4 ms·

What does " substantially reel in the global population size" mean. People that raise this point almost 100% exclusively mean that about "people that are not m

by throwaway2048 7y ago

What does " substantially reel in the global population size" mean. People that raise this point almost 100% exclusively mean that about "people that are not me"

newnewpdro 7y ago
It means we get our global numbers down to something less problematic, especially when considering basically everyone wants to live comfortably with luxuries like air conditioning, fast transportation, and next day delivery. If you're suggesting I want other people to have fewer kids while I raise a family myself, you're mistaken - zero kids here and none in my future.
mac01021 7y ago
The OP did not say we need to reel it in over the course of only 1 or 2 generations. They said that, until we do, the situation will remain precarious. I'm sure you can imagine an (admittedly extremely improbable) scenario where the global population shrinks to 4 billion over the course of 500 years without significant injustice being done to anyone to achieve the shrinkage. Sadly, when it comes to greenhouse-gas-driven climate change, the timeline on which we will succeed or fail to address the problem is too short for any population size adjustments to be of any use (unless you want to achieve the adjustment by mass murder). This is probably the source of any misunderstanding between you. The OP is not contemplating mass murder, but does not appreciate the urgency of the climate issue. You appreciate the urgency and so assume the OP must be advocating an "immediate" extermination.
rswail 7y ago
The best way to reduce population growth is spreading wealth (where that is defined as safe and secure food, shelter, education etc). People who don't think they need to breed to have a number of descendants survive childhood mortality to look after them in their old age don't have lots of kids.
devit 7y ago
Make having children no longer be a right and instead be subject to conditions (like only one child per woman, or a large tax, or traded permits, or requirement to put millions of dollars in escrow for the child, etc.). Abort all children unless the condition is met, and if they are birthed in violation of that, take them away from the mother and imprison her. [here "woman" is intended as "person with an uterus"]
- dev1l666 7y ago
  Or you could just tie a rope round thy neck and hang yourself to make space for another 1000 children...
- your-nanny 7y ago
  you forgot your sarcasm tags.

What does " substantially reel in the global population size" mean. People that raise this point almost 100% exclusively mean that about "people that are not me"

newnewpdro 7y ago

It means we get our global numbers down to something less problematic, especially when considering basically everyone wants to live comfortably with luxuries like air conditioning, fast transportation, and next day delivery. If you're suggesting I want other people to have fewer kids while I raise a family myself, you're mistaken - zero kids here and none in my future.

mac01021 7y ago

The OP did not say we need to reel it in over the course of only 1 or 2 generations. They said that, until we do, the situation will remain precarious. I'm sure you can imagine an (admittedly extremely improbable) scenario where the global population shrinks to 4 billion over the course of 500 years without significant injustice being done to anyone to achieve the shrinkage. Sadly, when it comes to greenhouse-gas-driven climate change, the timeline on which we will succeed or fail to address the problem is too short for any population size adjustments to be of any use (unless you want to achieve the adjustment by mass murder). This is probably the source of any misunderstanding between you. The OP is not contemplating mass murder, but does not appreciate the urgency of the climate issue. You appreciate the urgency and so assume the OP must be advocating an "immediate" extermination.

rswail 7y ago

The best way to reduce population growth is spreading wealth (where that is defined as safe and secure food, shelter, education etc). People who don't think they need to breed to have a number of descendants survive childhood mortality to look after them in their old age don't have lots of kids.

devit 7y ago

Make having children no longer be a right and instead be subject to conditions (like only one child per woman, or a large tax, or traded permits, or requirement to put millions of dollars in escrow for the child, etc.). Abort all children unless the condition is met, and if they are birthed in violation of that, take them away from the mother and imprison her. [here "woman" is intended as "person with an uterus"]

dev1l666 7y ago
Or you could just tie a rope round thy neck and hang yourself to make space for another 1000 children...
your-nanny 7y ago
you forgot your sarcasm tags.