4 ms·

There is plenty of natural selection going on. A large amount of people will not have kids this decade due to anti-natalist propaganda and wars (Chiraq, Ukraine

There is plenty of natural selection going on. A large amount of people will not have kids this decade due to anti-natalist propaganda and wars (Chiraq, Ukraine, Africa, etc.). Each time someone does not have a child, there is a future fractal effect of their decision which does not occur. Namely their kids won't have kids, etc., for all possible future generations. So in essence each couple that has more than two kids on average moving forward through the future has a massive impact on the future population. Also there are huge changes to the global genome composition as a result of mixed race breeding. It was much more rare before 1980. So nobody can claim that peak robustness has been reached unless you can specify some testable metric for it.

avgcorrection 3y ago
What anti-natalist propaganda?
- myle 3y ago
  Do you live in Western society? There is a prevelant point of view that it is wiser to have children later, because otherwise it hurts your career. I am not saying this is wrong. It does, though, decrease the number of kids we have.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    That's not anti-natalism.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      It also doesn't sound like propaganda.
    - Aachen 3y ago
      Agree. Anti birth would be my opinion: ask yourself, would the world be better off with the current amount of people in it or more, or with a small percentage fewer? People around you have kids anyway, that much is evident. So imo it's selfish, wanting entertainment or an excuse to meet other adults and make friends again or receive personal care at old age or whatever it may be. (But I also respect other people's opinions on this, and I don't bring this up with parents/pregnants (already too late anyway), just my own philosophy.) I haven't heard this be an official opinion of any country recently, let alone western society as a whole...
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    And later pregnancy is more risky for both mother and child. To resolve this, socialist policies need to be introduced, decisively anti-capitalist policies that will theoretically harm a country's GDP (because it encourages people to not participate in the labour pool).
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      What socialist (so-called) policies benefit older mothers more than young ones?
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      So I guess none of them.
- Tade0 3y ago
  Example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-... The propaganda part: "By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life." If you look into the source study: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_... Specifically at Figure 6, you'll note that those 58 tonnes refer to the peak of the "carbon legacy curve". As an environmentalist I'm indignant that such an association was ever drawn. For one: who says the next generation will have nearly the same carbon footprint? That's already not the case currently and the trend is clear.
jakeinspace 3y ago
That is stretching the definition of nature to anything outside an individual’s own body.

avgcorrection 3y ago

What anti-natalist propaganda?

myle 3y ago
Do you live in Western society? There is a prevelant point of view that it is wiser to have children later, because otherwise it hurts your career. I am not saying this is wrong. It does, though, decrease the number of kids we have.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  That's not anti-natalism.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    It also doesn't sound like propaganda.
  - Aachen 3y ago
    Agree. Anti birth would be my opinion: ask yourself, would the world be better off with the current amount of people in it or more, or with a small percentage fewer? People around you have kids anyway, that much is evident. So imo it's selfish, wanting entertainment or an excuse to meet other adults and make friends again or receive personal care at old age or whatever it may be. (But I also respect other people's opinions on this, and I don't bring this up with parents/pregnants (already too late anyway), just my own philosophy.) I haven't heard this be an official opinion of any country recently, let alone western society as a whole...
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  And later pregnancy is more risky for both mother and child. To resolve this, socialist policies need to be introduced, decisively anti-capitalist policies that will theoretically harm a country's GDP (because it encourages people to not participate in the labour pool).
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    What socialist (so-called) policies benefit older mothers more than young ones?
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    So I guess none of them.
Tade0 3y ago
Example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-... The propaganda part: "By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life." If you look into the source study: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_... Specifically at Figure 6, you'll note that those 58 tonnes refer to the peak of the "carbon legacy curve". As an environmentalist I'm indignant that such an association was ever drawn. For one: who says the next generation will have nearly the same carbon footprint? That's already not the case currently and the trend is clear.

jakeinspace 3y ago

That is stretching the definition of nature to anything outside an individual’s own body.