4 ms·
And That's where we disagree. Having kids is not essential to society. Actually, society would be better off if we just maintained our current population level
by rdm_blackhole 8y ago
And That's where we disagree.
Having kids is not essential to society. Actually, society would be better off if we just maintained our current population level and learned to live with the resources at hand instead or ever expanding and depleting the ocean, the underground and the forests until there is nothing left.
If you consider having kids as an individual sacrifice, then maybe you are having kids for the wrong reasons.
People should not be forced to have kids to perpetuate society or because its good for the economy or because the government( of any country) says we should.
- intuitionist 8y agoYou realize that in order to maintain our current population level, people still have to have kids, right?
- kelnos 8y agoWhy is maintaining our current population level something we should shoot for? Arguably the world is already overpopulated, if you consider resource usage per person.
- sidlls 8y agoHaving kids is not essential to society. Could you please explain what happens in, say, 80 years (or so) if we collectively stopped having kids? The answer is this: human beings cease to exist. Now, that may be something you view as a goal to achieve, and in the absolutely trivial (and meaningless) sense that everything (including our existence as a species) is optional you'd have a point. Beyond that trivial and meaningless sense, however, you're simply arguing about how many children we should have.
- isoskeles 8y agoLet's not forget the most devastating aspect of overpopulation, more and more people around to spout the same unproven theories over the last 50 years about "forest" and "underground" depletion.