4 ms·
1. This is happening in the western world, not in places the population is growing fastest 2. It's not just less humans, it s of worse quality
by cblconfederate 6y ago
1. This is happening in the western world, not in places the population is growing fastest
2. It's not just less humans, it s of worse quality
- yakshemash 6y ago1. The per capita environmental footprint is at least an order of magnitude, if not closer to two, higher in the western world 2. The subtext of this point is so distasteful to me that I can't figure out how to engage with it. How do you measure the quality of a human?
- cblconfederate 6y agoI mean health-wise, as the article says. You measure it with objective measures. I m not sure why it s distasteful to you?
- Rompect 6y ago> How do you measure the quality of a human Net worth obviously. Riffraff are mostly worthless creatures.
- arrayjumper 6y ago> 2. It's not just less humans, it s of worse quality what do you mean by this? that humans not of the western world are "lower quality"?
- 4gotunameagain 6y agoI assumed that this characterization in this context meant "less capable to protect Earth/environment/humanity", which is not too controversial given the inverse correlation between average education level and birthrates
- cblconfederate 6y agoNo , i mean lower sperm/egg quality. Why are people quick to jump to extreme conclusions here?
- algorias 6y agoI think GP meant that lower egg quality leads to more birth defects, etc. So not just fewer humans born, but those born have more problems. A statement which is completely independent from point 1.
- dragonelite 6y agojeez point 2, western chauvinism strikes again.