3 ms·
> The entire concept of “need” and what is “helpful” is ideological How so? Is it objectively good to have a dozen children in an economical, political and eco
by qayxc 5y ago
> The entire concept of “need” and what is “helpful” is ideological
How so? Is it objectively good to have a dozen children in an economical, political and ecological environment that would lead to most of them starving, getting ill, becoming child soldiers, and staying poor and uneducated with no prospects for a bright future?
> so you are simply stating your anti-human ideology and shock that other humans have a pro-human ideology
No, I'm just exposing the anti-human nature of "be fruitful and multiply" at the behest of religious doctrine that doesn't care about the consequences.
Whenever "reducing population growth" is equated with destruction of human life, the person associating the two exposes themselves as an actual monster.
How on earth is "not having 10 starving, uneducated, sick children with a future of continued existence in poverty" anti-human? Can you explain that to me?
I'm advocating for people in the Sahel to have only one or two children that they can actually feed and send to school and who may eventually find a job and make a decent living as opposed to ending up in the same miserable conditions they parents find themselves in.
Unsustainable population growth is a major problem [0] [1] [2] and if your little world reduces the planet to your local neighbourhood and "pro-life" activism at your local church, then we might just have different perspectives on life.
Why it is so hard for some actual ideologists to just look at facts and simply accept the economical, ecological and political effects that uncontrolled population growth can have; it's truly beyond me.
What really grinds my gears, however, is how some folks can sincerely equate suggesting solutions for improving the live of billions of people with being "anti-human", while it's their religious doctrine that's causes the continued suffering of generations to come.
I'd rather see a Bangladeshi family of three with a child that has access to healthcare, education, healthy environment and a stable economic future than parents who struggle to even feed and clothe their 5 children in their 25 m² makeshift hut without sanitation in the slums of Dhaka...
But sure, it's ME who's the anti-human hypocrite.
[0] https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-challenge-generation/ https://ideas4development.org/en/population-growth-sahel-cha...
[1] https://www.britannica.com/place/South-America/Effects-of-rapid-population-increase https://www.britannica.com/place/South-America/Effects-of-ra...
[2] https://bankofinfo.com/population-growth-in-bangladesh/ https://bankofinfo.com/population-growth-in-bangladesh/
- dragonwriter 5y ago> > The entire concept of “need” and what is “helpful” is ideological > How so? Because both are meaningful only in the context of a particular value system. > Is it objectively good No, “good” is inherently relative to a value system; “objectively good” is an oxymoron. That's the point.