3 ms·
>> Stabilize populations to 1960s or whatever, What exactly does this mean? People were pretty upset with China's one child policy (all the unintended side-eff
by skeeter2020 5y ago
>> Stabilize populations to 1960s or whatever,
What exactly does this mean? People were pretty upset with China's one child policy (all the unintended side-effects ignored); this sounds even more nefarious?
.
- mc32 5y agoIt’s not something we achieve in 20 years. It would be a century long goal via reduced fertility rates that do not include barbaric tools like forced abortions, etc.
- Scarblac 5y agoYeah, if it takes a century then it will be way too late for biodiversity. The man-made great extinction is right now.
- mc32 5y agoIt’s not like we want to be authoritarians and control reproduction directly. We can only incentivize via education, opportunity and availability of contraceptives. India for example offers sterilization for men who want to avoid unintended impregnation of partners. They could even incentivize such a thing.
- tacocataco 5y agoHow can you prevent any incentives becoming economic eugenics?
- Scarblac 5y agoI agree, but then it shouldn't be brought up as something relevant to preventing catastrophic climate change.
- whimsicalism 5y agoHow do we reduce fertility rates? The enemy you are fighting is natural selection, in this case.
- sdenton4 5y agoGive people (especially women) access to both education and reproductive freedom. It works wonders.
- nitrogen 5y agoThere seem to be memetic inoculations (i.e. core beliefs that reproduction at a high rate is desirable) in some groups that prevent those wonders from being worked. You eventually reach a point where all children are born to the uneducated or memetically inoculated, so again natural selection is a problem.