3 ms·
I have a 3 months old daughter and for the people here writing that it should not be a point, or it should be a point, I can only say it is the wrong way of thi
by lampe3 5y ago
I have a 3 months old daughter and for the people here writing that it should not be a point, or it should be a point, I can only say it is the wrong way of thinking about it.
If you have a child, the first thing you want is that the child is safe and healthy.
And you start to think what can you do better and what should change in the world so that your kid/baby has it better.
So in the end, if just 50% of the scenarios of climate change are true, you will change your behavior.
It's the same with eating candy or other unhealthy stuff. You will stop eating it because you want to show your kid/baby what is healthier for her/him.
So I would say we need more kids in the world if we want to have a better future.
- falcolas 5y ago> we need more kids … if we want to have a better future Funny, a vast majority of folks have children (>85% in the US), and yet, here we are.
- lampe3 5y agoSorry, I don't understand your comment and what is funny. Birthrates in the US are going down from 25.000 per 100.000 to 10.000 per 100.000.
- falcolas 5y agoSorry, let me expand then. The assertion that is happening in this thread is “having children will improve the world”. Given this assertion, how is it possible that global warming even happened in the first place, when there were, as you state, bigger birth rates than we have now? Most of the issues we’re facing today - especially global warming - weren’t caused just yesterday. They’ve been in progress for decades, and we’ve known about the potential issues for decades (I remember such concerns when we started opening holes in the ozone some 30 years ago).
- lampe3 5y agoSo let's die out as humanity? Sorry, I find your assertion as a sign of depression and helplessness
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThe argument in your original post: >So I would say we need more kids in the world if we want to have a better future. is funny because birth rates are at the lowest they have ever been. So it is brings up the question that if insufficient kids are the problem, then how did we end up in the current world?
- falcolas 5y agoThere's a name for this fallacy: "Reducto ad absurdum" A minority of people not wanting to add to the population growth (and being OK with that decision) will never incite the death of humanity.
- caskstrength 5y ago> So let's die out as humanity? No, let's start reducing our population to somewhat sustainable levels. We can always start having more children it the future.
- fleddr 5y agoYes, let's escalate slightly less than completely unsustainable exponential population growth as "extinction".
- timeon 5y agoIn same manner: "So let's kill other animals instead."
- fleddr 5y agoIndeed, more people means more people to solve problems is ridiculous optimism. We don't have a shortage of people whom could solve these problems, we lack the political will to solve them. It's not related to the amount of people, people just generally optimize for short term economics, at the expense of everything else, even existence.