4 ms·

i guess its brave new world time, we should just make incubators and control the fetus oxygen according to the iq needs

by throwaway5371 5y ago

hunglee2 5y ago
yes! we need to embrace this, probably only way to keep population numbers stable
- snarf21 5y ago
  Serious question: Why do we need population numbers to be stable? Declining doesn't mean extinction. 8 billion people are doing a lot of damage to this planet that wasn't being done when we had 1 billion. A lot of people have publicly said they won't bring a child in a world that is dying.
  - hunglee2 5y ago
    extinction is indeed the risk. Population collapse is slow decline, steep fall, then exponential decrease. Agree with you on danger to the carrying capacity of the earth, but moderating population size seems instead to set an irreversible trend
    - FpUser 5y ago
      There is no proof it is irreversible as we have ever better means of control.
    - FerociousTimes 5y ago
      > Population collapse is slow decline, steep fall, then exponential decrease. You make it sound like this progression is inevitable like every slow decline is followed by a steep fall and then finally exponential bust which seems not very convincing.
  - fundad 5y ago
    Funny thing is impacts of austerity often constrains economic growth. People have their reasons for or against economic growth so it’s not an unadorned good. Someone like me with retirement savings wants economic growth so I support pro-natal and pro- immigration policy.
  - BlargMcLarg 5y ago
    Less births -> less potential workers -> less workers -> less growth. Less growth is the one thing that sets almost every government off, be it micro- or macroeconomic. It also creates friction politically, as the burden on the working populace increases due to a shift in working/non-working and almost no one wants to change for the worse. See the young vs the elderly and retirement ages, where the elderly will often vote for the young to carry the burden, and vice versa. Long story short, it creates a situation where things have to change fundamentally or someone has to bite through the sour apple. Governments don't want to do either of these things.
    - beepbooptheory 5y ago
      This, then, just sounds to me like a great thing: to put pressure on changing things dramatically, through ultimately an existential crisis. What, really, is humanity doing? What is the point? The idea that our existence itself is ultimately grounded in economic growth feels pretty thin; I imagine it is to even the staunchest capitalists on any reflection. There to me, is something ultimately embarrassing about this "problem". Its kinda like we invested a lot of time and resources to throw a party, and when only a few people show up, we start to diagnose what's wrong with those people that didn't come, and never once consider that it was a shitty party.
- FpUser 5y ago
  The comment above was most likely sarcasm. Are you serious?

i guess its brave new world time, we should just make incubators and control the fetus oxygen according to the iq needs

hunglee2 5y ago

yes! we need to embrace this, probably only way to keep population numbers stable

snarf21 5y ago
Serious question: Why do we need population numbers to be stable? Declining doesn't mean extinction. 8 billion people are doing a lot of damage to this planet that wasn't being done when we had 1 billion. A lot of people have publicly said they won't bring a child in a world that is dying.
- hunglee2 5y ago
  extinction is indeed the risk. Population collapse is slow decline, steep fall, then exponential decrease. Agree with you on danger to the carrying capacity of the earth, but moderating population size seems instead to set an irreversible trend
  - FpUser 5y ago
    There is no proof it is irreversible as we have ever better means of control.
  - FerociousTimes 5y ago
    > Population collapse is slow decline, steep fall, then exponential decrease. You make it sound like this progression is inevitable like every slow decline is followed by a steep fall and then finally exponential bust which seems not very convincing.
- fundad 5y ago
  Funny thing is impacts of austerity often constrains economic growth. People have their reasons for or against economic growth so it’s not an unadorned good. Someone like me with retirement savings wants economic growth so I support pro-natal and pro- immigration policy.
- BlargMcLarg 5y ago
  Less births -> less potential workers -> less workers -> less growth. Less growth is the one thing that sets almost every government off, be it micro- or macroeconomic. It also creates friction politically, as the burden on the working populace increases due to a shift in working/non-working and almost no one wants to change for the worse. See the young vs the elderly and retirement ages, where the elderly will often vote for the young to carry the burden, and vice versa. Long story short, it creates a situation where things have to change fundamentally or someone has to bite through the sour apple. Governments don't want to do either of these things.
  - beepbooptheory 5y ago
    This, then, just sounds to me like a great thing: to put pressure on changing things dramatically, through ultimately an existential crisis. What, really, is humanity doing? What is the point? The idea that our existence itself is ultimately grounded in economic growth feels pretty thin; I imagine it is to even the staunchest capitalists on any reflection. There to me, is something ultimately embarrassing about this "problem". Its kinda like we invested a lot of time and resources to throw a party, and when only a few people show up, we start to diagnose what's wrong with those people that didn't come, and never once consider that it was a shitty party.
FpUser 5y ago
The comment above was most likely sarcasm. Are you serious?