2 ms·
Maybe my english is not that great, but I thought I clearly exained that you will EVENTUALY need 2.X children per women, otherwise we will go extinct as a speci
by raducu 7y ago
Maybe my english is not that great, but I thought I clearly exained that you will EVENTUALY need 2.X children per women, otherwise we will go extinct as a species, do you dispute that?
Wether it's 20 years from now or 100 years it's irrelevant.
Is there an universal duty to keep your weight constant at all times?
No, loosing or gaining a couple of pounds is ok, but dieting by cutting of your hand is not ok.
- fzeroracer 7y agoFor one, that's just wrong. You need to be only above 1.0 children per couple on average in order to maintain population growth. You don't need 2 children per woman and mandating that sort of thing would be absurd, not to mention sexist (in the way that it reduces the autonomy of women and removes the choice of having children). For two, humanity has no innate value that makes maintaining infinite population growth somehow good or even sustainable. We're more likely to go extinct as a result of unsustainable population growth and resource exploitation than a result of reversing population growth globally. And finally even if that was the case, this is something that would be literally hundreds of years away barring some sort of global extinction event.
- compiler-guy 7y agoNot commenting on any other part of your post, but, replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 children per woman. In other words, to sustain a population at its current level, most women need to have two babies, and some need to have three. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
- fzeroracer 7y agoFair enough, I'll concede that point.