Continuing to increase the world population is absolutely nuts.

*I’m not interested in gradual natural declines from whatever factors. 2 max implemented now.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    79
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Hard disagree - you’re effectively controlling people’s body autonomy the same way as abortion bans. Let alone the confusion of differently structured families (what if the woman has two and a new husband wants one??).

    Controlling wastefulness, development for the future and education on the other hand- absolutely. Side effect is that better education usually leads to smaller families, and that’s before you also include sex ed and access to contraception.

    • mommykink
      link
      fedilink
      3710 months ago

      Agreed. OP is choosing the stick over the carrot. The truth is that increasing education has a direct negative correlation to birth rates, and has like a million bonus side effects too

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        310 months ago

        The best answer to that line is what society will accept.

        I mean, we already have a way to decide where that line is - supply and demand. In a perfect world people would decide not to have kids because its not financially possible based on the price due to shortages - like you say though that wouldn’t be the case.

        With realistic considerations - your support from society ceases at two kids. If you want to have more no govt support.etc. That’s a vote killer as for some reason the governments responsible when you can’t feed your kids, but that’s the best way forward imo.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      810 months ago

      Yet population explosion is worse than ever. Only some of the developed nations are improving, though they are suffering the delayed effects of old population explosion (boomers).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      510 months ago

      We have an absolutely unprecedented population that’s using resources at like 4x sustainable rates and still growing rapidly. Hand waving it away by talking about Malthus is just sticking our heads in the sand.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2610 months ago

    People get children without being a couple.

    What even is the definition of a couple and why should that determine the number?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2010 months ago

      The problem has never been the amount of resources. The problem is distribution of resources is heavily skewed to a few.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        510 months ago

        If the abundant resources are obtained through unbridled agriculture (deforestation) and excessive amounts of ecosystem-destroying pesticides, maybe they’re not sustainable

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      510 months ago

      I mean, bias is a problem, but there’s an even bigger issue. What happens if a couple has a third child? It may not seem like it, but this is a major problem.

      • Pandantic [they/them]
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        Yes, putting this into law would either require the government to pay for mandatory abortions or mandatory sterilization after the second child.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          310 months ago

          Or some serious financial repercussions. Maybe extra tax that goes towards more support for people with fewer children (or their children).

            • Pandantic [they/them]
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Yeah, the system would have to be changed by miles for this to apply evenly among classes, and by extension, races. Some assurance of equal levels of education, resources, and access to medical care to take care of all roadblocks to having exactly the amount of children you want to have. Edit: and that would mean free (as in uninhibited financially or by laws) access to abortion regardless of situation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      210 months ago

      And yet the population graph is curving toward a plateau and new generations are so much smaller than previous that many places are more in danger of a rapid drop in population (in a few decades, assuming nothing changes). This is a solved problem: our best bet is to rucsh the developing world toward development

    • BarqsHasBiteOP
      link
      fedilink
      210 months ago

      Not having kids works on an individual level, but without worldwide implementation/cooperation we just continue on and on growing the population. Thus this post.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        110 months ago

        No, there aren’t too many kids, there are too many of us older people. The fertility rate has already dropped, the unpopular opinion that would be effective would be don’t let people live past 65 or something like that. If you cut fertility so low, it just makes the population skew even older than it already is. Better to get the average below replacement (it is headed there soon without your mandate) and then hopefully to replacement level at a better population size.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1810 months ago

    Children aren’t the problem. Late stage capitalism is. We have the technology and resources to feed everyone in the world but we don’t. Because it’s not profitable.

    We reward billionaires more wealth than they could ever spend in their lives. Why? For accidentally being in the right place and time to take advantage of an opportunity. We pretend they’re special, but it really comes down to mostly luck. That wealth could lift humanity out of poverty.

    We need to make a new system that rewards people for doing what needs to be done, not for what’s profitable.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1710 months ago

    No. It’s working out fine. Limits cause odd knock on effects when people prefer one sex over the other, and population growth is moderating now, the reason population still grows is old people living longer, it’s not too many kids.

    You need an average of 2 or less not a mandate.

    If all women tomorrow said they were on strike, no more kids, at all, ever, are you going to mandate pregnancy? Who decides? Who is making these rules?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    15
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Attached is a graph of global population projections from Wikipedia. You can see the median projection forecast a plateau and drop this century and half project more significant drops. I find the drops more likely because they correlate the affect of development and human rights on the birth rate rather than the naive “assume nothing changes” of the continued growth projections

    More development, human rights, education of women have a proven history of people choosing a reduced birth rate. We can approach a more sustainable population simply by making everyone’s life better

  • admiralteal
    link
    fedilink
    14
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Violation of body autonomy is of the absolute most profound violations and the state has no right to do that. Whether or not people SHOULD have kids is irrelevant; even if they shouldn’t, there exists no acceptable power lever to prevent it.

    It’s also a solution in search of a problem. Human population growth is already slowing and will likely plateau in my lifetime before starting a trend of retreat. Assuming we aren’t all dead by way of the collapsing climate already.

    • 🦄🦄🦄
      link
      fedilink
      210 months ago

      Real unpopular opinion incoming:

      there is no bigger body autonomy violation than being forced into this world in the first place.

      • Krafty Kactus
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        What about being forced to never come into this world? If we’re debating the autonomy of a nonexistent human then who’s to say that isn’t just as bad?