5 ms·

We need less people in the world. Our only hope to avoid mass human suffering is that as more women get educated and independent they reduce the number of child

We need less people in the world. Our only hope to avoid mass human suffering is that as more women get educated and independent they reduce the number of children they’ll conceive to 1 or 2.

lkramer 6y ago
The world is moving towards a shrinking population, but it takes time for it to take effect: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-popu...
f00zz 6y ago
> 1 or 2 This is already the case in most of the world, including many developing countries.
refresher 6y ago
Is the number of people the problem or is extreme consumption and waste, particular at the top, the issue?
BurningFrog 6y ago
This was Chinese government policy for decades. It caused immense human suffering. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/understanding-chinas-one-child-policy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/under... Personally, I think people are an asset, not a burden, and the greatest things in the world! That's right, I mean you, dear reader. Straighten that back!
- kwanbix 6y ago
  Something doesn't ads up. If we are 50 couples, and we all have 2 kids, when the original parents die we are still 100 people. If 50 couples have 1 kid, wen the original parents die, you have half of the population. If they did that for some many years, how come they kept growing?
  - angio 6y ago
    There are several exceptions to the law[0]: * The couple has just one child, who is handicapped or unable to work because of non-hereditary diseases. * Both parents are only children themselves, and have just one child so far. * The couple adopted their first child because one of them was diagnosed as infertile. * The couple remarried but have only one child in total. * The couple are ethnic minorities who moved to the city from provinces bordering other countries and were given permission from a high-ranking Family Planning office before they moved. * The husband has brothers, but only one brother is able to give birth, and the others have promised not to adopt. * The husband is a farmer who married a woman already with a daughter (this only if that husband pledges to care for the woman’s parents). * The couple are rural farmers, in which one spouse is a handicapped soldier with an injury grade B or above or can no longer work. * The couple are farmers from the deep mountains who only have a daughter, depend on farming and are poor. * Another exception to the one child policy allowed families in rural areas to have another child if the first child was a girl, in hopes to have a boy as their second child. [0] https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=c5d870bb2fc04f328d5e52cc864ff014 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=c5d870b...
  - sct202 6y ago
    The parents haven't died yet.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    One reason is they stopped starving their people to death, so parents lived longer.
  - Danieru 6y ago
    Humans live for 60+ years. The damage appears in the population age distribution decades before it appears in the total.
- dathinab 6y ago
  It caused harn because it was stupidly implemented not because it's generally bad. But btw. many western countries have a shrinking population since years to a degree where that's an problem. But this also means that the countries which have to take (reasonable) actions include many contribute which often can't afford more reasonable actions :/
  - f00zz 6y ago
    There's no population bomb. Let's please lay Malthus to rest already. According to some projections, world population will peak sometime in the 2040s and then start to decline.
    - dathinab 6y ago
      But one reasons why the projection is that way is because countries do nudge people to not having explosive growth by all kind of measures. Some as simple as reducing poverty. Some by making it most viable to have one or two children. Some (China) by limiting the number of children to roughly two. ... Not all of this policies are good, not all are intentionally made to have that effect. Still if you want to shrink a countries populations there are much more ways then a hard limit to the number of children (Which I think will hardly ever play out well.).
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    What is a non stupid child ban policy you support that doesn't cause harm?
    - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
      Global sterilization of all people by molecular-genetic means. Then temporarily unsterilizing by winning the lottery, points, ability score, merit, money, whatever... Simple, innit?
ajmurmann 6y ago
There is so much room left to consume less or in a more sustainable way. We can produce more than enough food for everyone and drastically cut down on meat consumption and stop fishing from the ocean. That would make a huge difference for sustainability and carbon footprint. However, non of this will happen. We are still in a world where countries fight over getting more resources to consume. That needs to shift to fighting to protect resources. We need sanctions on countries that fish too much and have too high emissions. Otherwise we will be caught in the tragedy of the commons till the planet is uninhabitable. Meanwhile we cannot even properly coordinate a response to a pandemic.
rrrrrrrrrrrr 6y ago
This is not correct. The world can currently sustain all 8 billion people and then some. It simply chooses not to. Population control is a very weird argument and I'd like to not hear it anymore, as someone who used to believe it.

