The 1/2 surviving child/per person is derived from rational thought and evaluation of our planet’s existing resources. Children are expensive and everyone pays for all the children in one way or another. It’s not always about the money.
When we have a planet that doesn’t expand and most of our resources are not renewable, it’s a zero sum game. Someone in the gene pool who spends all their life making a dozen babies benefits proportionally more than someone who has 1-2 children.
Also..this need to keep having babies is a scam perpetuated by organized religions of all types because the state was always funded by religion. And more subscribers means more power. That’s the kind of bullshit that needs to be stopped in its tracks. Have a nice day!
Even if it is zero sum: if we all stopped eating meat, we could pretty easily sustain ourselves. Putting it on population size instead of how that population behaves is not useful and frankly fatalist.
You don't need to deny the facts because of some fringe-right boogeyman. There really are too many people. But there are perfectly-good solutions no more extreme than the center-left.
And yet you provide no logical refutation.
> We are not past carrying capacity.
Because... you say so?
> Population control is some ecofascist bullshit.
Because... you say so?
"Fascist" doesn't mean "someone told me what to do." Not everything you don't like is "fascist". The environmental movement even at its worse doesn't encourage nationalism, or venerate the military or industry, promote sexism, have an obsession with national security. - it simply has zero connection to fascism.
---
Population increases exponentially, and individual consumption increases exponentially. No one wants to stop having kids. No one wants to stop consumption. No one wants people to tell them what to do. So how is society going to survive?
The answer: it won't. The exponential growth will never stop until it all collapses. People will scream "fascism" at any attempt to stop any of this exponential growth... and we will devastate the ecosystem for all time to come.
This is a really dangerous line of thought you are pursuing here. "We need to control population" is a scary thought and I hope this never becomes a serious solution to the problems we have to solve.
Of course, only those who can afford children should have them. The environment and the commons are for everyone. And there is a cost to bringing new lives and to make sure we have diversity in the gene pool, we ought to have everyone contributing to the gene pool. Otherwise it would just become an inbred mess like we have seen happen with animals and plants. It just makes us weaker as a species.
Population:
1600s ..500 million 1975s ..3.5 billion 2020s ..8.0 billion 2050s ..10 billion
1/2 surviving child per person or have them donate their DNA to a gene bank.
Stop incentivizing children.
Provide quality of life for everyone.
This 'who gets to decide' argument is sophomoric. Its an important issue, and we may have to face it, and we'll do something hopefully equitable.
Maybe if we start making pod babies that can gestate outside the female human body, it would be a free for all decision to make. I hope someone works on it.
fwiw, i think 'marriage' should be abolished entirely. it is the single most effective and likely the oldest surveillance tool upon the human species since ancient times. i have such a dim view of marriage or rather the need for it...in terms of why it was concocted.
marriage as a man made social construct is the end result of so many undesirables. our world would be a better safer equitable place without it. women, for example..would be free from the tyranny of ownership.
Everyone will resist any attempt to limit their God-given right to reproduce as much as they want, to consume as much as they can afford, and to discard the waste wherever they please.
By the time humans figure out that this attitude is not compatible with a functioning biosphere, it will be far too late.