4 ms·

Or elect to not have a child - something even more significant. Though arguably that is essentially 'freeing up' a permit for someone else. It conflicts with o

by lsd5you 17y ago

Or elect to not have a child - something even more significant. Though arguably that is essentially 'freeing up' a permit for someone else. It conflicts with our view of family values and wholesomeness, but in general a wasteful consumeristic childless individual is going to be more ecological in the long run than pretty much anyone with several kids.

ars 17y ago
Not true. In every country where people might listen to this idea, population shrinkage is a bigger problem than population growth. The net value of a human to society is positive not negative. The problems of overpopulation is a myth.
- lucumo 17y ago
  Value as defined in? I think you're talking about economical value—at least that's what most talk about population shrinkage seems to be about. GP on the other hand was talking about ecological value. I don't think the units compare. Did I interpret your comment correctly?
- lsd5you 17y ago
  When you say 'not true', you mean you disagree, right? Population shrinkage is certainly not a problem for the environment and it was not implied that it was not a problem in other respects. The value of a human to society is a positive? Can you unequivocally state that a world with 3 billion people is worse off than one with 6 billion? It is an idealistic claim and only true in a personal sense, and even then may well be founded on an inconsistent set of values.
  - radu_floricica 17y ago
    Well, an average person manages to pay taxes, live a reasonable life and leave an inheritance. So I'd say, yes, he makes a positive input. An over-supply of labor is pretty good for the economy as a whole, bad as it is for the unemployed. We're not even close to the point where the over-supply is so big it causes real problems. There are still areas where there is a labor shortage, especially in skilled professions.

by lsd5you 17y ago

ars 17y ago

Not true. In every country where people might listen to this idea, population shrinkage is a bigger problem than population growth. The net value of a human to society is positive not negative. The problems of overpopulation is a myth.

lucumo 17y ago
Value as defined in? I think you're talking about economical value—at least that's what most talk about population shrinkage seems to be about. GP on the other hand was talking about ecological value. I don't think the units compare. Did I interpret your comment correctly?
lsd5you 17y ago
When you say 'not true', you mean you disagree, right? Population shrinkage is certainly not a problem for the environment and it was not implied that it was not a problem in other respects. The value of a human to society is a positive? Can you unequivocally state that a world with 3 billion people is worse off than one with 6 billion? It is an idealistic claim and only true in a personal sense, and even then may well be founded on an inconsistent set of values.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Well, an average person manages to pay taxes, live a reasonable life and leave an inheritance. So I'd say, yes, he makes a positive input. An over-supply of labor is pretty good for the economy as a whole, bad as it is for the unemployed. We're not even close to the point where the over-supply is so big it causes real problems. There are still areas where there is a labor shortage, especially in skilled professions.