Continuing to increase the world population is absolutely nuts.

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

  • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    5 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.

    • PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 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

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      My primary question is when do the needs of the many vs the needs of the few kick in?

      All for body autonomy, but let’s say in the future, we do have food shortages and you know your future kids won’t be able to eat, and let’s say you know they will in fact starve - would you agree that it’s wrong to bring another child into that future?

      If so, when is the line drawn? We already say in society that abortion is the moral choice if we know the child is doomed to die because of incurable diseases, does the same thought apply if you know your child will die of starvation?

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 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.