General Discussion

linuxman

(2,337 posts)

42. Not sure how you got that, but whatever.

Reply to athena (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 13, 2016, 01:02 AM

Sep 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

135 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Why we should have fewer children: to save the planet" [View all] smirkymonkey Sep 2016 OP

Reproduction rates are already at historic lows and have been declining for decades... pipoman Sep 2016 #1

Exactly. The population of several EU countries is in decline. Here in the US it will be within 10. tonyt53 Sep 2016 #2

He is on about this... FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #3

+1000 smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #4

You can take the first step...yeah, I didn't think so... pipoman Sep 2016 #12

What is the first step? sammythecat Sep 2016 #64

We should sterilize the poor...that would fix it. pipoman Sep 2016 #11

World population growth has slowed, but the population is still growing athena Sep 2016 #6

Do what? pipoman Sep 2016 #13

You do understand the difference athena Sep 2016 #22

But didn't that just acknowledge my point, and the other person's point? tonyt53 Sep 2016 #26

You're assuming we will not run out of resources in the meantime. athena Sep 2016 #27

Not assuming anything of the sort. We also are producing enough to keep up with demand. tonyt53 Sep 2016 #29

Look at the link I posted. athena Sep 2016 #33

Ahh, but with your "assuming" defense of it speaks otherwise. tonyt53 Sep 2016 #77

Food production is currently heavily dependant upon fossil fuels, a nonrenewable resource NickB79 Sep 2016 #129

We are using higher and higher percentages of renewable energy every year pipoman Sep 2016 #30

You didn't look at the link I posted, did you? athena Sep 2016 #32

Yeah more people are using sanitary systems every year pipoman Sep 2016 #39

Thank you for explaining this very simple concept. smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #55

Do something where? - the better question bhikkhu Sep 2016 #34

More education and economic opportunities for women. smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #56

Europe, Asia, North and South America are not "basically OK already." athena Sep 2016 #58

Thank you. raccoon Sep 2016 #63

But we're humans, not North Americans The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #66

Interesting points. athena Sep 2016 #68

The biological goal isn't to populate the planet The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #78

True, it depends on which problem you are looking at bhikkhu Sep 2016 #108

The United States isn't the globe. This is what this guy is on about: NickB79 Sep 2016 #9

Probably will be about 1-2 billion. roamer65 Sep 2016 #41

And yet, LWolf Sep 2016 #46

We're not really built to save the planet The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #5

In the movie Idiocracy the "smart" folks failed to reproduce - leaving us with: jonno99 Sep 2016 #7

In reality, smart folks often have stupid children athena Sep 2016 #8

If the world is screwed by my wife and I having two kids, linuxman Sep 2016 #17

I would worry about the kind of world your children will have to live in, athena Sep 2016 #23

My children are part of the viable hopes of fixing our world/society one day. linuxman Sep 2016 #24

You seriously believe your genes are superior to those of the 7.4 billion people in the world? athena Sep 2016 #25

Not sure how you got that, but whatever. linuxman Sep 2016 #42

So you're against immigration, then? Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #43

It's responses like that that make this such a difficult topic to discuss The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #50

I have seen those angry mobs of stroller pushers roaming the streets, hunting for well-rested adults Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #45

Intelligence is more closely related to environment than genetic heritage bhikkhu Sep 2016 #35

might not environment be related to some genetic component? there could be more than TheFrenchRazor Sep 2016 #38

Meanwhile, people who don't give a fuck about saving the planet are having a "quiverfull." Iggo Sep 2016 #10

i knew this for years. just because i like old cemeteries and i saw that start trek w/ the bee pansypoo53219 Sep 2016 #14

No, not to save the planet. To save humans. Avalux Sep 2016 #15

maybe Travis could "put his money where his mouth is" so to speak. frankieallen Sep 2016 #16

What makes you think he is not doing so? athena Sep 2016 #28

he hasn't jumped off a building yet, ya know, to save the planet. frankieallen Sep 2016 #82

His article is about having fewer children, not committing suicide. athena Sep 2016 #101

Why do so many people automatically assume that any argument that discusses population control smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #117

Why do so many so called liberals have such a problem with controlling fertility smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #18

I don't get it either. DLevine Sep 2016 #20

Even some on this thread get illogical and emotional about a real problem FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #47

Thanks! I feel like people are taking this personally or like the message is that smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #54

At the same time, every institution we've built is based on more people The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #57

Children are largely seen as a want that must be fulfilled no matter the cost REP Sep 2016 #96

People are very threatened by the idea of a woman who wants to live her own life. athena Sep 2016 #99

I would guess it's the abstract goals of doing it The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #48

Who has said anything about non-white people having fewer babies? athena Sep 2016 #102

Well where are the largest birth rates in the world? The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #115

