4 ms·
Given living standards in the West and thus the way we currently consume the Earth's resources, this planet cannot support everyone living to 80, let alone long
by marcusjt 8y ago
Given living standards in the West and thus the way we currently consume the Earth's resources, this planet cannot support everyone living to 80, let alone longer. Therefore surely better (in terms of the greater good) for us to live shorter lives, but full ones, free from disease/ageing/degeneration.
- sbr464 8y agoI don’t agree or disagree with you but apologize you are getting downvoted. I think multiple points of view are important for this topic especially, as contentious as they may be.
- landryraccoon 8y agoMaybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think you're arguing that people dying means that the population is reduced? If so I think that's not the right conclusion. If people lived longer, healthier lives they might delay having children or put off having children entirely. It is not true that countries with lower life expectancy have smaller family sizes. One of the reasons people have children is because it is a sort of immortality - they want their genes and family to be carried on. But if you actually live longer, that particular reason for having kids is weakened.
- masonic 8y agothis planet cannot support everyone living to 80 It likewise can't support couples producing 4+ children.
- Haga 8y agoI want everyone else to be reasonable so I can game theoretically outsmart every one. If only there was a bigger player forcing us all to behave reasonable-like a state.