4 ms·

Because A doesn't automatically follow B. Fewer children is better for the environment; that doesn't mean one has to favor population control. It's easier, mor

Because A doesn't automatically follow B. Fewer children is better for the environment; that doesn't mean one has to favor population control. It's easier, more democratic and probably at least as effective to enforce equality for women in education and economics, and the lower birthrates follow automatically.

Grustaf 6y ago
Population control doesn't have to mean forced mass sterilizations. If you educate people with at least the partial goal of them having fewer children, that is also population control. Not that there's anything particularly democratic about "enforcing equality" in foreign countries.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  How do you reverse it when it becomes a problem? If we’re taking the long view here, our future generations may be facing a world where there aren’t enough people. Or is that a problem that we’ll leave to them to figure out?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >our future generations may be facing a world where there aren’t enough people That would be wonderful because it would mean that workers get fair wages. Lack of productivity can be compensated by automation. >How do you reverse it when it becomes a problem? That's biologically impossible. Even if you sterilize every human with a birth certificate on earth.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    I’m not personally advocating for population control, just couldn’t understand why it would be completely off the table in poor countries.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      I think the conversation is just scary for obvious reasons based on human historical tendencies. The topic is not exactly verbotten, but it is genuinely hard to argue for or against dispassionately. Part of the official reasoning is that young population is a poor's country resource. I personally take issue with nations seeing their population that way, but it is not unusual.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I honestly am not sure education is the answer. Both me and my wife are educated. There are arguments against us having children from genetic standpoint and she still wanted to roll the dice. It may work in aggregate, but natural pull is very strong.

Grustaf 6y ago

Population control doesn't have to mean forced mass sterilizations. If you educate people with at least the partial goal of them having fewer children, that is also population control. Not that there's anything particularly democratic about "enforcing equality" in foreign countries.

throwaway316943 6y ago
How do you reverse it when it becomes a problem? If we’re taking the long view here, our future generations may be facing a world where there aren’t enough people. Or is that a problem that we’ll leave to them to figure out?
- imtringued 6y ago
  >our future generations may be facing a world where there aren’t enough people That would be wonderful because it would mean that workers get fair wages. Lack of productivity can be compensated by automation. >How do you reverse it when it becomes a problem? That's biologically impossible. Even if you sterilize every human with a birth certificate on earth.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  I’m not personally advocating for population control, just couldn’t understand why it would be completely off the table in poor countries.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I think the conversation is just scary for obvious reasons based on human historical tendencies. The topic is not exactly verbotten, but it is genuinely hard to argue for or against dispassionately. Part of the official reasoning is that young population is a poor's country resource. I personally take issue with nations seeing their population that way, but it is not unusual.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I honestly am not sure education is the answer. Both me and my wife are educated. There are arguments against us having children from genetic standpoint and she still wanted to roll the dice. It may work in aggregate, but natural pull is very strong.