4 ms·

Who gets to decide who can reproduce and who cant?

arbitrary_name 3y ago
No one has to decide. It's as simple as not actively encouraging unsustainable growth and letting people choose. No one is advocating forcing anything on anyone.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  I think only a very small number of people are encouraging unsustainable growth and I doubt many people are having kids because of it. The earths population is growing because people, particularly people in the 3rd world have a good amount of kids. Respectfully, I think you are over complicating the situation. People in many parts of the world, simply enjoy sex and having kids. Not due to lack of birth control, simply due to the desire to have children. Its that simple. Its only when you make it to the first world with our stresses and self induced neurosis does the fertility rate fall. Humans are part of nature and one of our instincts is to reproduce.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Of the 190+ countries across the globe it appears that the Central African Republic is the only (at the very least one of the few) country that does not have a fertility rate (in births per woman) that is not trending down: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_rec... Declining fertility rates is not confined to first world countries.
- usrusr 3y ago
  Unfortunately, this is not the end game yet. The end game is "breeder tribe" subcultures who raise their children to reject the idea that that two or three children might be enough. Those subcultures will be immune to change as long as there is still enough "them" around for "us vs them" to keep "we're the ones with the children" a core of their identity. I write "subculture", because they exist in many different cultures. Perhaps literally everywhere where voluntary low birth rate happens at all. (I don't know of a breeder subculture in Japan, but I'd be surprised if it did not exist. We certainly do have them here in Germany, and they scare the shit out of regular people in the rural regions they colonize, with their "everything Nazi except the Hakenkreuz") Back to end game: the current set of what people consider human rights ("have children and raise them however you like") seems to make it inevitable that those subcultures thrive until they aren't sub anymore. Participate in the breeding race or you're out. It's almost as if back when they declared human rights they accidentally enshrined the very foundation of Nazi ideology when they tried to keep that from happening ever again. But then on the other hand, the actual text of the declaration makes very little mention of procreation. All those who cry "but human rights!" whenever the topic comes up seem to base their argument on (or be mislead by, I guess most seem to assume that it's a straight forward article resembling "go forth and multiply", I know I did before looking it up). I'd love to see some discussion of de-sanctifying the presumed right to "sire and ideologize an army" (I wish I was exaggerating..) before things get so ugly that the discussion will include radical swings of the pendulum to the other side. Perhaps a viable diplomatic approach could be more explicit protection for the first two children, and in exchange less article 26.3 beyond that threshold? We certainly should not try to actively solve breeder subcultures, but we should give them less to hide behind.
  - savingsPossible 3y ago
    You give me hope! Hopefully those breeder subcultures will inherit the earth. Hopefully not nazis though. Care to start a non-nazi breeder subculture?
    - usrusr 3y ago
      Sorry, they are all Nazi even if they don't know it yet. Put two breeder subcultures in the same room and it's about Lebensraum in no time. PS: and that's not a coincidence. Any would be breeder subculture that does not sufficiently discourage outside marriage would see too many of its children defecting to the general population. They'd be out-bred by breeder subcultures that do. Seen across a several generations time window, it's a "survival of the close-mindedests" situation.
      - savingsPossible 3y ago
        idk about that... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish this is one of the fastest growing populations in the US, and they are notoriously pacifistic, to the point of forbidding mustaches because they are associated with the military > During the French and Indian War, the Hochstetler Massacre occurred: Local tribes attacked the Jacob Hochstetler homestead in the Northkill settlement on September 19, 1757. The sons of the family took their weapons but father Jacob did not allow them to shoot due to the Anabaptist doctrine of nonresistance.[10] Jacob Sr.'s wife, Anna (Lorentz) Hochstetler, a daughter (name unknown) and Jacob Jr. were killed by the Native Americans. Jacob Sr. and sons Joseph and Christian were taken captive. Jacob escaped after about eight months, but the boys were held for several years.[150] When freed, both of these sons joined the church and one of them became a minister
chaostheory 3y ago
The choice has already been made long ago. The more industrialized the country, the less fertile males of that country become. Only small parts of Africa have been immune to this phenomenon. I believe we started seeing it in action starting in the 1950s https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231013/Experts-call-for-action-as-male-infertility-increases-worldwide.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231013/Experts-call-for-...
xipho 3y ago
Our climate and ecosystems. See any introductory 101 ecology class where you learn all about the trivial ways populations can grow, fluctuate and crash. Disease, access to "energy", reproductive strategy and potential, population demographics, ecosystem stability, all existed with out humans around. Perhaps the big reason to have fewer humans around is that we inject "chaos" into many of these well understood dynamics, creating instability in them, which does, and will, continue to produce a lot of suffering. Assuming humans (animals) are somehow immune to what the rest of life on this world has to deal with (we can invent our away around these problems) is akin to believing in gods, and perhaps that might not end well.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  Will "Our climate and ecosystems" have human representatives who relay these decisions and enforce them? "akin to believing in gods, and perhaps that might not end well" Mankind has believed in gods since essentially the beginning, hundreds of thousands of years and during that time has risen to become the dominant species on the planet. During this rise, human quality of life, and life expectation have continues to improve reaching its current high point. Anyone telling you different is a victim of political propaganda. There are always hot spots on the earth but overall we are doing great. Note: There have been a couple of empires that were openly athiestic, the USSR and Communist China. How did that work out for its peoples?
  - xipho 3y ago
    > Will "Our climate and ecosystems" have human representatives who relay these decisions and enforce them? You mean things like earthquake detectors, disease monitoring, our weather services, climate predictions, air-quality testing, lead in your water testing? Then yes. > has risen to become the dominant species How do you define "dominant"? Homo sapiens is not not dominant in many ways: 1) in numbers; 2) in evolutionary lifespan (not even remotely closer there); 3) in genetic diversity; 4) our ability to independently produce our own food (photosynthesis, fungal detrivores), 5) lifespan; 6) ability to communicate via chemicals; 7) etc. etc. Perhaps you mean "in our ability to destroy"? > this rise, human quality of life, and life expectation have continues to improve reaching its current high point I say this to every single evangelical who comes to my door and says "You have to admit things are getting worse." Acknowledging that we are better off than ever (I'd literally be dead multiple times over if not for modern science) doesn't have to be logically inconsistent with "we're going to hit a limit with how much better we can be if we don't stop messing up our ecosystems, in fact I suspect that the places that are "the best" have their hands in both pies. I'm not going to disparage human religion, but when push comes to shove I'm going to look to science, technology and a better understanding of our world as a whole, particular how evolution led to species interacting with one another as the route to maximize our "greatness".

