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
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.