4 ms·
> This viewpoint is common, but doesn't scale. Having kids isn't a "life choice." It's a basic requirement for a sustainable human society. I disagree, I think
by d1zzy 6y ago
> This viewpoint is common, but doesn't scale. Having kids isn't a "life choice." It's a basic requirement for a sustainable human society.
I disagree, I think in the countries and social spheres where this is an _actual_ choice for women, it is very much a "life choice" (because the rest of the world makes more than enough children to resolve the issues of "sustainable human society"). When we'll get to a point where world wide population growth drops below 2.1 factor, maybe then we can start reconsidering this policy.
And that said, longer term, what is not sustainable is a continuing growth of population, not reducing it. Yes I realize reducing population invalidates many things currently supporting our civilization but having to deal with the pain of those changes seems much better than dealing with the issues of an overpopulated planet.
- rayiner 6y ago> I disagree, I think in the countries and social spheres where this is an _actual_ choice for women, it is very much a "life choice" (because the rest of the world makes more than enough children to resolve the issues of "sustainable human society"). When we'll get to a point where world wide population growth drops below 2.1 factor, maybe then we can start reconsidering this policy. That's not really a rebuttal to my point--just an assertion that we should take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity while we can. It tells us nothing about what a sustainable liberal society looks like. And the fact is that the arbitrage opportunity won't last long. If you're 30-something, the world population is currently projected to start declining within your lifetime.
- blackguardx 6y agoThere has been various research about Earth's carrying capacity. The numbers are controversial but it shouldn't be controversial that there is _some_ limit. I think we are going to have to adapt to a post-growth world. Or maybe things will grow in other ways. I am not worried about declining birth rates. It's not like we are heading for a "Children of Men" scenario. The population will stabilize before it goes to zero. Or maybe we will just grow people in vats.
- chromanoid 6y ago> Or maybe we will just grow people in vats. Who will raise the people who were made in vats? Which is the real problem here, not who reproduces.
- barry-cotter 6y agoPregnancy and childbirth are not wonderful experiences and there would definitely be an uptick in children per woman if you could get a baby without carrying it inside you for nine months and then pushing it out. How large the uptick would be I don’t know.
- chromanoid 6y ago> Pregnancy and childbirth are not wonderful experiences I would say it depends. My wife would not want to miss it. Especially her first birth was indeed a wonderful experience. The second was too fast but still a wonderful experience. Why children per woman? In such a world where humans grow in vats, it would be children per person...
- arvinsim 6y agoIt's not about population, it's about culture.
- rayiner 6y ago> I think we are going to have to adapt to a post-growth world. Or maybe things will grow in other ways. I am not worried about declining birth rates. It's not like we are heading for a "Children of Men" scenario. I'm not talking about endless growth. I'm talking about simply maintaining existing societies. The fertility rate in South Korea is now below 1. That's a society that's basically gone within three generations. > The population will stabilize before it goes to zero. Right--so what does society and culture look like then? > Or maybe we will just grow people in vats. We can't even fix male pattern baldness for god's sake.
- blackguardx 6y ago
- astrange 6y agoThe rest of the world's birth rate is pretty low too by now. Only Africa has a high birth rate.