549
Won't someone please think of the boomers?!
(poptalk.scrubbles.tech)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
549 points (95.2% liked)
childfree
1955 readers
11 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'll debate it. The world would be way better off with about 6 billion less people in the world.
Edit: My apologies. I am NOT advocating for eugenics, mass murder, or anything else. My thought of having fewer people is wishful thinking of what a better world would be like if we simply never got to 7 billion people in the first place.
I'm so done with this garbage random eugenics idea that the world should have exactly 1 billion people on it like some pseudoscience perfect number.
Its not a debate if you use feeling and lack any reasoning to get to your starting position.
There world is not some incapable small bubble that can only support some racist perfect population size of your desires.
Whoa, wanting less people via having fewer kids isn't eugenics, it's wishful thinking. I don't subscribe to the idea of forcing people to have fewer kids.
Edit: I can see how it sounds like I am advocating for eugenics in my earlier post. I will update it.
Thanks.
Absolutes with a goal for a future population often appeals to a specific group that I can't stand who appeal to it "being necessary" but often leave themselves out. So I try to push back on it so they know it's not acceptable to take seriously. It's just not an answer.
I know it doesn't go over well in these communities but I don't care. If even it pops up in the back of their head when thinking about "what helps" I want counter words there to say hoping for death of nearly everyone is miserable even if it's an "easy" out for suffering.
Thanks for being able to recognize it as wishful past missed conservation.
I don't think Eugenics or racist is the correct ideas to use here. Less population just means smaller. Not a specific phenotype of human needs to be culled from existance. Just a smaller population.
All biological systems have population limits, and lots of evidence points that humans have passed those limits by quite a bit. Normally, there would be a population collapse due to food scarcity, but humans are capable of pushing those limits with agurcultural science. That doesn't mean that there are not huge determental effects on the world as a whole for there being an never ending exponential growth of people.
Who needs to be the 6 billion to die then?
Edit: Also go ahead and tell me where you get your population size to land use models so that it can be checked to not be still overshoot if you are so worried about how very few people can be supported by apparently this very limited planet.
And show me this exponential growth that hasn't apparently slowed at all with decreasing births
Dude, you will die, everyone will die... Not because I will go and kill you because I decided so but because AGING EXISTS. Simply by having fewer kids the population will decrease fully naturally which was the point of the person you're arguing against. Also you're incredibly ignorant on what the fuck humans do to this planet which is the only one we have, so many ecosystems destroyed, so many species extint, so much of nature gone...
"@Krauerking@lemy.lol was so preocupied with the question if we could that he didn't stop and ask himself if we should."
It's not about if it's possible to fit so many and more humans on there but about it being a bad idea on so many levels. But again though... How the hell did you manage to forget that aging exists? I can't wrap my head around this one. Bruh.
Waiting for a population to age out as a fix for anything isn't a fix. I'm not unaware I just don't sit around waiting for hopes and prayers of the slow death of billions of people as an answer.
We have now and current reality. Playing make believe doesn't help. And who doesn't have kids? Cause plenty of people will have them anyways despite the obvious issues the planet is facing so how do you stop them?
This entire line of thought of just a decreasing population to a size you think is right is wishful "merciful" eugenics.
Saying you wish we hadn't got here is one thing and not helpful but one can forgive that as we all get mournful of the past. Hoping for it as a future is wrong and out of our control without some awful steps. I won't back down on that.
Edit: and you ignored that you said we are still in exponential increase of population which we are not. Its just an easy excuse for the mentality.
Well for one... you start with a society that doesnt shame people for not having kids. And two encourage people to foster children instead of adding more of their own. And three, improve society by pulling people out of poverty which has statistically reduced people having children.
bro its literally just anti-natalism
Having a specific population goal is not that.
im pretty sure our current meta of expansionism is a specific population goal as well? Does that not count as eugenics?
Does eugenics include using medical technology to save children and people that would've otherwise died to natural causes? How far must we go to prevent the perils of eugenics from coming upon us?