41–50 of 97 posts
A wise person here once suggested viewing the world population as a parallel computer, with each human mind working to move us forward. With this view in mind, as soon as space travel opens the solar system Malthusian philosophy dies forever -- we are going to need as many people as possible both to colonize and to discover answers to all the new problems that will arise. What would technological growth look like wit…
Most of the things that make life good come from other people. People are moving to cities because, on balance, it's better to live around more other people than fewer. Prices for natural resources continue to fall in real terms, because we have more than enough - the most limited resource that modern civilization depends on is human ingenuity.
> But - big picture - what’s important is that reproductive rights are extended to all women and men. Reproductive rights for men as consistently ended at the point of conception, with the modern feminist movement seemingly being one of the strongest voice against men having any rights beyond that point. Did Professor Peter McDonald just mistype when he includes men in this part off the article?
Men and women both have the right of bodily autonomy. In a "traditional" childbearing couple of one straight, cisgender man and one straight, cisgender woman, this identical right expresses itself in very different ways between them, but that doesn't mean that "reproductive rights for men are ended at the point of conception" unless you really, _really_ try.
Why the assumption that a smaller global population is better? Most of the things that make life good come from other people. People are moving to cities because, on balance, it's better to live around more other people than fewer. Prices for natural resources continue to fall in real terms, because we have more than enough - the most limited resource that modern civilization depends on is human ingenuity.
The most limited resource are ecospheres. We currently only have one of those. Overtax that one up and things go downhill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even though responsibility is what gives life meaning. I feel like many men are 'checking out' of society's responsibilities (which need not be related to raising children) for a number of factors.
Responsibility for the sake of responsibility is not going to suffice for most people. Why take on more responsibility than you need to? For example, having kids was a direct advantage in earlier times. More hands on the farm, or more muscle for your clan, or other advantages like receiving dowry. This is also why some cultures preferred one sex or the other. Today, what do you get by raising a kid that you then have…
A wise person here once suggested viewing the world population as a parallel computer, with each human mind working to move us forward. With this view in mind, as soon as space travel opens the solar system Malthusian philosophy dies forever -- we are going to need as many people as possible both to colonize and to discover answers to all the new problems that will arise. What would technological growth look like wit…
> But - big picture - what’s important is that reproductive rights are extended to all women and men. Reproductive rights for men as consistently ended at the point of conception, with the modern feminist movement seemingly being one of the strongest voice against men having any rights beyond that point. Did Professor Peter McDonald just mistype when he includes men in this part off the article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life. More specifically, there is something about the information environment that scrambles whatever mechanism we have for determining if we are doing well enough to bring more children into the world. I mean, it has to be that, since objectively speaking families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in…
> families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in the world, both past and present, yet we are having less children than we want. Answer in 3 words: Real estate prices. If you're a couple in the developed world you probably want to give your kids living standards to match. Fat chance doing that unless you and your partner aren't high earners
Young people usually jump quickly into parenthood, then are overwhelmed by the continuous drain that you can't escape from. Women are exhausted long after giving birth. How do you want to drive around with >3 kids? Organize their activities? And actually have a full-time job that pays it all?
Even if property/rental prices would be good for many-bedroom places (they usually aren't), the rest is quite an effective blocker for most.
I get the feeling this article is conflating birth rate with actual population growth. One reason why people have less children is that more of them survive. Happy to be shown I'm wrong though.
> I get the feeling this article is conflating birth rate with actual population growth. It's not. Fertility rate for the US and the developed world is below replacement. And in the developing world, it has been dropping consistently. > One reason why people have less children is that more of them survive. That's a reason why women don't have 5 or 6 children, but that's not a reason why women has less than 2 on avera…
A wise person here once suggested viewing the world population as a parallel computer, with each human mind working to move us forward. With this view in mind, as soon as space travel opens the solar system Malthusian philosophy dies forever -- we are going to need as many people as possible both to colonize and to discover answers to all the new problems that will arise. What would technological growth look like wit…
War.