3 ms·

This seems to all be presupposed on the idea that the population growing is a positive thing is a universally accepted truth. I don't think that is a de facto t

This seems to all be presupposed on the idea that the population growing is a positive thing is a universally accepted truth. I don't think that is a de facto true statement. I wrote a lot arguing this point, got towards the end of your comment, and realized that most of it is nothing that will change your mind, so instead I'll focus on why I deleted it all: > Saving the lives of geriatric people, who will die someday anyway, having made no more children than before they got cancer? Willfully blind. I originally wrote about how cancer impacts more than just geriatric people, and how even from your perspective, around 1800 children die from cancer every year - people who will, in theory, even at sub-replacement levels, produce more kids than an individual making their 2.1 children. But I realized that this one line shows that we fundamentally have different viewpoints about the purpose of life. If life isn't good, what is the point of having kids? Back when I still wanted children, I had decided not to have them because of concerns about climate change. I believe that it is at the very least human-accelerated, and most likely primarily caused by us as well, but even if not, we have clear trends and data showing that there is a very real risk that huge portions of humanity will have their lives significantly disrupted by it in my lifetime, much less that of my children. I don't want to force someone to have to live through that. But if the prevailing opinion of people in the world was "Let's not cure cancer because it's just saving geriatric people who won't have more kids anyway," then that's not a world that doesn't match my value system and not one I want to subject my children to living in. I think the existence of humanity is an amoral thing - there's not fundamentally any specific reason we need to exist beyond us wanting to, and if as a collective whole we decide that existence has not been a thing wonderful enough to bring new people into it and we no longer desire to exist, then, well, that's fine. If we want humanity to continue, let's make the world a place where people want to bring children into it, and incentivize them doing so.

em-bee 2y ago
to me the main point of the parent comment was not that population growth is good, but that the current trend points to a sharp population decline coming in a century or two, and once we have a sharp decline it will be very hard to stop that decline and get to zero growth at replacement rate which is really what the goal in the end must be. If we want humanity to continue, let's make the world a place where people want to bring children into it, and incentivize them doing so. i agree, but at this point we are really very far away from that.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> This seems to all be presupposed on the idea that the population growing is a positive thing is a universally accepted truth I used the number 2.1. It does not result in population growth. It gives you a nearly perfect population stability. It neither grows, nor shrinks. And if that's not good enough for you, if it happened right this moment, the population once stabilized would be a bit smaller than it is now. > But I realized that this one line shows that we fundamentally have different viewpoints about the purpose of life. "Purpose of life" sounds religious, or ignorant. Instead, let's talk about whether you like humans and think humans are positive. If you do, you would dislike any trend or event which would make them extinct. If the extinction is proceeding, and you're whining about how it's unfair that women are treated like babymaking machines (which all humans are, male and female), then it seems that quite without knowing it, you think humans are a negative thing. Not so negative maybe that they require being wiped out immediately, but negative enough you will do nothing to halt the slow-motion extinction that is coming. While there are the occasional individuals I dislike, I like humans in total, and I would be sad if I were forced to believe that they will be extinct 1000 years from now. But there is a growing sentiment that they are bad, and maybe this dull, unintelligent rock would be better off if humans were gone. A sort of death cult. > I don't want to force someone to have to live through that. My ancestors survived famines and disasters that would shock all of us into disbelief. Horrors and terrors. Predated upon, eaten alive. Suffering with diseases unknown to modern man. Much of the time without even understanding what was going on, it's no surprise they imagined and invented gods doing that to them, evil gods. For them to have gone through all that, and to give up on what we've all been doing because my children might have to figure out some engineering... naive or blasphemous, I don't know what to call it. My children could solve any problem, will solve them. > then that's not a world that doesn't match my value system and not one I want to subject my children to living in. So be it. The world always belonged to my children, and their children. I guess I should thank you for realizing yours were not fit to inherit it. > If we want humanity to continue, You've already made your choice. I see no reason to consult you further.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  Yeah. The guy who explicitly stated people who are too old to have children aren't worth saving is the person who values human life more than me. I find it bizarre that I'm being accused of cultlike thinking by someone who has distilled humanity down to just reproducing. We're not single-celled organisms, man. We can aspire to things greater than just having kids. > So be it. The world always belonged to my children, and their children. I guess I should thank you for realizing yours were not fit to inherit it. Making a value judgment about theoretical children based on a few online interactions is such a deeply weird thing to do. This whole interaction is one of the strangest I've had on the internet in several decades of using it.

em-bee 2y ago

to me the main point of the parent comment was not that population growth is good, but that the current trend points to a sharp population decline coming in a century or two, and once we have a sharp decline it will be very hard to stop that decline and get to zero growth at replacement rate which is really what the goal in the end must be. If we want humanity to continue, let's make the world a place where people want to bring children into it, and incentivize them doing so. i agree, but at this point we are really very far away from that.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> This seems to all be presupposed on the idea that the population growing is a positive thing is a universally accepted truth I used the number 2.1. It does not result in population growth. It gives you a nearly perfect population stability. It neither grows, nor shrinks. And if that's not good enough for you, if it happened right this moment, the population once stabilized would be a bit smaller than it is now. > But I realized that this one line shows that we fundamentally have different viewpoints about the purpose of life. "Purpose of life" sounds religious, or ignorant. Instead, let's talk about whether you like humans and think humans are positive. If you do, you would dislike any trend or event which would make them extinct. If the extinction is proceeding, and you're whining about how it's unfair that women are treated like babymaking machines (which all humans are, male and female), then it seems that quite without knowing it, you think humans are a negative thing. Not so negative maybe that they require being wiped out immediately, but negative enough you will do nothing to halt the slow-motion extinction that is coming. While there are the occasional individuals I dislike, I like humans in total, and I would be sad if I were forced to believe that they will be extinct 1000 years from now. But there is a growing sentiment that they are bad, and maybe this dull, unintelligent rock would be better off if humans were gone. A sort of death cult. > I don't want to force someone to have to live through that. My ancestors survived famines and disasters that would shock all of us into disbelief. Horrors and terrors. Predated upon, eaten alive. Suffering with diseases unknown to modern man. Much of the time without even understanding what was going on, it's no surprise they imagined and invented gods doing that to them, evil gods. For them to have gone through all that, and to give up on what we've all been doing because my children might have to figure out some engineering... naive or blasphemous, I don't know what to call it. My children could solve any problem, will solve them. > then that's not a world that doesn't match my value system and not one I want to subject my children to living in. So be it. The world always belonged to my children, and their children. I guess I should thank you for realizing yours were not fit to inherit it. > If we want humanity to continue, You've already made your choice. I see no reason to consult you further.

cthalupa 2y ago
Yeah. The guy who explicitly stated people who are too old to have children aren't worth saving is the person who values human life more than me. I find it bizarre that I'm being accused of cultlike thinking by someone who has distilled humanity down to just reproducing. We're not single-celled organisms, man. We can aspire to things greater than just having kids. > So be it. The world always belonged to my children, and their children. I guess I should thank you for realizing yours were not fit to inherit it. Making a value judgment about theoretical children based on a few online interactions is such a deeply weird thing to do. This whole interaction is one of the strangest I've had on the internet in several decades of using it.