541
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech to c/childfree@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 days ago

I vote for basic replacement. However, if people want to not have kids, that's fine too. There's way too many humans on Earth as it is and the only reason why 75% of the species doesn't starve to death is because we artificially increased the amount of food that we produce by doping the very Earth with poison.

[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 5 points 3 days ago

In addition to the financial implications, that's why we're stopping at 2. We get kids, the kids get a sibling, and it's a little below replacement level.

because we artificially increased the amount of food that we produce by doping the very Earth with poison.

to be clear, this only really changes the amount of food produced from a specific harvest, GMO foods are what you are closest to here, but those have very few downsides.

The primary issue here is centralized farming, if we were to decentralize it more, it would be vastly more economical.

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
541 points (95.2% liked)

childfree

1955 readers
6 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS