5 ms·

> How is it a bad thing? Because it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce. You effectively are saying "Hey raise your hand if you want your gro

> How is it a bad thing? Because it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce. You effectively are saying "Hey raise your hand if you want your group of people to die out." I'm not shocked that people aren't wild about that.

chewz 7y ago
> it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce 1) From the article seems like people are loosing their desire to reproduce anyway. 2) I am no expert in anthropology but the need for having children is very complex and is regulated by the multiple factors (economical, social, political, environmental). As one Bali taxi driver put it to me - "Nowadays you don't need 14 children to tend to a ricefield".
gumby 7y ago
> the internal human desire to reproduce. It's pretty clear throughout recorded history that this is not a universal desire. Huge numbers of people have not only chosen not to have kids, many of whom have consciously traded off the opportunity to reproduce in exchange for other opportunities.
- notadoc 7y ago
  It's a biological urge for many, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Sure some don't have it, and some control it, but that's clearly not the majority of our species otherwise we wouldn't be so ubiquitous.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    The biological urge for sex rather than the urge for procreation may explain our ubiquity.
    - t34543 7y ago
      Especially considering birth control wasn’t available until recently.
  - gumby 7y ago
    > It's a biological urge for many I can't say strongly that you're wrong, but I can say your thesis is most definitely unproven, and there is good counterveiling evidence. Clearly there has and remains enough historical reproduction that humans are pretty much ubiquitous and have affected pretty much the entire surface of the planet. No question. But the why is unknown. Yes there are of course people who feel a need to duplicate their genes (though to my knowledge I've literally only met one person in my 50+ years who said that this was their desire). However different people have many different reasons to intentionally reproduce and demonstrably, when given the ability, a dominant number opt to limit it (this fact is the launching point of the original article). The clearest example is economic: birth rate and income are pretty highly negatively correlated (the US is an outlier but when you double click and look at the income data at higher resolution than national, you see the same thing). I could go into examples of why this might be the case but that could lead to an unnecessary flame war.
finnh 7y ago
But people are wild about it. Low birth rates in wealthy countries are arrived at by choice. As a US citizen with two kids, I actively chose not to have more. This is my preference (and, in aggregate, the preference of the rest of the US as well). If one or both of them were likely to die before reaching maturity, and my retirement plans assumed they would pay for my dotage... then maybe I'd have more? But that's not the case; as it is I'm happy with my choice to just have two.
rinchik 7y ago
> Because it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce You didn't answer the question. If you can't control your basic instinct it doesn't mean that general population reduction will be a "bad" thing. Population control doesn't mean anything "inhumane" at all. As one above said, countries with higher levels of education have better control over population growth naturally. That's one of the solutions to explosive overpopulation: EDUCATION! Overpopulation is a real problem. For the environment, for the climate, and for the future.

chewz 7y ago

> it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce 1) From the article seems like people are loosing their desire to reproduce anyway. 2) I am no expert in anthropology but the need for having children is very complex and is regulated by the multiple factors (economical, social, political, environmental). As one Bali taxi driver put it to me - "Nowadays you don't need 14 children to tend to a ricefield".

gumby 7y ago

> the internal human desire to reproduce. It's pretty clear throughout recorded history that this is not a universal desire. Huge numbers of people have not only chosen not to have kids, many of whom have consciously traded off the opportunity to reproduce in exchange for other opportunities.

notadoc 7y ago
It's a biological urge for many, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Sure some don't have it, and some control it, but that's clearly not the majority of our species otherwise we wouldn't be so ubiquitous.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  The biological urge for sex rather than the urge for procreation may explain our ubiquity.
  - t34543 7y ago
    Especially considering birth control wasn’t available until recently.
- gumby 7y ago
  > It's a biological urge for many I can't say strongly that you're wrong, but I can say your thesis is most definitely unproven, and there is good counterveiling evidence. Clearly there has and remains enough historical reproduction that humans are pretty much ubiquitous and have affected pretty much the entire surface of the planet. No question. But the why is unknown. Yes there are of course people who feel a need to duplicate their genes (though to my knowledge I've literally only met one person in my 50+ years who said that this was their desire). However different people have many different reasons to intentionally reproduce and demonstrably, when given the ability, a dominant number opt to limit it (this fact is the launching point of the original article). The clearest example is economic: birth rate and income are pretty highly negatively correlated (the US is an outlier but when you double click and look at the income data at higher resolution than national, you see the same thing). I could go into examples of why this might be the case but that could lead to an unnecessary flame war.

finnh 7y ago

But people are wild about it. Low birth rates in wealthy countries are arrived at by choice. As a US citizen with two kids, I actively chose not to have more. This is my preference (and, in aggregate, the preference of the rest of the US as well). If one or both of them were likely to die before reaching maturity, and my retirement plans assumed they would pay for my dotage... then maybe I'd have more? But that's not the case; as it is I'm happy with my choice to just have two.

rinchik 7y ago

> Because it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce You didn't answer the question. If you can't control your basic instinct it doesn't mean that general population reduction will be a "bad" thing. Population control doesn't mean anything "inhumane" at all. As one above said, countries with higher levels of education have better control over population growth naturally. That's one of the solutions to explosive overpopulation: EDUCATION! Overpopulation is a real problem. For the environment, for the climate, and for the future.