With an unstoppable global warming, overpopulation, and food and water shortages.

[Dawgs]

Why do people continue to have a children, or be happy when the hear someone they know is pregnant?

It always makes me so sad.

[rjsquirrel]

1. You know that's your perspective

but throughout human history things were much worse.

Until less than 100 years ago 1/3 of all women died in childbirth. Infant mortality was horrendous. Epidemic diseases and wars wiped out whole nations and generations. Humans have known famine and genocide for millennia.

And yet we kept having babies. As do all our fellow creatures on earth. Because we are not here for ourselves. We are here as mere conduits for genetic information, and we are not motivated by reason but by an evolutionarily inherent mandate to push our genetic material into the future.

So your question can only be rhetorical. One could have asked it at any point in history. Why go on? Because we exist only to propagate at a material level.

Everything else about human culture -- Art, politics, religion, science-- is mere elaboration of the drive to reproduce.

ETA my parents lived through decades of fear that Soviet nukes would rain down and our nuclear counterstrike would end all life on earth. Catholics that they were, I'm one of 5 kids. If you don't remember this, some of us do.

[Dawgs]

8. My "perspective" is based on science and facts. Changing my opinion won't make a difference.

Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

There is no reversing global warming and water shortages are almost a guarantee.

BTW, those things you list were all addressed through better healthcare and innovation.

[rjsquirrel]

14. Lol I'm a biologist

with a PHD and a tenured professorship.

It's amusing to be lectured on science.

Humans have survived climate change events in our past. We will likely survive the current changes.

But your response simply ignores my point. I didn't deny the reality or severity of climate change, which is indirectly a subject of my research (which deals directly with extinction however!). All I said was that your question assumes humans make rational decisions to reproduce or not based on prevailing risk factors.

That is arrant nonsense. Humans continue to reproduce under conditions of far more immediate threat to their existence than climate change. And have for all of our history.

Think about it for a moment. Until about 1930 a third of all women died in childbirth. Knowing those were their odds, why did women continue getting pregnant, besides lack of birth control?

Population growth can indeed be depressed by external conditions and psychological factors, both quite well documented phenomena. But the mammalian instinct to reproduce can't be reasoned away.

The reality of severe climate change may well impact reproductive patterns in all kinds of ways. But humans don't "decide" to have babies. We do it because it is the main drive that animates our evolutionary history. Or any other species for that matter.

Your initial question is based on false assumptions.

Maybe if I rephrase it as "why don't humans stop fucking if the world is frightening?" you can see why. That is what you are asking, unadorned.

I'm not arguing about climate change, a subject on which we largely agree (I just don't think it's reversible anymore and do not expect, as an expert on species extinction in fact, that it suggests an extinction level event for human beings, just our current social and technological and population dynamics).

ETA that among other things we are likely genetically programmed to make more babies when we feel our social groups to be threatened. Someone has to survive to move the genes down the line.


ETA also: your question is better addressed to rational choices fully under conscious control, such as "why do humans continue to drive SUVs given their knowledge of impending climate catastrophe?"

[Dawgs]

100. Got it. Humans are incapable of not reproducing because they are dumb animals that like fucking.

Great analysis.

[rjsquirrel]

115. Lol alas a true one

Sorry you reject evolutionary theory but most biologists see things this way. Guess you never studied science.

Higher reason is weak compared to instinct.

If this were not true we wouldn't be here. Life was far worse in every way for most humans until a few decades ago. Yet they kept on fucking and having babies.

Individuals or intentional groups can swear themselves to celibacy (even so history proves that's very hard for humans). But our most basic drives are to eat and to reproduce.

[essme]

138. That's not what

She or he wrote.

[Dawgs]

142. It pretty much is

what they wrote.

[Silver_Witch]

121. I would say woman continued to

Get pregnant because they had no choice! Birth control is a huge issue as was even having the right to refuse sex. You do know that right??

