Is Population Control a Taboo Subject for Environmentalists ?
- Thread starter Hermiod
- Start date
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
"Birth control cannot be left voluntarily to the reason of the individual. As mentioned by Garrett Hardin, this would lead to a genetic self-elimination of reason." - Extracted from page 175 of Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence - CETI, Edited by Carl Sagan (MIT Press, 1973).
My answer, therefore, is "no".
TGT
Whats worrisome is that its mostly the responsible people who're choosing not to have kids, while the people who really don't give a damn are breeding like rabbits.
If we all decide not to have children, then what's the point in environmentalism? The world will be fine. Oh, we'll kill a lot of species off and screw up the environment for quite a while, but eventually once we're gone things will return to normal and life will go on without us.
I think environmentalism for most people is about preserving the environment for our children and our children's children (or our relatives, friends, and their descendants). Take them out of the equation and it's kind of an empty idea. There are some people who would rather all human beings die off or be drastically reduced in population to preserve the environment for the plants and animals, but they're extremists and not the mainstream.
I think environmentalism for most people is about preserving the environment for our children and our children's children (or our relatives, friends, and their descendants). Take them out of the equation and it's kind of an empty idea. There are some people who would rather all human beings die off or be drastically reduced in population to preserve the environment for the plants and animals, but they're extremists and not the mainstream.
It has come into my thinking, but I don't think it will ever override my desire to have children. I do know a few people who have considered this though and we've discussed it, so it's not completely taboo.
Absolutely. People having five or six kid in this day and age is horrendous. Replace yourselves and stop. We don't need a growing population.
It must be part of it. It seems like most women I know who are around my age are preoccupied, if not obsessed, with creating oodles of cooing infants for them to dress up and parade around like babydolls, or if they're not to that stage yet, they're dead set on finding a reliable male for the main purpose of creating said oodles. When I reveal I have absolutely no interest in joining the breeding game they usually look stunned and ask why, and one of the reasons I might give is because the world doesn't need any more goddamn people on it. I think it would be great if more breeding-minded people would adopt instead of shelling out their life savings for fertility treatments, for example. So yes, that's part of it.
I didn't write the article, but the idea that less people on Earth would be a good thing seems to be one not a lot of environmentalists want to seriously push.
It's a moot point in developed countries. All those families here with 6 kids are made up for by all the people who aren't getting married or just aren't having kids. It's countries that are still developing that are the problem, and they'll settle down in population growth after they adjust to the changing standard of living. It's very basic human geography. Birthrate and deathrate are directly related to the development of a country. First the rates are both high, as to replace those that die early, you have to have a lot of kids. Then due to medical advances the deathrate drops off suddenly, but the birthrate stays high because it's driven by social expectations that are unconsciously based off the high death rate. Society takes a while to catch up, but then the birthrate drops off as well, leaving the birthrate and deathrates roughly equal. Generally eventually the birthrate drops slightly below the deathrate.
So I'm thinking the problem will eventually sort itself out.
So I'm thinking the problem will eventually sort itself out.
^But it doesn't quite seem to be working out that way as the US as well as other developed nations, are beginning to show. Birthrates are fairly low, but the population is continuing to go up and up largely due to devloping nations that are simply moving their population rather than limiting them.
As someone who is never going to have children, the condition of the world does play a part in that. In that there are already far too many people in the world, and I don't want to be responsible for making more. So, yeah, I may not be an environmentalist (though I care about the environment, I'm not in any official capacity or anything), but my decision is at least partly based on the idea that less people in the world, or at least not more people, would be best. Though I'm also not a fan of the world I'd be bringing them into, and children annoy me, so it's obviously a complicated thing.
There is the related concept of carrying capacity. If one reduced population significantly, we could all continue to have highly energy consumptive lifestyles without compromising future environmental health.
Personally, I find these sort of issues to be red herrings. It's just not worth thinking about too much because nothing is ever going to seriously be done to reduce global population enough to make the issue relevant. You'd be talking widespread euthanasia or strict mandatory birth control or other similar totalitarian policies. Not enough countries worldwide will ever adopt them without a complete paradigm shift in geopolitics.
Personally, I find these sort of issues to be red herrings. It's just not worth thinking about too much because nothing is ever going to seriously be done to reduce global population enough to make the issue relevant. You'd be talking widespread euthanasia or strict mandatory birth control or other similar totalitarian policies. Not enough countries worldwide will ever adopt them without a complete paradigm shift in geopolitics.
I think the phrasing of the poll is very black and white.
Whether or not this is wise or really affects the world at large, environmental considerations may affect our decision to have children, but more likely, it will affect the number of children we choose to have. There is a much greater difference between zero and one than between one and several.
So the question we should ask is: "Does the environment affect the number of children you think you should have?" Zero also being a number.
Whether or not this is wise or really affects the world at large, environmental considerations may affect our decision to have children, but more likely, it will affect the number of children we choose to have. There is a much greater difference between zero and one than between one and several.
So the question we should ask is: "Does the environment affect the number of children you think you should have?" Zero also being a number.
Ain't that why evolution is always about 'natural selection' and is never intelligence driven?
You can try all you like to implement population control for the overall benefit of humanity, but if individuals choose to do otherwise then the "intelligence" counts for nothing. It becomes merely a conflict of wills. And whoever manages to get their way in that conflict has been 'naturally selected'.
Personally, I think the earth has too many people. So it would be hypocritical of my to act in a way which raised that figure. So no, I don't intend to have children. But that's as much due to my world-population ethic as it is due to the fact that I don't want to create any life that is capable of suffering.
So no, it's not a taboo with me