5 ms·

>far fewer people Also bluntly: how would we do that ethically without severely restricting reproductive rights or "cleansing" populations?

titzer 3y ago
What part of birthing billions of children into poverty was ethical again?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That's the problem right there: by asking the question like that you are essentially saying 'children are for the wealthy'. And that's also not how it should be. This is a super hard problem to resolve in a fair way that works in an international setting because you need everybody on board otherwise it will not work. It's the tragedy of the commons endgame.
  - titzer 3y ago
    This is a problem; with the inertia the system is carrying where there are no "ethical" choices left. That's of course no excuse to pick a horribly fascist and evil one. Yet that seems to be the inference in any conversation where you point out that fact that we're basically fucked. "Oh yeah, well obviously you are a genocidal monster. That must mean we're not fucked." Uh, no. I'm watching this garbage truck smash into the wall, same as you. We're all in the same boat.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      I don't care about what people call me, I'm just pointing out there are too many of us. Historically when there were too many people we ended up with wars or famine. I don't think this time around it will be an exception to that rule, but it's the first time this is happening at this scale. In that sense all bets are off, it is also possible that given such stakes humanity can find it in itself to pull the cart as one but I'm not too hopeful about that. We could easily be in 'adapt or die' territory somewhere in the next century.
      - titzer 3y ago
        > I don't care about what people call me I hope it's clear from context that I wasn't directing anything at you; we're basically in complete agreement.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        We're well into 'uncomfortable truth' territory on this subject, so you can expect namecalling and downvoting rather than discussion, nothing surprising but people don't like to hear that their life style isn't sustainable. The majority of people around me would rather invest in holidays and luxury goods than sustainability and aim to increase their footprint rather than that they reduce it. I'm just as guilty because I too live in a wealthy country. And even though I bike when I can and have spent a small fortune on making this house less dependent on outside energy I make myself no illusions: I'm still a net negative on the environment, far in excess of any developing world denizen. All I have to do to have that reinforced is to look at our trash can, food bill and fuel bill for the times when we do drive. Each of those alone is probably well in excess of our 'proper' budget that would be sustainable. And for the life of me without stopping all activity I have no idea how I can further reduce it, this is just the world I happen to live in. I guess I could not have had kids, I guess I could live in a tiny shack. But overall everybody in the developed world will increase the problem by virtue of being alive. That's not good news, but I don't have anything better.
- ahtihn 3y ago
  Struggling for survival is the natural condition of living beings on this planet. What's unethical about birthing children in poverty exactly? Rich people consume orders of magnitude more resources than poor people so if anything it's unethical for rich people to have children.
jacquesm 3y ago
That is a very good question, but it is also the wrong question. The better one would be how are we collectively going to avoid nature doing it for us? Because I don't know what the solution is but I do know that the alternative is going to be no fun at all. One possibility is that we all end up agreeing that we should at least try to reduce our numbers. My parents brought me up with 'replacement' numbers so that we'd end up with a steady population. I'm not so sure if that was wise. And I'm aware that there are many predictions out there that our numbers will eventually top out (they will, either because we do it ourselves, voluntarily or because our resources will run out, an exponentially expanding population in a fixed environment always ends in collapse). But unless we manage to massively reduce our impact on the environment I don't see a way for the increased consumption and eventual survival of our societies as we know them today. In another comment someone offhandedly asked whether we should all want leisure yachts or not. The obvious answer to that is 'no'. But we probably also shouldn't all want vehicles and the ability to transport ourselves to the end of the world on a whim. Hard choices are ahead of us, the time for easy answers is long behind us.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  This has been my "thing" for some time. Now, carrying capacity for Earth is a function, and one of the arguments is lifestyle, but I believe that we are beyond most values of that function for anything beyond "miserable and half-starved." The population will drop. We can do it or Nature will do it for us. Nature will be wanton, cruel, perhaps overshoot. It will be ugly and horrific. We will not be left in great shape. The only fairness it will possess is unpredictable randomness. Or, we can do it. Harsh. Belt-tightening. Unpleasant conversations. Lengthy debates about worth. Whole societies wanting their turn at the trough. Deprivation. Lifeboat politics. The Cold Equations in a hot, hot world.
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    These “unpleasant conversations” have been universally the powerful talking about how to genocide the powerless. Frankly, I’d rather nature do it than follow the population control proposals we’ve seen. Everybody who decides that what they need to do is kill extremely large numbers of other people can just off themselves instead.
callmeal 3y ago
>Also bluntly: how would we do that ethically without severely restricting reproductive rights Exactly. The dismantling of Roe v Wade in the US comes to mind as a form of severely restricting reproductive rights.
nonethewiser 3y ago
We wouldn’t.

