33 ms·
Remember Japan. People just don’t need each other anymore. They are good alone - in gaming, leisure or travelling. More and more businesses are switching to sin
by nokeya 3y ago
Remember Japan. People just don’t need each other anymore. They are good alone - in gaming, leisure or travelling. More and more businesses are switching to single-oriented service.
- Dalewyn 3y agoHard agree, I have no intentions of marrying let alone having children. I'm perfectly happy living my life going my way and my way alone as I see fit. Most human relations are straight bullshit and just aren't worth my time and energy in an age when there's so much to do, so much to see, and so little time. The people moaning about marriage and birth rates can go pound sand.
- politician 3y agoI respect your individual right to this attitude, but consider that the wonders you enjoy today are sustained by a population of a particular size. As populations contract, the number of places that support the activities and adventures you want to have will necessarily contract as well. Imagine a campfire, throughout the night you'll have to move the dwindling coals closer together if you can't add more wood. So, on an individual basis, this "alone and my way" approach is valid, but if adopted at scale it begins to look parasitic.
- knightofmars 3y agoThe opposite side, consider the fact that overpopulation leads to the inability to access the activities and adventures a person may want to enjoy. Imagine a campfire, throughout the night you'll have to move the dwindling coals closer together because the forest has been stripped clear and there's no more wood to add. In this world, the parasitic nature of individuals on the environment robs it of its bounty.
- politician 3y agoIn the original, the analogy was that the fire and wood represented the economic capacity of humanity and the population, respectively. Your rebuttal doesn’t make sense.
- Manuel_D 3y agoA dwindling population also has lesser impact on the environment. Ironically, with your example a smaller population would also mean you have fewer people to compete with in finding a camp site and gathering firewood. In terms of long-term health of humanity on Earth a shrinking population is not necessarily a bad thing.
- politician 3y agoI don’t think you understood the analogy either, but I’ll try to address your point. Yes, fewer people means less human-generated impact on the environment. It follows that zero people minimizes the impact of humans on the environment. I don’t think that’s the direction you have in mind, or at least I hope not. Let’s assume that you want a balance between the number of people on the planet and the carrying capacity of the planet, inclusive of all of the negative externalities caused by humans. Moreover, you probably want to build in some buffer so that people with disabilities or with varying lifestyles and ideologies that lead them to not reproduce can still exist in this world without causing populations to collapse utterly. So what percent does that look like to you? Do the people of this world, intent on maintaining your ideal equilibrium, have compassion for 5% of their fellows who can’t or won’t reproduce? 20%? 99%? And why not one more? What is the proper ratio between the members of society responsible for supporting the ongoing existence of the species and those who do not shoulder that responsibility? Does that help you understand why I said that there is some threshold beyond which it seems parasitic to only take the benefits of a healthy population?
- Manuel_D 3y agoI'm not asserting that there's any correct number of children people shoot have - quite the opposite I'm respecting the choices people are currently making. I don't see any issue with that choice, I'd be indifferent if the population were expanding. I can turn and flip this same question on its head. Why not 95% or 90% as much as whatever you think is the stable population mark. Why not 50% or 20%? This is not eugenics, this is people voluntarily choosing not to have kids. On what grounds are we justified in asserting that the "correct' number of children is higher than what people are choosing?
- Dalewyn 3y agoThe fact you are trying to guilt trip me, in spite of supposed respect for differing opinions, demonstrates my point that most human relations are bullshit. I've got better things to do and see with my limited time than deal with that, let alone on a permanent basis like in a marriage.
- politician 3y agoWhatever you do as an individual is none of my business. As to human relations, this is a public forum where messages are published publicly for everyone to read. My response to your post was not a reply to you, it was an opportunity to examine the impacts of the ideology you proclaim at scale. You feeling bad because it was observed that this ideology has extremely negative consequences at scale is not a guilt trip. Do whatever you want.
- lolsal 3y agoAs food for thought: relationships are often greater than the sum of their parts. My tribe/community/circle enriches my life well beyond the experiences I could have by myself.
- 9530jh9054ven 3y agoBut there in lies the condition. You need to have a tribe/community/circle to take you in. There's going to be people for whom no community will accept them.
- dahwolf 3y agoApple delayed our societies' faith by not allowing NSFW content on the VisionPro.