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
    19
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I’m honestly in favor of it. Before everyone jumps down my throat, I’m not saying how China did it was the right way.

    But we are barreling towards a very unsustainable future. This century is going to be very dire for these next generations. We simply do not have the resources.

    There are some great “hacks” I’ll call them. GMOs, urban farming, etc, but those just treat the symptoms.

    I’m not having kids and this is one of the big reasons why. My family thinks I’m crazy but from my point of view I’m just bringing kids into this world to suffer, so if I do that then it’s only for selfish reasons. And with that line of thought I think people who willingly have more than, oh, let’s say 3 kids are selfish.

    It’s harsh, but seriously look around. It’s unmaintainable, we can’t keep going at infinite growth.

    Unfortunately it will never be implemented because there is no way to do it without bias. Sterilizations have always had bias, along race, class, religion, and those I’m against. This is more me yelling into the void “For the love of God stop having kids! You do not need 5 kids! We can’t continue with this exponential curve on this one tiny planet!”

    • StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      • Damage@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

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

    • lawrence@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 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.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        One of many problems unfortunately. How do you decide what to do? Forcibly remove the child? Relocate? Tax them more?

        What if it was an accident? How do you prove it was? There’s no way to do it, and another reason it’ll never happen.

        However if you have 5 kids and it happens again… Ehhh I’m willing to say that you did not have 6 accidents.

      • Pandantic@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

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

        • XTL@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

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

          • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            Then that’s class based bias, rich would simply pay for it while the poor get poorer. It’s a fair thought, but the waters get muddy all the way down

            • Pandantic@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      cake
      OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 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.

      • RBWells@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 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.