has evil and dystopian implications for the significant percentage of humanity that derives irreplaceable levels of fulfillment through procreation (and especially when one starts to wonder what you have in mind for those in that group who won't eschew procreation voluntarily).