Just some way to have less kids. That's it. Not sure how it could be done.
War is rather terrible and we should learn from all the past bloodshed. Doubt it will happen, but I wish like almost everyone else that war would be a thing of the past.
I wish there was a way to get people comfortable with the idea that having kids is not a right but a privilege. I know enforcing some kind of eugenics policy could be terribly abused and end miserably, but what else is there? What are we actually going to do?
If we want to have a nice future for humanity we should really try to control our numbers a little more. I've studied this stuff quite a bit and I am not sure how we are going to manage otherwise.
I would advocate for stricter laws on who is able to have children somehow. That's it. I understand however that this is probably never going to happen, and because of this, our future looks pretty risky.
Maybe a one child policy i would support that. two at most, so the sibling will have a brother or sister to grow up with and not be that lonely child
i still hold firm that having a child is a fundamental right for all humans but with a limit. one two at most, but still they should have the opportunity to do so in their one lifetime
48% of the world lives in sub replacement fertility. That's us. We don't need a law to prohibit us from breeding even less, because we're already going extinct. Telling people in this half of the world to go extinct just to make more room for the already vastly overpopulated and overrepresented peoples in Africa and Asia is a dreadful and extremist position. People are not just interchangeable socio-economic units, and the balance of worldwide diversity must be maintained moving forward, or else we've lost a part of humanity for all time.
We all need to agree to keep a replacement fertility rate of roughly two children per woman. That means we need to breed slightly more, but other parts of the world need to breed much less in order to maintain balance and peace in the world, without anybody going extinct in the world. That's only fair and sane. You can't just use the already crushed and belittled women of third world as a sort of livestock, a perpetual population factory just because we cannot be bothered to do our biological duty ourselves. Why don't you just lay off the handful of people having a couple of kids here, suggesting brilliant draconian fertility laws for an already extinction level fertility rate, and instead help the women in the third world you're so casually using as baby factories perhaps do something else with their lives once they've had just the 2.1 kids, instead of pushing the ecological envelope and praying to export the surplus to an extinct West.
You make good points. Thanks for your input. We need to focus on the third world; that's where this is a problem. I should be more specific when I post next time.
I don't understand how what I said suggested that I wanted to use the women in the third world as livestock for breeding, tell me how that works. To be very clear, I do not support that.
All I'm saying is I wish there was a way to keep the population level and consistent so that we do not continue to harm the earth's bio-capacity, because the more we degrade the environment, the harder it will become to survive.
If history is our guide, we can see civilizations have fallen based on overpopulation and resource depletion many times. I do not feel like we have really changed much in the past 5000 years.
IIN I want a man free child
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Like have a war?
--
Dulse.
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Just some way to have less kids. That's it. Not sure how it could be done.
War is rather terrible and we should learn from all the past bloodshed. Doubt it will happen, but I wish like almost everyone else that war would be a thing of the past.
I wish there was a way to get people comfortable with the idea that having kids is not a right but a privilege. I know enforcing some kind of eugenics policy could be terribly abused and end miserably, but what else is there? What are we actually going to do?
If we want to have a nice future for humanity we should really try to control our numbers a little more. I've studied this stuff quite a bit and I am not sure how we are going to manage otherwise.
I would advocate for stricter laws on who is able to have children somehow. That's it. I understand however that this is probably never going to happen, and because of this, our future looks pretty risky.
--
Anonymous Post Author
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Dulse.
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Maybe a one child policy i would support that. two at most, so the sibling will have a brother or sister to grow up with and not be that lonely child
i still hold firm that having a child is a fundamental right for all humans but with a limit. one two at most, but still they should have the opportunity to do so in their one lifetime
--
Dulse.
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I hope we can figure things out. I hope that could work.
I think if we cannot give everyone food water and shelter already, why should we continue breeding so much? It's not going to help our situation.
If people want kids perhaps they can adopt instead. We should really consider getting more comfortable with these sorts of things.
--
EccentricWeird
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
48% of the world lives in sub replacement fertility. That's us. We don't need a law to prohibit us from breeding even less, because we're already going extinct. Telling people in this half of the world to go extinct just to make more room for the already vastly overpopulated and overrepresented peoples in Africa and Asia is a dreadful and extremist position. People are not just interchangeable socio-economic units, and the balance of worldwide diversity must be maintained moving forward, or else we've lost a part of humanity for all time.
We all need to agree to keep a replacement fertility rate of roughly two children per woman. That means we need to breed slightly more, but other parts of the world need to breed much less in order to maintain balance and peace in the world, without anybody going extinct in the world. That's only fair and sane. You can't just use the already crushed and belittled women of third world as a sort of livestock, a perpetual population factory just because we cannot be bothered to do our biological duty ourselves. Why don't you just lay off the handful of people having a couple of kids here, suggesting brilliant draconian fertility laws for an already extinction level fertility rate, and instead help the women in the third world you're so casually using as baby factories perhaps do something else with their lives once they've had just the 2.1 kids, instead of pushing the ecological envelope and praying to export the surplus to an extinct West.
--
Dulse.
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You make good points. Thanks for your input. We need to focus on the third world; that's where this is a problem. I should be more specific when I post next time.
I don't understand how what I said suggested that I wanted to use the women in the third world as livestock for breeding, tell me how that works. To be very clear, I do not support that.
--
EccentricWeird
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I know you wouldn't say that, nobody sane would explicitly advocate that but it is the logical result of what many of them believe.
--
Dulse.
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The logical result? What do they believe?
All I'm saying is I wish there was a way to keep the population level and consistent so that we do not continue to harm the earth's bio-capacity, because the more we degrade the environment, the harder it will become to survive.
If history is our guide, we can see civilizations have fallen based on overpopulation and resource depletion many times. I do not feel like we have really changed much in the past 5000 years.