3 ms·

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 anyon

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

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