titzer 3y ago

What part of birthing billions of children into poverty was ethical again?

jacquesm 3y ago
That's the problem right there: by asking the question like that you are essentially saying 'children are for the wealthy'. And that's also not how it should be. This is a super hard problem to resolve in a fair way that works in an international setting because you need everybody on board otherwise it will not work. It's the tragedy of the commons endgame.
- titzer 3y ago
  This is a problem; with the inertia the system is carrying where there are no "ethical" choices left. That's of course no excuse to pick a horribly fascist and evil one. Yet that seems to be the inference in any conversation where you point out that fact that we're basically fucked. "Oh yeah, well obviously you are a genocidal monster. That must mean we're not fucked." Uh, no. I'm watching this garbage truck smash into the wall, same as you. We're all in the same boat.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I don't care about what people call me, I'm just pointing out there are too many of us. Historically when there were too many people we ended up with wars or famine. I don't think this time around it will be an exception to that rule, but it's the first time this is happening at this scale. In that sense all bets are off, it is also possible that given such stakes humanity can find it in itself to pull the cart as one but I'm not too hopeful about that. We could easily be in 'adapt or die' territory somewhere in the next century.
    - titzer 3y ago
      > I don't care about what people call me I hope it's clear from context that I wasn't directing anything at you; we're basically in complete agreement.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        We're well into 'uncomfortable truth' territory on this subject, so you can expect namecalling and downvoting rather than discussion, nothing surprising but people don't like to hear that their life style isn't sustainable. The majority of people around me would rather invest in holidays and luxury goods than sustainability and aim to increase their footprint rather than that they reduce it. I'm just as guilty because I too live in a wealthy country. And even though I bike when I can and have spent a small fortune on making this house less dependent on outside energy I make myself no illusions: I'm still a net negative on the environment, far in excess of any developing world denizen. All I have to do to have that reinforced is to look at our trash can, food bill and fuel bill for the times when we do drive. Each of those alone is probably well in excess of our 'proper' budget that would be sustainable. And for the life of me without stopping all activity I have no idea how I can further reduce it, this is just the world I happen to live in. I guess I could not have had kids, I guess I could live in a tiny shack. But overall everybody in the developed world will increase the problem by virtue of being alive. That's not good news, but I don't have anything better.
ahtihn 3y ago
Struggling for survival is the natural condition of living beings on this planet. What's unethical about birthing children in poverty exactly? Rich people consume orders of magnitude more resources than poor people so if anything it's unethical for rich people to have children.

jacquesm 3y ago

That is a very good question, but it is also the wrong question. The better one would be how are we collectively going to avoid nature doing it for us? Because I don't know what the solution is but I do know that the alternative is going to be no fun at all. One possibility is that we all end up agreeing that we should at least try to reduce our numbers. My parents brought me up with 'replacement' numbers so that we'd end up with a steady population. I'm not so sure if that was wise. And I'm aware that there are many predictions out there that our numbers will eventually top out (they will, either because we do it ourselves, voluntarily or because our resources will run out, an exponentially expanding population in a fixed environment always ends in collapse). But unless we manage to massively reduce our impact on the environment I don't see a way for the increased consumption and eventual survival of our societies as we know them today. In another comment someone offhandedly asked whether we should all want leisure yachts or not. The obvious answer to that is 'no'. But we probably also shouldn't all want vehicles and the ability to transport ourselves to the end of the world on a whim. Hard choices are ahead of us, the time for easy answers is long behind us.

at_a_remove 3y ago
This has been my "thing" for some time. Now, carrying capacity for Earth is a function, and one of the arguments is lifestyle, but I believe that we are beyond most values of that function for anything beyond "miserable and half-starved." The population will drop. We can do it or Nature will do it for us. Nature will be wanton, cruel, perhaps overshoot. It will be ugly and horrific. We will not be left in great shape. The only fairness it will possess is unpredictable randomness. Or, we can do it. Harsh. Belt-tightening. Unpleasant conversations. Lengthy debates about worth. Whole societies wanting their turn at the trough. Deprivation. Lifeboat politics. The Cold Equations in a hot, hot world.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  These “unpleasant conversations” have been universally the powerful talking about how to genocide the powerless. Frankly, I’d rather nature do it than follow the population control proposals we’ve seen. Everybody who decides that what they need to do is kill extremely large numbers of other people can just off themselves instead.

callmeal 3y ago

>Also bluntly: how would we do that ethically without severely restricting reproductive rights Exactly. The dismantling of Roe v Wade in the US comes to mind as a form of severely restricting reproductive rights.

nonethewiser 3y ago

We wouldn’t.