3 ms·
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 m
by 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 agoYou 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.