3 ms·

There are no nations that currently have a both modern living and population growth, i think there are definitely some fundamental failures to make having child

There are no nations that currently have a both modern living and population growth, i think there are definitely some fundamental failures to make having children an attractive option in many countries like the US, but even countries that give a billion hours parental leave, tax breaks, etc. have declining populations. your solution requires a dismantling of the entire global system of governments and economies and the implementation of something new and poorly tested. which may be in our future regardless, and may be necessary at some point. but massive change on that scale only happens in response to horrifying levels of war or unpredictable changes in technology(changes on the scale of a power positive fusion revolution). You either dont want or cannot force those things. the immigration solution is a stop-gap and still a big change for most, but one that buys nations 40+ years and is no harder than simply opening the door that millions are banging on right now, and billions will be banging on as climate disaster grows.

analognoise 3y ago
“your solution requires a dismantling of the entire global system of governments and economies and the implementation of something new and poorly tested.“ So the system we currently have, which we already agree is failing people here, but we’re worried changing the system is bad? Why take 40 more years if it’s already failing? Letting millions of people in is NOT GOOD for the people already here. I say we just don’t do that. The only people benefitting are part of a global capital class and not regular workers. We were sold that it would bring worldwide peace and better living conditions. It was a lie and we know it - why continue?
shiroiuma 3y ago
Personally, I think the real solution, the ultimate solution, was detailed in the 1930s book "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley: reproduction and child-rearing needs to be outsourced to the government. It's the only way for the math to work. People just don't want to have 6 kids any more, and I don't think that's going to change. (And yes, people have to have 6 kids for population growth to work, because there's always going to be people who have 1 or none, so you need plenty of high-fertility couples to make up for them. People haven't stopped having kids these days, they've just stopped having so many.)

analognoise 3y ago

“your solution requires a dismantling of the entire global system of governments and economies and the implementation of something new and poorly tested.“ So the system we currently have, which we already agree is failing people here, but we’re worried changing the system is bad? Why take 40 more years if it’s already failing? Letting millions of people in is NOT GOOD for the people already here. I say we just don’t do that. The only people benefitting are part of a global capital class and not regular workers. We were sold that it would bring worldwide peace and better living conditions. It was a lie and we know it - why continue?

shiroiuma 3y ago

Personally, I think the real solution, the ultimate solution, was detailed in the 1930s book "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley: reproduction and child-rearing needs to be outsourced to the government. It's the only way for the math to work. People just don't want to have 6 kids any more, and I don't think that's going to change. (And yes, people have to have 6 kids for population growth to work, because there's always going to be people who have 1 or none, so you need plenty of high-fertility couples to make up for them. People haven't stopped having kids these days, they've just stopped having so many.)