We will never fix the issues facing us as long as people continue to believe it "will all be okay". We have lived through worse sure but should we continue to destroy the planet?

[rjsquirrel]

125. Who said it will all be ok?

Everyone of us is going to die. Many bad things will happen. Life will likely continue to evolve unless we manage a major nuclear conflagration before civilization fades away.

In a biologist. My perspective is millions of years, not the historian's centuries. Being ok or not doesn't enter into my thinking. It was not ok for dinosaurs when emergent species figured out how to steal their eggs or when a giant meteor caused a global climate event. It was great for us hominids though, if you take the long view.

We are animals with big enough brains that we think in abstractions we can communicate. That makes us think we can divert the natural history of life on earth. That's pure hubris at epochal scale.

Animals exist to reproduce. We are in effect hosts for parasitic genes. They don't care if we live or die or suffer or exult, just as long as we make babies.


Your explanation for the childbirth question is charming. You're saying that for millions of years, hominids (or for a few hundred thousand years, Homo sapiens) only kept having babies because women didn't have a choice to practice birth control?

There is no stronger human drive than the reproductive drive. I'd be curious if you have had children because any parent knows this and wouldn't trade parenthood at any cost. And that is most of humanity through most of our history.

[Silver_Witch]

137. I am indeed saying woman had no choice

And as I said before no was not acceptable. I have generations of woman in my family who not only didn't want children resented having them.

In 1974 I had to get a notarized letter from my husband giving HIS permission to have my tubes tied. So yes I think woman have been forced to give birth.

As for children I adore them and had 14 foster children. There are plenty of unwanted children that would love to have a home even if for only a short while.

[rjsquirrel]

139. We are talking past each other

Now that women do have a choice, the vast majority continue to pursue motherhood.

Kudos to you for foster parenting so many kids, but anyone who has even one of their own knows that being a parent is far more a joy than a burden.

Still irrelevant to my point however, which you're ignoring. Having babies is the reason we exist. It's a basic human drive. It is The Basic Organic Drive of all living things. By scientific definition. Some may choose not to,but adverse conditions do not deter most people from wanting to reproduce, and it's not a conscious decision.

We would not be here if that were not true.

[Dawgs]

143. BS. Many people want children but still choose not to have them.

And, many parents regret having children. You might not know any but they absolutely exist.

[rjsquirrel]

145. Of course and so what?

We are arguing on different planes here. Having babies is not something humans decide to do or not the way they decide whether to drive a ford or a Chevy or a bike.

Actually no parent I know "regrets" having children. But individual cases thereof make no difference to the case I'm making.

It is simply a biological fact that all life on earth has reproduction as a primary instinctual drive. Human "reason" is a puny force compared to that. Asking why people have children in hard times is a nonsensical question from a biological point of view, and I'm a biologist.

[yeoman6987]

18. I'm thrilled when people have kids

We need to replace our generation. The world will evolve on issues as they come. The world always does.

[Exilednight]

54. I'm not convinced about that. it seems that since the 1980s that the world

Has regressed in many ways. Reagan and Thatcher were just the spearhead of what has been a long line of right wing xenophobes becoming more and more common.

[ChazII]

72. +1

Thank you, yeoman for your common sense.

[calm_thinker]

80. ye0man6987 and chazII - both + 1

[joeunderdog]

76. Evolve?

Did you see the 2016 Republican Presidential ticket?

If they were any less evolved, they would have been walking on 4 legs.

[Angel Martin]

86. long term, temperatures are on a downward trend

?itok=DRHNrr3d
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

[truebluegreen]

102. Long term, in how much of that timeline

Did mankind exist? Because the rest is immaterial.

[Angel Martin]

118. evolution occurred over millions of years nt

[truebluegreen]

122. Why, yes. Yes, it did.

We've gone through several stages and to date 5 mass extinctions. Human beings have been around for 2.5-3 million years, modern humans for a measly 200,000 (refer to your chart for placement). Things have changed a bit in the last century or two and we are outrunning the carrying capacity of the planet. And btw, we don't evolve at the speed of fruit flies.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/numb-nf.html

[Marengo]

2. You expect human procreation to cease entirely and immediately?

Do you make sure these people know what a tragic mistake they have made?