No one has to decide. It's as simple as not actively encouraging unsustainable growth and letting people choose. No one is advocating forcing anything on anyone.

wonderwonder 3y ago
I think only a very small number of people are encouraging unsustainable growth and I doubt many people are having kids because of it. The earths population is growing because people, particularly people in the 3rd world have a good amount of kids. Respectfully, I think you are over complicating the situation. People in many parts of the world, simply enjoy sex and having kids. Not due to lack of birth control, simply due to the desire to have children. Its that simple. Its only when you make it to the first world with our stresses and self induced neurosis does the fertility rate fall. Humans are part of nature and one of our instincts is to reproduce.
- defrost 3y ago
  Of the 190+ countries across the globe it appears that the Central African Republic is the only (at the very least one of the few) country that does not have a fertility rate (in births per woman) that is not trending down: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_rec... Declining fertility rates is not confined to first world countries.
usrusr 3y ago
Unfortunately, this is not the end game yet. The end game is "breeder tribe" subcultures who raise their children to reject the idea that that two or three children might be enough. Those subcultures will be immune to change as long as there is still enough "them" around for "us vs them" to keep "we're the ones with the children" a core of their identity. I write "subculture", because they exist in many different cultures. Perhaps literally everywhere where voluntary low birth rate happens at all. (I don't know of a breeder subculture in Japan, but I'd be surprised if it did not exist. We certainly do have them here in Germany, and they scare the shit out of regular people in the rural regions they colonize, with their "everything Nazi except the Hakenkreuz") Back to end game: the current set of what people consider human rights ("have children and raise them however you like") seems to make it inevitable that those subcultures thrive until they aren't sub anymore. Participate in the breeding race or you're out. It's almost as if back when they declared human rights they accidentally enshrined the very foundation of Nazi ideology when they tried to keep that from happening ever again. But then on the other hand, the actual text of the declaration makes very little mention of procreation. All those who cry "but human rights!" whenever the topic comes up seem to base their argument on (or be mislead by, I guess most seem to assume that it's a straight forward article resembling "go forth and multiply", I know I did before looking it up). I'd love to see some discussion of de-sanctifying the presumed right to "sire and ideologize an army" (I wish I was exaggerating..) before things get so ugly that the discussion will include radical swings of the pendulum to the other side. Perhaps a viable diplomatic approach could be more explicit protection for the first two children, and in exchange less article 26.3 beyond that threshold? We certainly should not try to actively solve breeder subcultures, but we should give them less to hide behind.
- savingsPossible 3y ago
  You give me hope! Hopefully those breeder subcultures will inherit the earth. Hopefully not nazis though. Care to start a non-nazi breeder subculture?
  - usrusr 3y ago
    Sorry, they are all Nazi even if they don't know it yet. Put two breeder subcultures in the same room and it's about Lebensraum in no time. PS: and that's not a coincidence. Any would be breeder subculture that does not sufficiently discourage outside marriage would see too many of its children defecting to the general population. They'd be out-bred by breeder subcultures that do. Seen across a several generations time window, it's a "survival of the close-mindedests" situation.
    - savingsPossible 3y ago
      idk about that... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish this is one of the fastest growing populations in the US, and they are notoriously pacifistic, to the point of forbidding mustaches because they are associated with the military > During the French and Indian War, the Hochstetler Massacre occurred: Local tribes attacked the Jacob Hochstetler homestead in the Northkill settlement on September 19, 1757. The sons of the family took their weapons but father Jacob did not allow them to shoot due to the Anabaptist doctrine of nonresistance.[10] Jacob Sr.'s wife, Anna (Lorentz) Hochstetler, a daughter (name unknown) and Jacob Jr. were killed by the Native Americans. Jacob Sr. and sons Joseph and Christian were taken captive. Jacob escaped after about eight months, but the boys were held for several years.[150] When freed, both of these sons joined the church and one of them became a minister

