3 ms·

If by "we" you mean "the first world as it devolves into wealth inequality", sure, but it's clear there's nearly 8 billion people, so a 2.4 fertility rate not p

by nawgz 5y ago

If by "we" you mean "the first world as it devolves into wealth inequality", sure, but it's clear there's nearly 8 billion people, so a 2.4 fertility rate not projected to turn til the end of the century probably still leaves us with 9 billion people by 2070 don't you think? And indeed, it is a massive problem that we face, but do you truly think proposing regulation-free unhampered-by-policy capital-c Capitalism - in an era we are watching abuse against employees rise while wages drop - is the answer? I find that laughably propagandist.

dgfitz 5y ago
Imposing population limits in the developed world won’t change anything other than make population decrease problems occur faster. If this rate of birth decline continues, we’ll have a super healthy green planet, and no humans to inhabit it. This isn’t an argument against solar technologies et. al. It’s just the next problem that we don’t have an Al Gore for trumpeting it as an issue before it was widely known.
- nawgz 5y ago
  > Imposing population limits in the developed world It is hard to read this and mention of "Al Gore" as anything other than arguing in bad faith. No one would propose to introduce population control in a place where that is not a problem. Instead, reasonable actors would propose that we work to dismantle the global inequality that incentivizes impoverished families in the exploited third-world to birth many children by reigning in the ability for corporations to act as slavers in the third world and simultaneously pretend to be beacons of progress in the first. Wealth inequality, or maybe more precisely poverty, is a top driver of population growth, as children are cheaper to acquire than labor so those who need currency desperately are incentivized to birth children (and into horrendous conditions at that). Reforming the nature of globalist capitalism would surely both help to curb population growth in these places as they became less impoverished and greatly improve our ethics.

by nawgz 5y ago

dgfitz 5y ago

Imposing population limits in the developed world won’t change anything other than make population decrease problems occur faster. If this rate of birth decline continues, we’ll have a super healthy green planet, and no humans to inhabit it. This isn’t an argument against solar technologies et. al. It’s just the next problem that we don’t have an Al Gore for trumpeting it as an issue before it was widely known.

nawgz 5y ago
> Imposing population limits in the developed world It is hard to read this and mention of "Al Gore" as anything other than arguing in bad faith. No one would propose to introduce population control in a place where that is not a problem. Instead, reasonable actors would propose that we work to dismantle the global inequality that incentivizes impoverished families in the exploited third-world to birth many children by reigning in the ability for corporations to act as slavers in the third world and simultaneously pretend to be beacons of progress in the first. Wealth inequality, or maybe more precisely poverty, is a top driver of population growth, as children are cheaper to acquire than labor so those who need currency desperately are incentivized to birth children (and into horrendous conditions at that). Reforming the nature of globalist capitalism would surely both help to curb population growth in these places as they became less impoverished and greatly improve our ethics.