[Dawgs]

4. I never said it should end entirely and immediately.

You're putting words in my mouth.

And no, I don't tell people that they made a tragic mistake.

[radical noodle]

28. Over population was once a big concern

I don't have a clue why that stopped being true. As we plant more and more concrete and less trees, and take up every empty space on this planet, it isn't really a question of why people have babies (for me). The question is what terrible things will befall us as Mother Earth tries to thin the herd. We will see a lack of water, food and possibly epidemics. The Chinese had the right idea, have one baby per family for awhile and reduce a population that is unsustainable.

While I love babies and had one child, I never considered more than one for exactly this reason. I don't think most people ever consider these things when they have children, though. Not to mention that increasing the population is usually considered to be economically desirable to provide even more tiny little consumers.

[Marengo]

5. Some, or all people? As it's written, your statement seems to suggest all people, everywhere.

[Dawgs]

9. Well, you're wrong. nt

[Marengo]

10. Well, toss some modifiers in there!

[Moostache]

3. Because sex is fun and feels incredible.

Seriously, seek medical attention if your world view has become that dark. Things are bad. No doubt, but it is a very short hop from "why have more kids?" to "let's get rid of these surplus people". Fight against despair if for no othere reason than to prevent the bad from becoming the horrific.

[Binkie The Clown]

6. A Human's ability to ignore the life-threatening climate catastrophe just around the corner...

...is exactly why the human race will not survive another 100 years. There are almost certainly people alive to day who will die of catastrophic ecosystem failure. And 100 years from today there will very probably be no humans left alive on planet Earth.

No, of course you don't want to hear that, and of course you will muster whatever "proof" you can that things are not that bad, but the fact is that things are that bad.

[Dawgs]

11. Yep. Things really are that bad.

I mean, why would we listen to scientists who actually study this stuff.

[sweetapogee]

13. may I ask

are you a lab scientist or a researcher?

[Dawgs]

34. No. I'm not. nt

[sweetapogee]

92. then

take some advanced math and biology classes at your local community college or state university. Put some authority behind your predictions.

[Dawgs]

101. No thanks. I trust others that do that for a living.

Maybe you should do the same.

[sweetapogee]

113. thanks for the advice!!!!

But I already do that.

Take care

[Binkie The Clown]

16. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. It is what it is.

And it's not my job to convince you of the reality of the threat. If you want to find the truth you can find it for yourself. Of course almost everyone who sets out to "find the truth" ends up finding whatever supports what they prefer to believe, true or not. So I suspect that you may find it easy to line up experts who agree with you, while I would find it equally easy to locate experts who agree with me. The whole exercise, however, is pointless. It's a done deal. It's baked in. There are no fixes.

[Dawgs]

35. I think you mis-read my post.

I agree with you.

[Binkie The Clown]

49. Ah, sorry. I took "why pay attention to scientists" as sarcasm...

...implying that you thought scientists disagreed with my position. A lot of them do, you know. It's just too easy to misinterpret the printed word.

[Dreamer Tatum]

56. Scientists had the world ending by now.

I'm not sure why you lend credence to forecasts for which the event under study has never occurred.

[yeoman6987]

19. So because the world population MIGHT die out in 100 years,

You wan't to deprive future children to enjoy living 80 years or so?

[Binkie The Clown]

23. How to you "deprive" a person who does not exist of anything?

By not reading the books are you depriving Harry Potter, the person, of his due?

Ridiculous! Harry Potter does not exist.

Your hypothetical "future children" do not exist. Only after a child comes into existence can it be deprived of anything. And children born today will be deprived of a great deal. So the question is not do I want to "deprive" hypothetical future children, but, do you want to subject real children born today to a lifetime of deprivation and suffering?

