[flagged]
I sincerely hope your comment is satire or sarcasm. It doesn't land that way, it just reads as misogynistic, uncaring and divorced from the modern world.
Given that the World is currently over-populated by almost every metric imaginable, and we are facing an extinction event as a result, I think you can hold back on your demand that we enslave women for a few thousand more years, yet.
How long will it take until humanity is extinct based on the global birth rate of [checks notes] 2.51 children per woman[0]? Please show your working.
When you say "developed countries", I assume you mean the G20 with a birth rate of 1.65 births per woman, but that includes the most populous nations on Earth (China and India).
That means what people are actually talking about is "the birth rate is fine, but it's rich people who will soon be outnumbered". That's not a human extinction event - that's a call to action on equality and inclusion, and to ensure wealth is more evenly distributed.
A lot of people who make these extraordinary claims of extinction risk are themselves very rich (Musk) or people who adulate them (people on Twitter). By insisting birth rate in the G20 is the issue that needs addressing, rather than wealth inequality, they make their motivation pretty plain to see.
But none of this prices in climate change as a risk. Is a human extinction event (or tipping point event) going to happen sooner or later than an extinction event caused by climate change?
As the population decreases and human consumption of resources decreases, will climate change accelerate or decelerate?
Why is birth rate a problem for people of this generation to address urgently, as a higher priority than climate change?
If it is a priority that requires direct intervention, why should that action be - as per the person I was replying to originally - require women to have less choice and autonomy? What method will this take? What other choices are there?
Frankly, I don't know why I'm putting this much effort into arguing with a flawed "philosophy" straight out of the Andrew Tate handbook, that doesn't get backed up by numbers.
If you're scared of poor people having more children, do something about poverty, not telling women they should have a moral obligation to stay at home and bring up your children.
[0] https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/Fertility_rate/
Do you think we can fix those problems without stripping women of freedoms? I do.
This video covers it pretty well
Not sure that's the society I want my daughters to live in though, maybe there's a way to have both equal rights and promote family values?
Like having access to healthcare, reduce the social stigma of being a parent, ensuring there's support for new families, keeping the cost down... Etc!
That's nonsense. Across the developed world, economic pressure on young people is reducing the options available to them. Many more couples would have more children if the economic barriers were removed, including the impact on career and cost of childcare.
Of course, developed nations will (hopefully) never return to the 5+ children per woman which sustained and grew the world population for millennia.
Economic issues? Loneliness? People spend time in TikTok instead of dating?
Modern high standards of living makes it hard to rise children. That's why rich people usually have many. Average Joe can not afford 3 kids.
Instead of fixing our societal problems - all of which have to do with the distribution of resources, healthcare, etc - you're actually advocating for enslaving (sorry, "disempowering") women?
Surely we can think of a better solution than that. We've been to space, created dams that slow the rate the Earth spins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam#Terrestrial_i...), but we just can't do better than... that?