5 ms·

So this is the old, false argument. Population control WOULD be effective at solving the problem. That is if it was humane. Your arguments seems true because

So this is the old, false argument. Population control WOULD be effective at solving the problem. That is if it was humane. Your arguments seems true because at first sight it looks (and it is true) that it is the first world that emits most of the greenhouse gasses. But everybody forgets that the third world countries do also experience progress and will also want industry and cars and air conditioning and KFC and AliExpress packages shipped to their doors. That they don't do it now is just because they don't have means to do so, but they work very hard to get there.

mc32 5y ago
Exactly! If we could get reverse migration going where people in OECD countries downsized to developing nations while maintaining efficiencies, that would be ideal but of course it’s not going to happen, indeed the opposite happens where people who consume less move to rich countries and start consuming like the natives in rich countries adding to demand.
nonbirithm 5y ago
Admittedly, existential despair results from this argument. If population control had been enacted in a humane way centuries ago, maybe I would be one of the millions of people missing from the present. On the other hand, I did not consent to being born, either. It's harrowing to consider that your existence may be a liability on the rest of the human race in the near future. But I'm only capable of despairing over it because someone gave birth to me. It's why I think that once the decision to have a child has been made, the consequences of reversing course are severe, especially since society bestows an unalienable right to exist to the people that do leave the womb. A living agent like myself is able to contemplate its own existence and is most likely to fight for its continued survival. Nobody questions the rights or individual liberties or consumption levels of people that were never born. We are likely to be willing into existence a generation that will curse us for not acting sooner. But because unchecked growth is a default behavior of humanity, it seems that the only way of putting in societal controls on humans is to let humans carry their knowledge of negative externalities through multiple generations.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  You are way out there with your thinking. Nobody denies born children the right to live. The idea was more in line of preventing children from being conceived in the first place. Not that this isn't fraught with moral, philosophical and other problems (just look at China), but at least it is obvious no children are being harmed by not being conceived.

mc32 5y ago

Exactly! If we could get reverse migration going where people in OECD countries downsized to developing nations while maintaining efficiencies, that would be ideal but of course it’s not going to happen, indeed the opposite happens where people who consume less move to rich countries and start consuming like the natives in rich countries adding to demand.

nonbirithm 5y ago

Admittedly, existential despair results from this argument. If population control had been enacted in a humane way centuries ago, maybe I would be one of the millions of people missing from the present. On the other hand, I did not consent to being born, either. It's harrowing to consider that your existence may be a liability on the rest of the human race in the near future. But I'm only capable of despairing over it because someone gave birth to me. It's why I think that once the decision to have a child has been made, the consequences of reversing course are severe, especially since society bestows an unalienable right to exist to the people that do leave the womb. A living agent like myself is able to contemplate its own existence and is most likely to fight for its continued survival. Nobody questions the rights or individual liberties or consumption levels of people that were never born. We are likely to be willing into existence a generation that will curse us for not acting sooner. But because unchecked growth is a default behavior of humanity, it seems that the only way of putting in societal controls on humans is to let humans carry their knowledge of negative externalities through multiple generations.

lmilcin 5y ago
You are way out there with your thinking. Nobody denies born children the right to live. The idea was more in line of preventing children from being conceived in the first place. Not that this isn't fraught with moral, philosophical and other problems (just look at China), but at least it is obvious no children are being harmed by not being conceived.