fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3246 ]

[ SECRET POST #3246 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3246 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [tb]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #464.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Considering that the human population 7 billion and still growing and deforestation, climate change, and all the junk is worsening because there's more people around who need things.

Yes. Most of the wars and civil unrest start because there are way too many people without work, education or prospects, so lowering the birthrate would go a long way in ensuring peace and a better life for everyone. Giving free or inexpensive birth control + education should be the first priority for charities.

I don't know if I would go as far as China's population control policies (nice idea, horrible execution), but families who have only one or two children should receive more benefits.

Maybe, but assuming you care for the stability of society and the standard of living for those currently alive, it would have to be a very gradual decrease in the birth rate.

I think dropping just below the replacement rate, and adjusting as necessary as the population slowly declines, would be ideal, if you were going to go for that sort of thing.

Can't we just get some of Japan's racist robots to take care of us? http://satwcomic.com/robots

I think the problem is that societally there has been a drive to have 2+ kids for a long time (partially because pre-birth control it was the norm, but also because more kids meant more free labor), and it's still around even though it doesn't need to be. Look at the stigma people face in the US for having one kid. I think that's a big hump to get over (plus the fact that a moral obligation has never accomplished anything.)

Maybe there should be tax refunds for every year you spend after age 18 not fathering or birthing a child.

Yes. The Earth does not expand to allow more of us. It's a choice between population control and lots of war.

In theory, yes. But any sort of policy either ends up disproportionately targeting poor people or ends up with something like the China situation where you end up with girls being unwanted and a gender imbalance.

We aren't at the point yet where population is the issue except in major cities where people seem to move anyway regardless of births. We should focus on other issues for now.

And the other thing is, in a lot of Western countries, the birth rate is actually super low and sometimes even lower than the death rate. Populations in the West are increasing more by immigration than by births.

Edited 2015-11-24 00:28 (UTC)

The gender imbalance in China is encouraged greatly by cultural issues. I think Western countries would not have quite as much drive to have sons.

No, but Western countries don't have a birth rate problem. Western countries nearly all have birth rates close to or even less than death rates and have population increases mainly through immigration. So this isn't something Western countries are going to have to consider for a long time.

Well if Countries prioritize one sex over the other, then their overpopulation problem will only take one generation to solve itself. Either that or we'll finally perfect male pregnancy bio-tech. Win-win. I'd love to see some Designated male at birth men be forced to be pregnant for the Texan style greater good arguments they level at women.

Definitely, but the population shouldn't decrease too quickly because there won't be enough people to take care of the elderly.

Benefits for having no kids and better birth control education would go a long way.

Valentine please.

What people often ignore is that in the First World, population growth is indeed dropping. In most societies, actually, more options, education, and growth opportunities combined with access to healthcare and contraceptives acts as a *natural* limiter on population size.
Also, remember that a sudden drop in kids is actually a bad thing for most economies these days; it's the wages of the future that will pay for us when we're old. Countries face aging populations without the ability or the funds to support them. There need to be some changes to the system, where we are currently in debt to the future, in order to successfully cut back on population size without it sucking hard for all of us in a few decades.

Excellent points, all.

And this: "Also, remember that a sudden drop in kids is actually a bad thing for most economies these days; it's the wages of the future that will pay for us when we're old. Countries face aging populations without the ability or the funds to support them" is so important, and something that people tend not to think about.

Yep.
I'm in Asian studies, and already you can see some Asian countries who are trying to encourage having children, because they're already seeing the writing on the wall with shrinking workforces.
An addendum is that people today also live longer past retirement, and those are a lot of years that need to be paid for by somebody.

It just bugs me when people say "just stop having kids!" when the problem is a lot more complex than that.
Really, the best thing to do is work on making contraceptives universally available, and improving conditions worldwide, while trying to move in a more sustainable direction globally.

I'm not sure it's a *moral obligation* but it's probably *wise*.

The good news is that higher levels of education (especially for women) correlate with lower birth rates pretty much everywhere. So you know what we should be doing.

The problem is not overpopulation, it's unequal distribution of resources. This planet can and should be able to support its current population.

The reason why it isn't is a combination of A) corporate greed and rampant materialism leading to a lack of concern for the environment, and B) a fucked up global economy that allows a handful of areas (read: first world countries) to hog all the good stuff for themselves, leaving everyone else to pick at the meager leftovers.

The planet cannot support the human population, even with equal resources, and the biosphere needed for ecological diversity. Unless we reduce the population by at least half within the next century it is going to be one concrete megacity encompassing the whole planet, using obscene amounts of non-renewable resources, and with a few small open air zoos that we call nature. We're pretty much there now. And we still have murderous dentists and rednecked farmers cutting a swathe through it.

Well, first of all, "should there be a moral obligation" doesn't really make sense--a moral obligation isn't a "should" matter, it's either there or it isn't. Second, no: it's not a moral obligation; having kids isn't fundamentally immoral. And while there's a lot to be said for being careful and smart and responsible about family size, boiling it down to this Malthusian math is really simplistic.

No, they can have as few or as many kids as they want.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3246 ]

Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

YES

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?

Re: Should there be a moral obligation for humanity to have less kids?