Do you want to have/ do you have kids?

[BigBallinStalin]

:o

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Pardon?!?

Go ahead. Explain away, good sir.

[thegreekdog]

Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

I love straw man arguments! Stop trying to bring reason into this debate!

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. The planet doesn't have infinite resources, and a given resource is not infinitely substitutable. We just have no clue how to robustly calculate how many humans is too many.

Malthusian Cycle.

I don't think Malthus envisioned the existence of nuclear weapons when he originally wrote. Those have the possibility of fundamentally changing the nature of the population catastrophe (though I don't think there's a solid answer on how badly global nuclear winter would hurt us collectively).

One caveat to the above answer: it's possible we'll get humans off Earth before any major resource shortage hits. But even if we do, doesn't seem likely that we'll stop procreating here.

I tend to think it's more likely that a cycle occurs associated with something other than nuclear war (perhaps a virus or starvation or something related to global warming). Note some historians posit that the rise of capitalism forestalled Malthusian Cycles. I need to find the one guy from Yale that said that.

[Metsfanmax]

Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

I love straw man arguments! Stop trying to bring reason into this debate!

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. The planet doesn't have infinite resources, and a given resource is not infinitely substitutable. We just have no clue how to robustly calculate how many humans is too many.

"Therefore, there's too many humans."
"Begin voluntary efforts to cease reproduction."

How do those conclusions follow? How does that make sense?


(Sure, the optimal amount isn't infinity, and there are constraints (on this Earth and the universe) to some unknown degree, but these are obvious and uninteresting points).

Maybe I misunderstood your post. I meant that, in the abstract, concern about the Earth not being able to hold an indefinite amount of humans is valid. I didn't mean that concern about the particular number we have now is valid from a resource limitation point of view.

[AndyDufresne]

Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

I love straw man arguments! Stop trying to bring reason into this debate!

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. The planet doesn't have infinite resources, and a given resource is not infinitely substitutable. We just have no clue how to robustly calculate how many humans is too many.

"Therefore, there's too many humans."
"Begin voluntary efforts to cease reproduction."

How do those conclusions follow? How does that make sense?


(Sure, the optimal amount isn't infinity, and there are constraints (on this Earth and the universe) to some unknown degree, but these are obvious and uninteresting points).

Maybe I misunderstood your post. I meant that, in the abstract, concern about the Earth not being able to hold an indefinite amount of humans is valid. I didn't mean that concern about the particular number we have now is valid from a resource limitation point of view.

The real concern is just sheer space. I mean, Star Trek TOS - The Mark Of Gideon as exhibit A:



Soon we'll all be pressed up against glass, shoulder to shoulder?!!


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

I love straw man arguments! Stop trying to bring reason into this debate!

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. The planet doesn't have infinite resources, and a given resource is not infinitely substitutable. We just have no clue how to robustly calculate how many humans is too many.

"Therefore, there's too many humans."
"Begin voluntary efforts to cease reproduction."

How do those conclusions follow? How does that make sense?


(Sure, the optimal amount isn't infinity, and there are constraints (on this Earth and the universe) to some unknown degree, but these are obvious and uninteresting points).

Maybe I misunderstood your post. I meant that, in the abstract, concern about the Earth not being able to hold an indefinite amount of humans is valid. I didn't mean that concern about the particular number we have now is valid from a resource limitation point of view.

Oh, cool. We're in agreement.

[BigBallinStalin]

The real concern is just sheer space. I mean, Star Trek TOS - The Mark Of Gideon as exhibit A:



Soon we'll all be pressed up against glass, shoulder to shoulder?!!


--Andy

IIRC, we can fit the world's population into the State of Texas. Everyone would have a two-story house and their own Victory Garden!

[AndyDufresne]

Do we get sweet one piece jumpsuits with that protect our scalp as well?


--Andy

[fadedpsychosis]

Having children is the greatest act of cruelty.

-TG

Luckily in one of many alternate universes, we aren't having them. But then in others, we are. Junk.


--Andy

"Having them" as in A Modest Proposal?

I'm sorry, but this made me laugh

The real concern is just sheer space. I mean, Star Trek TOS - The Mark Of Gideon as exhibit A:



Soon we'll all be pressed up against glass, shoulder to shoulder?!!


--Andy

IIRC, we can fit the world's population into the State of Texas. Everyone would have a two-story house and their own Victory Garden!

yeah, but speaking as someone who used to live there... why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to that??


as for the original OP... too much crazy between me and my wife (and too high a risk for cancer in my own genetics) to really want kids... if it happens (with protections in place), well it happens, but I'm not going out of my way for it.... and I've already told my wife that if it doesn't happen in the next 4 years it won't happen (I'll be 37, and I don't want to be 50 with a teenager as my eldest)

[BigBallinStalin]

Having children is the greatest act of cruelty.

-TG

Luckily in one of many alternate universes, we aren't having them. But then in others, we are. Junk.


--Andy

"Having them" as in A Modest Proposal?

I'm sorry, but this made me laugh

The real concern is just sheer space. I mean, Star Trek TOS - The Mark Of Gideon as exhibit A:



Soon we'll all be pressed up against glass, shoulder to shoulder?!!


--Andy

IIRC, we can fit the world's population into the State of Texas. Everyone would have a two-story house and their own Victory Garden!

yeah, but speaking as someone who used to live there... why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to that??

I'll contact the Make Texas Great Again Initiative Bureau to make sure you don't get your very own Victory Garden.

[iAmCaffeine]

Yes, eventually.

[krallam]

:o

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Pardon?!?

Go ahead. Explain away, good sir.

so you don't think we(humans)have a population problem, then? perhaps i misread? not sure...

[AslanTheKing]

my live without kids would be .... empty
all the luxury and sort of, i enjoyed
but the meaning of life for me
was to have my own family and kids
i gave up everything to get only that,
i had the choice , i choose family, it was right
i dont travel anymore around the world and drink pina colada in acapulco or hawaii
or get a massage in kuala lumpur or eat sushi for a change in tokio

no, i stay now where i am
cause of my kids

having kids is one thing, having your own family is up to you and your wife
but sady, thats another chapter of human tragedys
i have my wife, and my kids,
i wish the same for you

[BigBallinStalin]

:o

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Pardon?!?

Go ahead. Explain away, good sir.

so you don't think we(humans)have a population problem, then? perhaps i misread? not sure...

If I had to guess, no.

If you wanted certain proof, I can't demonstrate it--except for the fact that rising population rates have not been a problem for certain areas, given certain institutions. When countries become wealthier, growth rates tend to decline (dramatically). If all countries had the right kind of institutions (economic, political, social systems), then their population growth rates would decline as they became wealthier. If more countries allowed for a greater mobility of labor, then there would be less of need to produce so many humans in poorer countries; they could simply move to much better environments, and in turn punish their homelands for governing so poorly

No, I'm not concerned about the growth rates of human populations. I'm concerned with more important issues which have significant effects on the prosperity and future growth of human beings. I fear that too many well-intended people support policies which inadvertently undermine their own well-being in the long-run.