4 ms·

Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Any more and you have to worry about overp

Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Any more and you have to worry about overpopulation. That said, I'm of the opinion that we'll never really need to have any tough conversations about birth rates because they've fallen so drastically across the board. It seems that it will be enough to universally encourage higher birth rates in every nation for the foreseeable future (with the expected outcome being that most will still struggle to hit 2.1).

lotsofpulp 4y ago
I think there will be some interesting conversations, namely around women’s civil rights. Incentivizing a woman to have a baby is extremely expensive, and I do not think any country has come up with an offer so attractive such that it causes birth rates to go up. Which brings up 2 questions: how much does a society have to offer women, and would that society continue to be competitive on a global playing field relative to other countries that might go a different way, such as restricting women’s rights and getting birth rates up by removing women’s agency.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  > getting birth rates up by removing women’s agency. The USA just did this.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    It definitely changed women’s agency. We are becoming more like the European Union in that sense.
blep_ 4y ago
> Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Only if you're the sort of person who cares about such things. I don't see any moral imperative to make sure any particular ethnicity or culture continues. Before someone calls me the usual assortment of bad things, please take a moment to consider (1) the difference between treating existing people well and making new people, and (2) that I mean this literally and not in the "all the cultures besides the US should go away" sense, and would still take this position even in the blatantly racist "but that means you'd be a minority" situation you're about to try to catch me with.
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  Why is it racist to care if you're a minority? Current minorities care about it a quite a lot. Not only that -- they see a moral imperative that their particular ethnicities and culture exist. Are some groups "allowed" this, and not others? Of course the term minority/majority is relative to the scope you're talking about, too. The "majority" of Americans are global minorities.
  - Elinvynia 4y ago
    So if I understand correctly, you are afraid of becoming a minority because you don't want to be treated like the current minorities? Mask off moment there.
    - llanowarelves 4y ago
      No. You just dislike reciprocity
  - blep_ 4y ago
    (2) was intended to proactively dismiss one specific attempted "gotcha" that I hear often in response to this view: people think I'm saying that it's okay for minority cultures specifically to die out, and that I would feel differently if it was American culture being overtaken as a result of high birth rates in some other country and low birth rates in the US. This is not what I am saying. I don't think American culture is special. > Are some groups "allowed" this, and not others? So no, my position is that no groups are "allowed" this. Another way I can express this, that may be more clear, is that a culture isn't a thing on its own. It's a description of the way its members live. Those members may be very attached to that way of life, and it is immoral to take it from them (see (1) above), but the question of whether new people start living in that way is morally neutral.
sokoloff 4y ago
Who’s to say that the current world population is “best”? Maybe we’d be happier in aggregate if it shrank to a stable 5 billion people. Or maybe if it grew to 9 billion. The global optimum matters (IMO) more than an assumption of “whatever we have is just right”

lotsofpulp 4y ago

I think there will be some interesting conversations, namely around women’s civil rights. Incentivizing a woman to have a baby is extremely expensive, and I do not think any country has come up with an offer so attractive such that it causes birth rates to go up. Which brings up 2 questions: how much does a society have to offer women, and would that society continue to be competitive on a global playing field relative to other countries that might go a different way, such as restricting women’s rights and getting birth rates up by removing women’s agency.

hgsgm 4y ago
> getting birth rates up by removing women’s agency. The USA just did this.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  It definitely changed women’s agency. We are becoming more like the European Union in that sense.

blep_ 4y ago

> Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Only if you're the sort of person who cares about such things. I don't see any moral imperative to make sure any particular ethnicity or culture continues. Before someone calls me the usual assortment of bad things, please take a moment to consider (1) the difference between treating existing people well and making new people, and (2) that I mean this literally and not in the "all the cultures besides the US should go away" sense, and would still take this position even in the blatantly racist "but that means you'd be a minority" situation you're about to try to catch me with.

llanowarelves 4y ago
Why is it racist to care if you're a minority? Current minorities care about it a quite a lot. Not only that -- they see a moral imperative that their particular ethnicities and culture exist. Are some groups "allowed" this, and not others? Of course the term minority/majority is relative to the scope you're talking about, too. The "majority" of Americans are global minorities.
- Elinvynia 4y ago
  So if I understand correctly, you are afraid of becoming a minority because you don't want to be treated like the current minorities? Mask off moment there.
  - llanowarelves 4y ago
    No. You just dislike reciprocity
- blep_ 4y ago
  (2) was intended to proactively dismiss one specific attempted "gotcha" that I hear often in response to this view: people think I'm saying that it's okay for minority cultures specifically to die out, and that I would feel differently if it was American culture being overtaken as a result of high birth rates in some other country and low birth rates in the US. This is not what I am saying. I don't think American culture is special. > Are some groups "allowed" this, and not others? So no, my position is that no groups are "allowed" this. Another way I can express this, that may be more clear, is that a culture isn't a thing on its own. It's a description of the way its members live. Those members may be very attached to that way of life, and it is immoral to take it from them (see (1) above), but the question of whether new people start living in that way is morally neutral.

sokoloff 4y ago

Who’s to say that the current world population is “best”? Maybe we’d be happier in aggregate if it shrank to a stable 5 billion people. Or maybe if it grew to 9 billion. The global optimum matters (IMO) more than an assumption of “whatever we have is just right”