Continuing to increase the world population is absolutely nuts.

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

  • 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.