4 ms·
I thought this was an interesting point from the Gates' annual letter, the specific context is Africa but it's true globally. > As more children survive to adu
by thisisweirdok 8y ago
I thought this was an interesting point from the Gates' annual letter, the specific context is Africa but it's true globally.
> As more children survive to adulthood, women are having fewer kids than ever before. The result is a global population that’s creeping slowly toward middle age.
So people are _already_ having fewer children. Assuming we want to maintain the human species, _someone_ needs to be having children. For diversity everyone should be having _some_ amount of children.
Then of course, it depends on your climate change mindset.
If you think humanity is doomed and there's no way out of this: Don't have children because you think they'll die suffer through the apocalypse.
If you think humanity needs to continue and we will solve this problem: have children because we can avoid the apocalypse.
If you're unsure? Have children. Someone's bound to survive the apocalypse. Maybe it'll be your genetic material.
Personally I think we'll make it through. Life will be different, but we've got a better chance of surviving than humanity has ever had in the past. I think it's more likely that we'll get wiped out by a cosmic event that we don't even see coming.
- astura 8y ago>If you're unsure? Have children. Someone's bound to survive the apocalypse. Maybe it'll be your genetic material. Huh? What? ... I don't really understand why I would care if my "genetic material" survives a future apocalypse vs some other rando's "genetic material?" or anyone's "genetic material" for that matter. This is an especially bizarre reason for having children.
- thisisweirdok 8y ago>This is an especially bizarre reason for having children. This is basically why every species on the planet (with sexual reproduction) has children, whether you're aware of it or not. It's the instinctual drive to propagate. It's why sex feels good (for at least one party involved, for most species).
- your-nanny 8y agois vs ought is the distinction that needs to be made. the perogatives of natural selection needn't concord with moral behavior.
- thisisweirdok 8y agoRight, but in this case if the deciding factor is climate change and you're ambivalent about the outcome of climate change and humanity... you might as well just roll the dice.