Social Science Anti-natalism

[Dhoni Dakurri]

Overpopulation is the elephant in the corner. Its never an issue brought up at election time. Economic growth is the only thing governments care about. To them, more people = more taxes. They have 4 year noses they cant see past. The lives of future generations matters diddly squat. In fact, the government throws money at people as an incentive to keep spitting out babies (the baby bonus).

Road congestion, unemployment - all resulting factors. The government constantly focusing on building infrastructure to sustain all this. But it will never end. Ever. Its just a continuous cycle.

As for food production for sustainability - people think innovation through GM is the answer. Its not. Its a bandaid. The only answer to ensuring ongoing sustainability for the population is to reduce the population.

We don't educate people enough on the importance of ensuring they have the resources and stability necessary to raise a child in a suitable environment. Nothing is in the school curriculum to address this. But we all see it. The dropkicks in society tend to be the ones spitting out kid after kid, and these kids turn into little shits and its a snowball.

Its not an issue of choosing who 'lives and dies'. Its a matter of educating. And reducing the incentives to breed more.

Immigration is also a huge factor here. We accept 300k immigrants a year - and by the way - an erwhelming majority of these come from the UK, Asia, South Africa and the US. Muslim countries don't even rate in the top 10....There are over 60000 people from the UK living in the country illegally.

 

[iluvparis]

What 'education' would you suggest to over come this problem?

 

[radiojake]

Overpopulation is the elephant in the corner. Its never an issue brought up at election time. Economic growth is the only thing governments care about. To them, more people = more taxes. They have 4 year noses they cant see past. The lives of future generations matters diddly squat. In fact, the government throws money at people as an incentive to keep spitting out babies (the baby bonus).

Road congestion, unemployment - all resulting factors. The government constantly focusing on building infrastructure to sustain all this. But it will never end. Ever. Its just a continuous cycle.

As for food production for sustainability - people think innovation through GM is the answer. Its not. Its a bandaid. The only answer to ensuring ongoing sustainability for the population is to reduce the population.

We don't educate people enough on the importance of ensuring they have the resources and stability necessary to raise a child in a suitable environment. Nothing is in the school curriculum to address this. But we all see it. The dropkicks in society tend to be the ones spitting out kid after kid, and these kids turn into little shits and its a snowball.

Its not an issue of choosing who 'lives and dies'. Its a matter of educating. And reducing the incentives to breed more.

Immigration is also a huge factor here. We accept 300k immigrants a year - and by the way - an erwhelming majority of these come from the UK, Asia, South Africa and the US. Muslim countries don't even rate in the top 10....There are over 60000 people from the UK living in the country illegally.

Planet Earth currently produces enough food to comfortably feed 10 billion people -

it's not about the number of people, it's how we distribute and consume the resources we have

 

[Scotland]

The global economic system is founded on consumption.

Let's say you are Coca Cola because their business model is simple. They create a product from water and sugar (essentially) for people to consume. There is more than enough fresh water and arable land for sugar cane production for Coca Cola to produce more of their product than will ever be needed.

Their production is limited by only two real limiting factors; how much can be consumed per capita and how many people in the world there are. Their product is ubiquitous in the West, and they are still working towards this being the case in the rest of the world. Ignoring the fact that it's a product that is terrible for you the practical limit of consumption might be 100 litres per person per annum - for example. Whatever the limit it's not practical to think that people will consume 100 litres a day, so the logical growth in the long term comes from increasing population.

The idea that the population is 7 billion and on average each person will consume 1 litre a day for example just doesn't wash with how companies like Coca Cola think. Everything is about growth.

 

[Dhoni Dakurri]

What 'education' would you suggest to over come this problem?

Education on the importance of ensuring they have the resources and stability necessary to raise a child in a suitable environment. Nothing is in the school curriculums to address this. (Straight from my post if you read it properly).

Implement it into the health curriculum.

 

[Gough]

Planet Earth currently produces enough food to comfortably feed 10 billion people -

it's not about the number of people, it's how we distribute and consume the resources we have

The sooner people realise that trickle down economics is one of the bigger cons inflicted on mankind, the sooner we can go some way to remedying this.

 

[Dhoni Dakurri]

Planet Earth currently produces enough food to comfortably feed 10 billion people -

it's not about the number of people, it's how we distribute and consume the resources we have

"Anyone who believes in indefinite growth on a physically finite planet is either mad or an economist"

 

[Scotland]

Planet Earth currently produces enough food to comfortably feed 10 billion people -

it's not about the number of people, it's how we distribute and consume the resources we have

Human activity at current levels is harming Planet Earth. Whether half of what is produced is consumed by 50% of the population of 25% or 10% or 1% the overall effect is the same.