BIG K&R! Thanks for posting this smirkymonkey. nt riderinthestorm Sep 2016 #19

Thanks rider! I wish we could have a logical discussion about this on DU smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #132

It's an important topic. Kick and rec. nt DLevine Sep 2016 #21

I've read a lot about population growth over the last decade Victor_c3 Sep 2016 #31

The problem isn't the North and South American and European countries. Calista241 Sep 2016 #36

Because we try to save everyone The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #72

Short of doing cap and trade on wombs, I'm not sure how this would work Major Nikon Sep 2016 #37

Religion is one of the biggest obstacles here. smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #81

"One planet, One child." roamer65 Sep 2016 #40

These threads always go exactly the same, every time. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #44

A few comments FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #49

That's really the basis of every argument society has The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #51

I've concluded that some people are absolutely miserable if they cant tell other people what to do. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #53

I think most people have a little pro-choice and anti-choice in them The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #59

It's not "it will sort itself out naturally"; it DOES. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #52

Of course, it may sort itself out through disease, famine, floods, wars, and cannibalism. athena Sep 2016 #60

We can incent people to not have children too FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #62

Good point! athena Sep 2016 #67

Having children is what will keep society functional in the future The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #69

Immigration provides plenty of taxpayers. athena Sep 2016 #71

"No one should feel they should have children to keep society functional." The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #74

Go ahead and twist my argument. athena Sep 2016 #75

Hear, hear! smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #83

that's an incredibly realistic and sensible proposal, you've made there. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #88

So society does need people to function in the future The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #89

this thread isn't about practical, realistic solutions. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #94

You seem to be suggesting that we just give up. athena Sep 2016 #103

We shouldnt give up. We should recognize what has already worked. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #111

I'm not saying give up, I'm saying we're stuck in a loop no matter what we do The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #113

Well, It's kind of hard to have taxpayers when there aren't enough jobs to go around for smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #97

Absolutely The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #114

I think it will require a combination of stick and carrot solutions FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #70

I love that! athena Sep 2016 #73

so, like what sort of criticism would you level at a family that has 3 children? Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #87

I can't tell you how many women I have met in my life who have told me smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #98

And like I said, that's a resource utilization problem, not a population one. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #86

The uncomfortable truth is we are already beyond the carrying capacity of the Earth FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #61

that's an arbitrary and non-scientific conclusion, Malthus. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #85

It is dire and scientific FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #90

"Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people." Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #91

You can also find a scientific study denying climate change in 10 seconds FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #93

are you suggesting that the people in that link are anti-science deniers? Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #95

Did you even read the article you linked? athena Sep 2016 #100

you're not listening to me, and I think you're the one who didn't read the article. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #104

Please read the whole article. athena Sep 2016 #105

I don't eat red meat, not that my diet (or reproductive life) is really any of your business. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #106

You're the one putting all your hopes in a sudden worldwide conversion to vegetarianism. athena Sep 2016 #109

I didn't say I was putting all my hopes on vegetarianism, and neither did the article. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #110

It is in fact as dire as he said it is. NickB79 Sep 2016 #130

Or have twenty, and make sure they stick together and are all outfitted like the Lord Humungus. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #131

Is that a life you'd want your children to live? NickB79 Sep 2016 #134

Okay, fine, you win, I won't have any more children. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #135

Ok I wont have any more Egnever Sep 2016 #65

Yeah, I was totally going to have 10 kids until I read this thread Zing Zing Zingbah Sep 2016 #126

Know what keeps me from having any more? Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #128

Thom Hartmann is discussing over-population on his show today. napi21 Sep 2016 #76

I agree completely that everyone who thinks like this should have few children as possible. CBGLuthier Sep 2016 #79

The thing that drops birth rate most is participation by women in a society ehrnst Sep 2016 #80

Exactly! smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #84

At 57 it kind of feels good not having contributed nolabels Sep 2016 #92

Absolutely. I don't recommend parenting to anyone. It has to be something you opt into ehrnst Sep 2016 #116

I've always looked as raising children the same way. Other people can deal with that shit. RB TexLa Sep 2016 #122

I'm doing my part UMTerp01 Sep 2016 #107

I've formed my own society to crush the power of fecundity Orrex Sep 2016 #112

You are reading something into what I have posted that isn't there. smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #118

I read the article, and he does the classic thing of setting up imaginary strawmen to make his case. Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #119

Then the question is is the replacement rate too high The2ndWheel Sep 2016 #127

well, upthread you have people suggesting we should lower our birthrate to zero and then just import Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #133

We are not your friends Orrex Sep 2016 #121

Grow up. smirkymonkey Sep 2016 #123

The crops are few, the cattle gone Orrex Sep 2016 #125

There's no messiah in here Warren DeMontague Sep 2016 #120

Because children are ter-- graegoyle Sep 2016 #124