We need less people in the world. Our only hope to avoid mass human suffering is that as more women get educated and independent they reduce the number of children they’ll conceive to 1 or 2.

lkramer 6y ago

The world is moving towards a shrinking population, but it takes time for it to take effect: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-popu...

f00zz 6y ago

> 1 or 2 This is already the case in most of the world, including many developing countries.

refresher 6y ago

Is the number of people the problem or is extreme consumption and waste, particular at the top, the issue?

BurningFrog 6y ago

This was Chinese government policy for decades. It caused immense human suffering. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/understanding-chinas-one-child-policy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/under... Personally, I think people are an asset, not a burden, and the greatest things in the world! That's right, I mean you, dear reader. Straighten that back!

kwanbix 6y ago
Something doesn't ads up. If we are 50 couples, and we all have 2 kids, when the original parents die we are still 100 people. If 50 couples have 1 kid, wen the original parents die, you have half of the population. If they did that for some many years, how come they kept growing?
- angio 6y ago
  There are several exceptions to the law[0]: * The couple has just one child, who is handicapped or unable to work because of non-hereditary diseases. * Both parents are only children themselves, and have just one child so far. * The couple adopted their first child because one of them was diagnosed as infertile. * The couple remarried but have only one child in total. * The couple are ethnic minorities who moved to the city from provinces bordering other countries and were given permission from a high-ranking Family Planning office before they moved. * The husband has brothers, but only one brother is able to give birth, and the others have promised not to adopt. * The husband is a farmer who married a woman already with a daughter (this only if that husband pledges to care for the woman’s parents). * The couple are rural farmers, in which one spouse is a handicapped soldier with an injury grade B or above or can no longer work. * The couple are farmers from the deep mountains who only have a daughter, depend on farming and are poor. * Another exception to the one child policy allowed families in rural areas to have another child if the first child was a girl, in hopes to have a boy as their second child. [0] https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=c5d870bb2fc04f328d5e52cc864ff014 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=c5d870b...
- sct202 6y ago
  The parents haven't died yet.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  One reason is they stopped starving their people to death, so parents lived longer.
- Danieru 6y ago
  Humans live for 60+ years. The damage appears in the population age distribution decades before it appears in the total.
dathinab 6y ago
It caused harn because it was stupidly implemented not because it's generally bad. But btw. many western countries have a shrinking population since years to a degree where that's an problem. But this also means that the countries which have to take (reasonable) actions include many contribute which often can't afford more reasonable actions :/
- f00zz 6y ago
  There's no population bomb. Let's please lay Malthus to rest already. According to some projections, world population will peak sometime in the 2040s and then start to decline.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    But one reasons why the projection is that way is because countries do nudge people to not having explosive growth by all kind of measures. Some as simple as reducing poverty. Some by making it most viable to have one or two children. Some (China) by limiting the number of children to roughly two. ... Not all of this policies are good, not all are intentionally made to have that effect. Still if you want to shrink a countries populations there are much more ways then a hard limit to the number of children (Which I think will hardly ever play out well.).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  What is a non stupid child ban policy you support that doesn't cause harm?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    Global sterilization of all people by molecular-genetic means. Then temporarily unsterilizing by winning the lottery, points, ability score, merit, money, whatever... Simple, innit?

ajmurmann 6y ago

There is so much room left to consume less or in a more sustainable way. We can produce more than enough food for everyone and drastically cut down on meat consumption and stop fishing from the ocean. That would make a huge difference for sustainability and carbon footprint. However, non of this will happen. We are still in a world where countries fight over getting more resources to consume. That needs to shift to fighting to protect resources. We need sanctions on countries that fish too much and have too high emissions. Otherwise we will be caught in the tragedy of the commons till the planet is uninhabitable. Meanwhile we cannot even properly coordinate a response to a pandemic.

rrrrrrrrrrrr 6y ago

This is not correct. The world can currently sustain all 8 billion people and then some. It simply chooses not to. Population control is a very weird argument and I'd like to not hear it anymore, as someone who used to believe it.