2 ms·
This is so profoundly nonsensical I can't even engage with it point by point. > Seen through this lens, pronatalism offers a hollow-ringing promise that simply
by bpodgursky 2y ago
This is so profoundly nonsensical I can't even engage with it point by point.
> Seen through this lens, pronatalism offers a hollow-ringing promise that simply having more people will solve social and economic problems faced by a nation’s current population. But that amounts to borrowing from the future to pay the debts of the past.
not having kids is borrowing from the future to pay for your own wants now.
All of civilization in all of history is a ponzi scheme, where you invest heavily in the next generation to keep it moving forward. That's not a profound takedown it's literally why you have a desk job at a computer instead of digging up potatoes to starve to death in a cave.
- jezzamon 2y agoIt's "Ponzi" if it requires an ever increasing future population. In reality we don't, the population can stabilise at some time in the future, there may be some economic shock along the way, but we'll be fine.
- sokoloff 2y agoI sure hope it stabilizes at some point in the future. The world population has more than doubled during my lifetime, which seems fundamentally unsustainable if everyone is to have even half the resources consumed by the current western lifestyle.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoAs the article covers, we know it’s going to stabilize, most likely before we hit 11 billion.
- altruios 2y agoso you agree with the point then - that: > All of civilization in all of history is a ponzi scheme. But I don't understand how not having kids is borrowing anything from the future. Wouldn't feeding in the ponzi scheme be what borrows from the future?... It seems like you are saying two different things here.