3 ms·
Maybe 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 agenda
by thefz 6y ago
Maybe 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.