> That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children
You say this like it's a bad thing. If only rich people had children we could nearly eliminate human suffering within a generation.
You say this like it's a bad thing. If only rich people had children we could nearly eliminate human suffering within a generation.
Those are the kinds of traits (whether genetic or not) that we should be trying to expunge from the population.
I said nothing about disallowing anyone to reproduce. I just said if only rich people reproduced we could eliminate most human suffering. Learn to read.
First, I can't see how this is a strawman. Logically, in academia, perhaps you could argue this is a strawman because you technically didn't say the word "prevent", but in the "real world" I can't see how 50% of the entire world's population (or whatever percentage we're talking about here) would just agree with your hypothesis and say: "You know what, he's probably right. We, the poor people of the world are a burden on society and shouldn't be having children of our own. From this day forward we vow not to have children because we think this guy may be right, that it would truly end human suffering when it's all said and done". No. The only way this experiment would proceed is through a large-scale state-sponsored effort to prevent poor people from having children. Against their will. And not only this, but I'm almost positive that if this large-scale effort proceeded it would more than likely erupt into a civil (world?) war. Far from the original goal to "eliminate human suffering".
Second, I can't see how this is a personal attack. That is unless you do believe a person's self worth is measured by the size of their bank account. And if you do believe a person's self-worth is measured by the size of their bank account, it's no more a personal attack than the attack you've made on poor people by insinuating that they are the root cause of human suffering on this planet, simply because they have the audacity to have children of their own.
You seem to forget that capitalism only works when you have a captive group. In order for your life to be good, other people's lives have to be comparatively worse.
With that small of an educated population we could sit back, automate everything, and hardly have to compete for resources at all (especially not necessities like food and rent).
The working class quite literally feed you, clothe you, and keep you safe at night. Get out into the world, learn more about how things are created and whose shoulders you're standing on when you're seeing this golden future of yours.
Not to mention the per-capita increases in efficiency we would see if the population was small enough that we could get by farming only the most fertile ground, burning only the easiest-to-extract oil, etc.
> The working class quite literally feed you, clothe you, and keep you safe at night.
Yes, and I'm saying it's cruel of them (us? I'm rich by world standards but not American ones.) to continue to have children that are condemned to a life of the same sort of servitude (or worse, famine and disease).