3 ms·
IMVHO: - any territory should allow at maximum the quantity of people the territory can properly nourish; - we (humans) need a relatively young population bec
by kkfx 5y ago
IMVHO:
- any territory should allow at maximum the quantity of people the territory can properly nourish;
- we (humans) need a relatively young population because any country full of elderly is a dead one, so a certain "slow balance" is needed.
That's means, for instance, if today a territory can nourish enough from local *developed* resources 40% of it's resident that territory must spark a debate for crafting a process to push enough people to leave, no strong imposition, no force but a development that slowly realize the goal because so far commerce can provide food so there is no emergency and so nothing that demand emergency measures.
Similarly at population level: we are too much for our territory? Ok, so population need to reduce but of course just making less babies is not a solution because makes the population elder and prone to kill it in the mean/long run, again so far we still eat and live in general, so no emergency, we just need to incentive a single baby per family, if it's interesting to have a baby but not more than one we can probably control the demography. Again no obligation, no disincentives.
Such decisions must be done by public process with Democratic means, of course.
Long story short: acting quickly is a thing most understand, can agree or disagree but understand. Acting slowly looking at the long run is a complex thing most fail both to understand and see. We must improve in that area then...
- thfuran 5y ago>- any territory should allow at maximum the quantity of people the territory can properly nourish; So kick everyone out of cities?
- tsol 5y agoAnd force birth control to keep numbers from rising too quick?
- kkfx 5y agoNo need to force, just "if you make one child you'll get some not small benefits, however those benefits are only for the first child, for eventual subsequent ones it's all at your charge and it's expensive". Not extreme enough to force, but strong enough to makes people doing some math.
- kkfx 5y agoIMVHO sooner or later cities will switch from being "the richest part of the nation" to "internment camps/factories for modern slaves" where people living in live in a hierarchy capsule-hotel and Chinese level surveillance style just to work, while wealthy will be outside in modern homes benefiting from cities slave's work. In mere territorial terms though I'm talking about a not that small administrative subdivision of a country, like a region/department and the design in terms of mere territory-wide planning like "here we will not allow new constructions anymore and we skyrocket some costs to push some out, there we allow new residential constructions, and there new factories/farms". Something similar essentially already exists in all the developed world, only it's mostly tailored to satisfy some wealthy and political interests more than really wight territorial resources.