The real issue is the population that Planet Earth can sustainably support. If the planet consumes resources at the per capita rate of India then it can sustain a population of X. If the planet consumes resources at the per capita rate of the US then it can sustain a population of Y.

Solve for X and Y.

 

[radiojake]

"Anyone who believes in indefinite growth on a physically finite planet is either mad or an economist"

I agree 100% and I would hate to think that anything I have posted is construed in anyway supportive of the current economic paradigm --



but your arguments sends us towards the path of eugenics or other heinous means

 

[iluvparis]

Education on the importance of ensuring they have the resources and stability necessary to raise a child in a suitable environment. Nothing is in the school curriculums to address this. (Straight from my post if you read it properly).

Implement it into the health curriculum.

But if there is such a high correlation between education levels and births per mother will this even help?

 

[Dhoni Dakurri]

Human activity at current levels is harming Planet Earth. Whether half of what is produced is consumed by 50% of the population of 25% or 10% or 1% the overall effect is the same.

The real issue is the population that Planet Earth can sustainably support. If the planet consumes resources at the per capita rate of India then it can sustain a population of X. If the planet consumes resources at the per capita rate of the US then it can sustain a population of Y.

Solve for X and Y.

Massive understatement. Its well past the point of no return.

More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.

Half of the worlds animals have disappeared since 1970.

 

[Catfish Alley]

Apart from not planning on having kids how else are you helping things? Lots you can do I guess. Most find it hard to step away from their current lifestyle though.

 

[Dhoni Dakurri]

Apart from not planning on having kids how else are you helping things? Lots you can do I guess. Most find it hard to step away from their current lifestyle though.

Personally Im in a position to educate so lucky in that regard.

 

[estibador]

Wouldn't a true antinatalist have a moral obligation to kill themselves then?

 

[iluvparis]

"Anyone who believes in indefinite growth on a physically finite planet is either mad or an economist"

Assuming technology remains constant

 

[Catfish Alley]

Some of the technology is there. Hydro, solar, electric cars, changes in agriculture etc. Will still need a big shift in mindset.

 

[Doss]

Some of the technology is there. Hydro, solar, electric cars, changes in agriculture etc. Will still need a big shift in mindset.

My personal opinion is that hydro doesn't really deserve to be considered in the same class as solar, wind, harnessing ocean wave power and so on. There's pretty tangible evidence that they do a lot of damage that offsets the lessening of fossil fuel omissions. Look no further than the Snowy Mountains here as just one example.

 

[Catfish Alley]

Personally, I'm considering a 3rd kid. Maybe one of them will solve it. Seems just as likely as asking people not to have offspring.

 

[SwampCreature]

The point of the argument is moot. The horse has bolted. The planet is boned.

Greed won. There is only one thing that will stop overconsumption and that when there's nothing left to consume.

This is perhaps two and a half generations away.

Make sure to die before then.

 

[Catfish Alley]

My personal opinion is that hydro doesn't really deserve to be considered in the same glass as solar, wind, harnessing ocean wave power. There's pretty tangible evidence that they do a lot of damage that offsets the lessening of fossil fuel omissions. Look no further than the Snowy Mountains here as just one example.

Interesting. I'll have to look into it. I know my province is almost fully hydro.

 

[Doss]

Interesting. I'll have to look into it. I know my province is almost fully hydro.

The biggest issue is that dams interfere with migratory patterns of fish. This helps contribute to declining water health.

And there were likely a few species rendered extinct by the flooding of Lake Pedder in Tasmania, as an example. Flooding areas as dams isn't exactly without huge cost, and nor is altering flow direction and patterns.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Well, that's where innovation comes into it. If you rest on your laurels and put all your eggs in one basket in a resources sense, and don't constantly look for better ways to do things, you'll be up s**t creek sooner or later.

Too many powerful vested influences making a s**t-load of $$$ off oil.....Nothing will change or improve & the planet will be destroyed because of it.

 

[Scotland]

Massive understatement. Its well past the point of no return.

More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.

Half of the worlds animals have disappeared since 1970.

Species have come and gone without the involvement of man and will do again.

People make the mistake of separating man from other species. Man is just a species and will come and go.

 

[Catfish Alley]

I was listening to a farmer talk about environmental concerns last night. They're doing a lot in agriculture to make things better and more sustainable. It's come a long way in recent years.

 

[little graham]

Many anti-natalists argue that human activity is the primary cause of environmental degredation and therefore the refraining from reproduction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.
.

Is this another political movement set up to attack the institution of marriage so gay couples can adopt african children?

What you have said here is only fooling the ignorant.