I see where you’re coming from, and I agree that the population should decrease by staying below the replacement rate, but I also think humanity should continue, and having an abrupt stop to new children would cause a lot of societal issues 18-30 years down the line. I think that if a parent/couple can provide a decent standard of living it is morally permissible for them to have one, maybe two kids.
I also think everyone deserves to be in a position where they can provide that decent standard of living, but you’re talking about how things are, not how things should be.
Oh and this El Nino is so powerful the fucking graph needed to be made bigger yesterday (07/10/26).
So yeah, unless we can somehow rapidly evolve physics defying magic to handwave all our problems away before basically everything dies, basically everything will die.
It would cause issues for society as a whole. If everyone stopped having kids right now education institutions, for example, would stop existing as the current kids aged out. If things got to a point where having children became acceptable again, that institutional knowledge would be greatly debilitated if not lost entirely. A gradual decline would allow schools to shrink to match that decline rather than stopping entirely.
Well I was mostly thinking of K-12 schools, and it would be because there are no K-12 students. At the latter part of that 18-30 year period I mentioned there would be no young adult university students.
It is a hypothetical world, but that’s the one I’m responding to. It’s immoral to have kids therefore no person should have a child therefore there should be no children. Am I missing something in my interpretation of that?
I see where you’re coming from, and I agree that the population should decrease by staying below the replacement rate, but I also think humanity should continue, and having an abrupt stop to new children would cause a lot of societal issues 18-30 years down the line. I think that if a parent/couple can provide a decent standard of living it is morally permissible for them to have one, maybe two kids.
I also think everyone deserves to be in a position where they can provide that decent standard of living, but you’re talking about how things are, not how things should be.
90% of earths topsoil is at risk of depletion by 2050
Global freshwater demand will exceed supply 40% by 2030
Global human population has surpassed Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity.
Global carbon emissions are still rising
The world is likely to exceed a key global warming target soon but the earths albedo with the declining sea ice and lack of cloud cover will impact these numbers massively and isn’t being predicted for, which means that 4.5c above the baseline by 2060 is now possible.
Oh and this El Nino is so powerful the fucking graph needed to be made bigger yesterday (07/10/26).
So yeah, unless we can somehow rapidly evolve physics defying magic to handwave all our problems away before basically everything dies, basically everything will die.
Don’t have kids.
It would cause issues for whom? The owning class?
It would cause issues for society as a whole. If everyone stopped having kids right now education institutions, for example, would stop existing as the current kids aged out. If things got to a point where having children became acceptable again, that institutional knowledge would be greatly debilitated if not lost entirely. A gradual decline would allow schools to shrink to match that decline rather than stopping entirely.
Why would universities and research work stop existing in this hypothetical world you’re imagining?
Well I was mostly thinking of K-12 schools, and it would be because there are no K-12 students. At the latter part of that 18-30 year period I mentioned there would be no young adult university students.
It is a hypothetical world, but that’s the one I’m responding to. It’s immoral to have kids therefore no person should have a child therefore there should be no children. Am I missing something in my interpretation of that?