3 ms·

Becoming inhospitable to humans because of overpopulation in certain areas and skewed economic, political and ecological practices in all areas. This won't be f

Becoming inhospitable to humans because of overpopulation in certain areas and skewed economic, political and ecological practices in all areas. This won't be fixed by forcing people to reproduce more. Each region's problems must be tackled differently. For example in India's case it would be madness to encourage even more fertility. This may not be the case in other areas. As a whole the planet has quite enough humans at 7 billion. We don't need so many unless we're planning on settling other worlds which is still more than a century away.

luckylion 7y ago
> This won't be fixed by forcing people to reproduce more. I don't think that was the idea, rather: fix the circumstances and the people will do the rest themselves. > For example in India's case it would be madness to encourage even more fertility. And fertility rates there haven't dropped as they did in the developed world, so it's really not the same issue.
- leereeves 7y ago
  It's well established that people (nations and groups within nations) have fewer children as their circumstances improve. Fixing circumstances will lead to fewer children, not more.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    This has only been true generally in the West since ~1800 or so. Charles Darwin had fewer grandchildren than children. It’s also not universally true even in the West. Sub populations with higher fertility for the wealthy exist, Mormons and Hasidim for two. Culture beats biology, see Hutterites and the Amish in the US.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > Better circumstances are responsible for low fertility rates, not bad circumstances. That depends on the definition of "better". In purely material terms, the developed world is the best there ever was. Yet depression, drug abuse, loneliness etc are rising, so maybe humans require more than just material things. For animals, living in a zoo is the best thing to do. Steady meals, a doctor on call and they'll even bring you mates to reproduce. Yet somehow, many animals in captivity don't want to breed, maybe it's similar for humans.

luckylion 7y ago

> This won't be fixed by forcing people to reproduce more. I don't think that was the idea, rather: fix the circumstances and the people will do the rest themselves. > For example in India's case it would be madness to encourage even more fertility. And fertility rates there haven't dropped as they did in the developed world, so it's really not the same issue.

leereeves 7y ago
It's well established that people (nations and groups within nations) have fewer children as their circumstances improve. Fixing circumstances will lead to fewer children, not more.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  This has only been true generally in the West since ~1800 or so. Charles Darwin had fewer grandchildren than children. It’s also not universally true even in the West. Sub populations with higher fertility for the wealthy exist, Mormons and Hasidim for two. Culture beats biology, see Hutterites and the Amish in the US.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > Better circumstances are responsible for low fertility rates, not bad circumstances. That depends on the definition of "better". In purely material terms, the developed world is the best there ever was. Yet depression, drug abuse, loneliness etc are rising, so maybe humans require more than just material things. For animals, living in a zoo is the best thing to do. Steady meals, a doctor on call and they'll even bring you mates to reproduce. Yet somehow, many animals in captivity don't want to breed, maybe it's similar for humans.