4 ms·
>If anyone, be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor financial planning I think this is pretty telling of your attitude to the whole th
by andrepd 6y ago
>If anyone, be a male or a female has no mean of having a family due to poor financial planning
I think this is pretty telling of your attitude to the whole thing. In a time where virtually all developed countries face a demographic crisis in the coming decades, where record numbers of young people cite "financial reasons" for not starting a family, you still think that if somebody is poor then the cause is "poor financial planning".
- thefz 6y agoMaybe the time has come to flatten the growth curve. Infinite growth in a system of finite resources is unfeasible. Let's face the fact that pronatalist agendas have been pushed by the major religions for centuries in order to better control the population.
- grumple 6y agoAh, eugenics by wealth. We've seen it before, here it is again.
- andrepd 6y agoThe curve has beyond been flattened already. It's nosediving. We're below replacement fertility and falling. I don't think incenctivising >2.1 fertility is being "protonatalist". And mind, this is coming from someone very much opposed to unrestrained growth capitalism. A proponent of "degrowth" if you will.
- godelski 6y agoI'm not sure why you have negative points. Maybe because you meant in first world countries[0][1] and didn't state it explicitly? The world is barely above replacement rate (i.e. there is population growth) and OECD members are below (population decline). [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&locations=US-1W-EU&start=1960&type=shaded&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo... [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&locations=1W-1A-ZG-Z4-IN&start=1960&type=shaded&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo...
- dominotw 6y agoThese are the best graphs I saw all day. Thank you.
- thefz 6y agoPro-natalist, as in promoting births just for the sake of it. > . I don't think incenctivising >2.1 fertility is being "protonatalist". Yes it is, because you are incentivising births just to float above an arbitrary level.
- dominotw 6y ago> In a time where virtually all developed countries face a demographic crisis in the coming decades I don't see how this is a problem if we have immigration. We should support immigration from high population growth areas of the planet to low population growth not add more population to the planet. Adding more people to planet and causing climate for next generation is way worse than not providing paid leave.