chaostheory 3y ago

The choice has already been made long ago. The more industrialized the country, the less fertile males of that country become. Only small parts of Africa have been immune to this phenomenon. I believe we started seeing it in action starting in the 1950s https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231013/Experts-call-for-action-as-male-infertility-increases-worldwide.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231013/Experts-call-for-...

xipho 3y ago

Our climate and ecosystems. See any introductory 101 ecology class where you learn all about the trivial ways populations can grow, fluctuate and crash. Disease, access to "energy", reproductive strategy and potential, population demographics, ecosystem stability, all existed with out humans around. Perhaps the big reason to have fewer humans around is that we inject "chaos" into many of these well understood dynamics, creating instability in them, which does, and will, continue to produce a lot of suffering. Assuming humans (animals) are somehow immune to what the rest of life on this world has to deal with (we can invent our away around these problems) is akin to believing in gods, and perhaps that might not end well.

wonderwonder 3y ago
Will "Our climate and ecosystems" have human representatives who relay these decisions and enforce them? "akin to believing in gods, and perhaps that might not end well" Mankind has believed in gods since essentially the beginning, hundreds of thousands of years and during that time has risen to become the dominant species on the planet. During this rise, human quality of life, and life expectation have continues to improve reaching its current high point. Anyone telling you different is a victim of political propaganda. There are always hot spots on the earth but overall we are doing great. Note: There have been a couple of empires that were openly athiestic, the USSR and Communist China. How did that work out for its peoples?
- xipho 3y ago
  > Will "Our climate and ecosystems" have human representatives who relay these decisions and enforce them? You mean things like earthquake detectors, disease monitoring, our weather services, climate predictions, air-quality testing, lead in your water testing? Then yes. > has risen to become the dominant species How do you define "dominant"? Homo sapiens is not not dominant in many ways: 1) in numbers; 2) in evolutionary lifespan (not even remotely closer there); 3) in genetic diversity; 4) our ability to independently produce our own food (photosynthesis, fungal detrivores), 5) lifespan; 6) ability to communicate via chemicals; 7) etc. etc. Perhaps you mean "in our ability to destroy"? > this rise, human quality of life, and life expectation have continues to improve reaching its current high point I say this to every single evangelical who comes to my door and says "You have to admit things are getting worse." Acknowledging that we are better off than ever (I'd literally be dead multiple times over if not for modern science) doesn't have to be logically inconsistent with "we're going to hit a limit with how much better we can be if we don't stop messing up our ecosystems, in fact I suspect that the places that are "the best" have their hands in both pies. I'm not going to disparage human religion, but when push comes to shove I'm going to look to science, technology and a better understanding of our world as a whole, particular how evolution led to species interacting with one another as the route to maximize our "greatness".