5 ms·
I don't mean to be an idiot, but at this point all life saving charity should aim to secure a reduction in population growth to offset the lives saved. Being m
by lsd5you 17y ago
I don't mean to be an idiot, but at this point all life saving charity should aim to secure a reduction in population growth to offset the lives saved.
Being merely a humanitarian is a moral luxury with an environmental cost.
- berntb 17y agoWell, the only (+) way we know to lower population increase is urbanization and increased living standard. So democracy and industrialization are the ways forward on the population bomb. Arguably, Gates' grants works towards that. It will result in better agriculture, in the future leading to mechanization -- which means people moving to cities. (+) Let us leave discussions of e.g. reintroducing the plague to Al Qaeda. 1/2 :-) Edit: I might add that I think human lives are worth the environment, inside sane limits. Pollution go down with increased wealth, anyway.
- lsd5you 17y agoActually I've heard a quite compelling case that the emancipation of women is the single biggest factor in reduced fertility rates in the developed world. Obviously it is a corelate of democracy and development, but the former without the latter may be insufficient.
- berntb 17y agoYou can of course make a long list of additional preconditions, starting with "good governance". It isn't relevant to my counter argument that Gates' grants in fact works towards stopping the population growth you feared.
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoIncreased wealth has always led to reduced population growth and sometimes to a declining population.
- hnhg 17y agoWhat are the causes for high population growth? Can they be countered?
- lsd5you 17y agoDownvoting? Is there not a valid argument to be had, or a valid position to take. There is nothing wrong with being humanitarian, (its a bit species-centric), but we need to take a long term view.