Re:Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the cl...
by spacephysics on Thursday August 27, 2020 @04:50PM
(#24298500)
Regarding the first quote, not that it’s necessarily inherited, but if a tenant of an idea or movement is to not procreate, then at some point either no one will be left to procreate, or the only ones left will be those who disagree. Roughly speaking. I agree it’s not as clean of an argument as I thought when writing.
Regarding the second quote, we’ve seen what government policy’s effect is on reproductive limits, such as number of children laws in China (assuming you’re alluding your that, but perhaps not). Obviously there exist other policy options, but I’d rather not have my generation, or someone else’s, be a guinea pig for such policies. Further I don’t think any government should have a right to determine specific axis of child rearing, such as limiting offspring.
Re:Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the cl...
by anonymoushn on Friday August 28, 2020 @02:54AM
(#24302072)
Is there some explanation for the absence of Quakers other than the idea that children are likely to have the same religion as their parents?
Are you suggesting that being an "extreme environmentalist" is an inherited characteristic? Presumably not, because that would be ... eccentric, so what are you suggesting?
> social pressure, if not force
In most developed countries the population is falling or would be falling if it weren't for immigration, and currently that's with a fair amount of government support for human reproduction. If most people agreed that the population should be reduced and government policy were to reflect that opinion then I think the population would continue to fall without the need for anything the slightest bit chilling or oppressive.
However, a minority political or religious movement could interfere with that.