• RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think it’s fine to have kids if you want them but the government trying to get people to have more kids for economic reasons is sickening

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Agreed, but I don’t think it’s fine either way. I’m an antinatalist and there is no such thing as an unselfish reason to have a baby.

    • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      Found the pro-abortionist.

      (For those that don’t get the joke, notice that I didn’t say pro-life or anti-choice. It’s the “flush them all - no exceptions” position.)

    • UNY0N@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      73
      ·
      1 month ago

      And what then, the human race just dies out? I get the pessimistic feeling, but we may very well be the only sapient species in this galaxy. It would be such a waste to just give up and perish because of momentary hardships.

      We are literally sapient stardust, and I’m certainly not going to give up and throw away the efforts and struggles on millions of ancestors just because of some current corporate greed and fascism is in fashion.

      • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        80
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        We are in no way at risk of dying out from negative population growth. If we start to go down below a few million, then maybe let’s talk.

        World population is still increasing, and is set to maybe stabilize in a couple decades. Fingers crossed. If we could (gently, without mass starvation) reduce the population down to a more sustainable level, that is an unmitigatedly good thing.

        What might kill us is infertility from pollution or disease, but this won’t do it.

        • MBM@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          gently, without mass starvation

          Even more gently if you want to make sure there’s enough younger people to care for the elderly

        • UNY0N@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          I totally agree with you. I just hate all of these “don’t have kids” arguments from liberal people. It’s not a viable solution, because the fascists and the idiots are gong to have kids. We need at least some sane people to continue on.

          But the is all emotional and subjective, I’ll admit that. I’m not really thinking about this topic with a clear head anymore.

            • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              That talking point died decades ago. We have a clear path to reducing our population. Well-off people with access to contraceptives don’t have high birth rates. We can roll back the human birth rate to sub-replacement levels and over time, reduce it.

              There will be a problem with increasing population in 2250 or so, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

              The moral thing to do is to ensure that all humans have access to clean water and food, contraceptives, and comfortable lives. The population will naturally go down and we can stabilize it over time.

        • Lowpast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          The real issue is that we have a rapidly aging workforce and there’s not enough young people to replace them. With the average age of parents raising, the gap is getting larger. In the 50s it was 16 workers for every 1 retired. The 70s, 5:1. That number is now almost 2:1. This is bad. Very bad.

          Higher bar for jobs. Lower wage for entry level. Later retiring age. Higher need for migrant and seasonal workers.

          • LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Aw, crapitalism will break because line cannot always go up.

            Cry me a fucking river. Humanity is a cancer, and we need to be about half our current population. Yeah, we’re not gonna like it when we drop that population. Our kids, my daughter, are going to have it fucking tough. But if we want to survive long term… We gotta stop.

              • angrystego@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 month ago

                Says Thanos who did nothing wrong. Really though, it’s not rocket science to understand eternal growth is not a viable strategy. It’s also obvious that the number of people on the Earth now is too much if we want them all to live a comfortable life and not to destroy the planet at the same time. How big should the population be to make things ok longterm? That is open to discussion and depends on many factors, so there’s not just one correct answer.

          • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t think it can sustain the current population levels, at our North American standard of living. If we could distribute resources evenly, sure, we could keep everyone alive, but energy consumption, plastic production, all that adds up to an ecological footprint of resource use that isn’t sustainable.

            World wildlife levels have gone down dramatically. We’re expanding human life at the expense of all other life. The other life on earth isn’t superfluous: it’s an ecosystem that keeps us alive, recycles our waste, provides our medicines and cultural wealth of all sorts.

            We can’t keep our wealthy lifestyle and at the same time tell the poor people of the world that they have to stay poor so that we can remain wealthy.

            • vividspecter@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I mostly agree but I think we could maintain a lifestyle that is near Western levels, but done more efficiently. It wouldn’t be the same lifestyle, but it would be a good one.

              I.e.

              • dense, walkable neighbourhoods with mixed-use zoning
              • trains, trams and electric buses instead of cars
              • any job that can be done from home should be mandatory to do from home
              • minimal to no meat consumption, especially emissions intensive meat like beef
              • economic incentives and disincentives to minimise energy consumption and waste
              • circular economies that re-use and recycle most things
              • 100% renewable energy production (and eventually, green manufacturing).

              Although even with that, it would be an easier job if there is some level of population decline, but I don’t think any encouragement is needed (societies where women are highly educated tend to have declining birth rates).

              • angrystego@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                These are all good measures, but I doubt they would be enough to stop the wildlife decimation.

      • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        We’re upright locusts. Stop stroking your ego and look at the state of the world. Humanity doesn’t justify itself.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Why would I care if the human race dies out? I won’t be here to notice.

        Let’s instead focus on not burning the place to the ground during our lifetimes.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Oh come on, it’s a #notallmen moment. Lol

        When people say “stop having kids”, what they mean is stop having unplanned pregnancies. I don’t think that many people want our literal extinction.

        • UNY0N@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          I understand that, I’m very aware that my reaction is emotional and subjective. I’m just sick of reading that sentence over and over and over again.

        • Asclepiaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          I wish all people would stop having kids. I am all for the voluntary human extinction movement. A very key word is voluntary though, which really just makes it an ideology.

      • P00ptart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Really? Why not? You think the impressive development of an intelligent and aware species is important enough to make that same species suffer more and more to the inevitable extinction anyways? Let’s do it now while it’s still partially habitable so that the end isn’t quite as horrific. Your logic makes no sense.

      • aoidenpa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t share this view. Life is an interesting pattern created by matter, but no need to be spiritual about it. If life ceased to exist, no one would be sad about it. Actually a lot of struggle and pain would be over which is positive in my opinion. In practice, we should value quality of life of conscious beings instead of quantity. Having less is better.