5 ms·

The solution to a non-sustainable lifestyle is not to stop having children. There seems to be a misguided Malthusian thought process that appears to be taking h

by rmk 5y ago

The solution to a non-sustainable lifestyle is not to stop having children. There seems to be a misguided Malthusian thought process that appears to be taking hold amongst younger people of childbearing years in this department. If you do not have the right amount of population growth, you will have demographic time bombs explode in your face, such as the one China will be facing in the coming decades. There needs to be a decent ratio of working, productive people to nonproductive people in any society that hopes to take care of its older citizens.

giantg2 5y ago
I don't see how it is misguided. We don't know how many people the world can sustainably maintain from a resource consumption standpoint and the carbon emissions tied to it. It's misguided to believe that there are no constraints. Your population growth point seems to imply a misguided idea. With automation, it's possible the population can stagnate or even shrink.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  It's misguided in the sense that people in developing countries that don't have the leisure time to ponder the future of the Earth will be having kids, regardless of whether you do or not. If you want to go ahead and not perform your one biological imperative because you think you're saving the planet, that's your prerogative. But don't think it's going to make a tangible difference.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Who said anything about developing countries? The developed countries have the largest impact on a per capita basis, and thus the larger difference for an individual choice. "If you want to go ahead and not perform your one biological imperative" It seems you are implying that we should follow our biological imperatives without question, and that there is only one. There are several biological imperatives. If we follow them without question then we risk things like war (territorialism), rape (reproduction), etc. Its only because we question these imperatives that we are able to place restraints on them. Also, I don't think I'll save the planet by not having a bunch of kids. But at least by not having them I wont be bringing them into a life of pain and suffering.
- rmk 5y ago
  I never said that there are no constraints, only that constraints that argue for arresting population growth have turned out to be unnecessary because of various technological and social improvements over time. The average person can't choose to raise children at an older age: either he procreates at the replacement rate, or near-term, the population will nosedive and will necessitate technology improvements to make up for the shortfall. Most economists agree on the necessity of having a good rate of population growth for a nation to be prosperous. Countries like Russia and Hungary, which are rapidly depopulating because of a lack of childbearing and immigration, are flailing to arrest the demographic decline. Europe experienced technology growth and a mini-boom when the plague wiped out huge portions of its population. But it has never fully recovered, with large areas still depopulating, and has experienced a mostly poor rate of growth because of the plague. Demographic disasters are as challenging as climate disasters, if not more, and have affected humanity in huge ways.

by rmk 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

I don't see how it is misguided. We don't know how many people the world can sustainably maintain from a resource consumption standpoint and the carbon emissions tied to it. It's misguided to believe that there are no constraints. Your population growth point seems to imply a misguided idea. With automation, it's possible the population can stagnate or even shrink.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
It's misguided in the sense that people in developing countries that don't have the leisure time to ponder the future of the Earth will be having kids, regardless of whether you do or not. If you want to go ahead and not perform your one biological imperative because you think you're saving the planet, that's your prerogative. But don't think it's going to make a tangible difference.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Who said anything about developing countries? The developed countries have the largest impact on a per capita basis, and thus the larger difference for an individual choice. "If you want to go ahead and not perform your one biological imperative" It seems you are implying that we should follow our biological imperatives without question, and that there is only one. There are several biological imperatives. If we follow them without question then we risk things like war (territorialism), rape (reproduction), etc. Its only because we question these imperatives that we are able to place restraints on them. Also, I don't think I'll save the planet by not having a bunch of kids. But at least by not having them I wont be bringing them into a life of pain and suffering.
rmk 5y ago
I never said that there are no constraints, only that constraints that argue for arresting population growth have turned out to be unnecessary because of various technological and social improvements over time. The average person can't choose to raise children at an older age: either he procreates at the replacement rate, or near-term, the population will nosedive and will necessitate technology improvements to make up for the shortfall. Most economists agree on the necessity of having a good rate of population growth for a nation to be prosperous. Countries like Russia and Hungary, which are rapidly depopulating because of a lack of childbearing and immigration, are flailing to arrest the demographic decline. Europe experienced technology growth and a mini-boom when the plague wiped out huge portions of its population. But it has never fully recovered, with large areas still depopulating, and has experienced a mostly poor rate of growth because of the plague. Demographic disasters are as challenging as climate disasters, if not more, and have affected humanity in huge ways.