I originally tried to point out to someone who was glad that they don’t have children due to the current future prospects that actually there is a strong argument that children are necessary, but should be raised better. The person who replied to me initially said that there are too many people, implying that there should be no more children, but then said services to improve children’s prospects should be invested in. What would be the point in having such services if we’ve already given up on having future children? Isn’t nihilism counter to social investment?
Enough. As in, don’t need more (total) than we have already. As in, we can slow the growth rate to roughly zero. This means we can have slightly fewer babies than in the past, or that more people than before are encouraged to not have babies without you jumping down their fucking throat about replacement rates and whatnot.
I originally tried to point out to someone who was glad that they don’t have children due to the current future prospects that actually there is a strong argument that children are necessary, but should be raised better. The person who replied to me initially said that there are too many people, implying that there should be no more children, but then said services to improve children’s prospects should be invested in. What would be the point in having such services if we’ve already given up on having future children? Isn’t nihilism counter to social investment?
They implied there should be less children, not no children. Reductio ad absurdum.
What does “We are 8 billion people on this planet. There are enough humans already.” mean? More people?
Enough. As in, don’t need more (total) than we have already. As in, we can slow the growth rate to roughly zero. This means we can have slightly fewer babies than in the past, or that more people than before are encouraged to not have babies without you jumping down their fucking throat about replacement rates and whatnot.
That interpretation would make more sense.