5 ms·
> Because the best thing you can do for the world Is to not have any children so the population gets back down to sustainable levels
by 15457345234 3y ago
> Because the best thing you can do for the world
Is to not have any children so the population gets back down to sustainable levels
- Dig1t 3y agoWe could 10x the human population and still be sustainable. Your idea of sustainable is a common misconception.
- Erratic6576 3y agoWhat makes humanity unsustainable is not the amount of human but the unleashed greed of a minority. 100 billion aborigines would pollute less than a handful of western oligarchs
- throwaway6734 3y agomassive population collapse will be disastrous for modern societies. Who will do the work required to care for the elderly population?
- scotty79 3y agoOnly 5% of people work in agriculture and 15% in industry. So we could reduce the workforce by 80% if only people would groom their own dogs themselves and just die when their time comes. And if not healthcare is another 15%. But you probably can shave off a little from all those numbers if you exclude the time devoted to desperately trying to sell things to each other in the economy of abundance.
- temporarara 3y agoI'm all for having as many children as you can raise, and caring about old people, but interpret the following how you wish. It is a highly anomalous thing in the history that ordinary people receive real medical care when they are unable to do basic tasks themselves. You might have some basic care if your children care about you, but that's about it, and that might be our future and there's very little we can do about it except enabling policies that make having children viable option for those who want to have children.
- Izikiel43 3y agoThe population is at sustainable level, you only need more nuclear power plants
- vacuity 3y agoCan nuclear power plants make livestock less energy intensive to raise?
- makeitshine 3y agoMaybe, but our lifestyles are not sustainable.
- maxrecursion 3y agoWestern societies are already down to around replacement levels with some going below it. It's pretty clear cut as societies evolve that population growth evens out. It's 3rd world countries driving the population growth. Over-population of humans being a danger to the earth has been proven false time and time again.
- vacuity 3y agoOverpopulation needs to be qualified with the context of the living standards. Ten billion vegetarians is probably feasible, but ten billion Americans (we don't currently have as many at such a standard) is a different story.
- vladgur 3y agoYou need to watch Idiocracy https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ When some people stop procreating and educating the next generation, the world population does not simply go down. Instead it gets replaced by those who do continue multiplying.
- fingerlocks 3y agoThat was a fictional comedy, not a documentary. That’s not how evolution works
- rpmisms 3y agoPlease explain how, because if stupid people have more kids, there will be more stupid people.
- 15457345234 3y agoThe heritability of intelligence and other factors is highly variable. You want people who will care diligently for their children to have them. Not people who will be largely indifferent to them, whether they're smart or dumb. The Musk 'I'll have ten and scatter them to the wind with bags of money, the odds will take care of the rest' strategy is not really one that works out well in real life.
- rpmisms 3y agoI'm the oldest of 11 kids, and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this. I agree with your second statement, which is why conscientious people should have kids.
- 15457345234 3y agoI have very little of substance to add beyond 'you should really think about it, and do it for your own reasons alone.' Kids aren't something you owe the world, and Idiocracy is just a movie.