On edit: I might add, that we won't go on with life as usual for 99 years, 11 months, and 30 days only to go extinct as the calendar rolls over to the 100 year mark. Conditions will grow increasingly severe and violent over the entire course of that 100 years. (or 90 years or 110 years, or whatever.) Human suffering will continue to grow, year after year, starting with vulnerable places like Bangladesh and working its way right up to our own front doors.

[yeoman6987]

26. I don't know

Your beliefs are a bit to radical for me. Maybe another thread we would agree.

[Silver_Witch]

123. Do you read what you post?

The disaster is NOT 100 years away. I guess 80 of life is more valuable than saving the planet.

[LiberalLoner]

62. +1

[A HERETIC I AM]

75. Bollocks

Human beings are a lot more resourceful and adaptable than you give them credit for.

You realize humans survived the last ice age, right?

They'll survive the situation you are so concerned about as well

[Binkie The Clown]

78. Yes, humans survived the ice age, but

modern civilization could not survive an ice age. Nor can industrial civilization survive runaway global warming. We are first and foremost, animals, and animals live in habitat. And when habitat dies, the animals supported by that habitat die.

[A HERETIC I AM]

83. More bollocks

I think you are underestimating the resourcefulness of humanity.

And doing so by a country mile

[Binkie The Clown]

84. I won't be able to say "I told you so" because

the Internet will be one of the earlier victims of collapse.

Just remember that I did tell you so, and save me the effort.

[Lancero]

88. And you're underestimating how dependent the majority modern humanity is on technology.

Those resourceful aspects of humanity are by far the minority.

[A HERETIC I AM]

89. The Clown said the human race will not exist in 100 years

It won't take the majority of modern humanity to prove that to be bullshit.

I'll wager there are tens of millions who will survive no matter what

[Binkie The Clown]

131. Or maybe even a few thousand, or a few hundred thousand.

If not extinction now, at least the worst bottleneck in human history. Extinction awaits eventually, however.

But tens of millions of survivors? I seriously doubt it.

Climate change will push refugees north, causing crowding, conflict, violence, mayhem, possibly nuclear war as all of Africa streams into Europe and all of the equatorial Americans streams north into the northern U.S. and Canada.

As civilization falters under the load, and the electrical grid fails, nuclear reactors around the world, deprived of the power to keep them cool, will melt down. Spent rod pools will boil off and explode and burn and vast clouds of nuclear contaminants will spread across the globe. It's not a pretty picture, and I really wish it wasn't a near certainty, but the sad fact is, it's the most likely scenario for our immediate future.

[A HERETIC I AM]

132. You must be a blast at parties n/t

[Marengo]

91. And a scientist in this thread disagrees. What are your credentials?

[Dawgs]

103. Are you a climate scientist who's sole job is to study global warming?

Or maybe you're one of those scientists that's an expert on all things science just because you are a "scientist".

I'm guessing it's the latter.

[Marengo]

112. I made no such claim and was referencing post #14. Authored by a scientist...

Refuting the claim that climate change is an extinction level event for humans

[Binkie The Clown]

116. "refuting"? or disagreeing? There's a big difference.

Time will tell, and I'm in no hurry for humans to go extinct, but every species goes extinct eventually. It's just a question of when.

[Marengo]

130. Refuting may be too strong, but I believe this cycle of climate change will not cause...

Extinction of the human species. Contraction most certainly, and a reordering of our social, economic, and political structures, but we as a species will adapt.

[Delphinus]

128. Quite telling

and interesting cartoon.

[glinda]

7. I understand what you are saying and it is from a point of compassion.

When you feel so deeply and care about everything, the planet, the varied Species, etc.....it is not an unusual thing to question for some.
All one can do is keep working towards educating and attempting to make changes in a direction that will stall or hopefully even repair damage being done on the Planet. That keeps me moving forward and sane. Hugs.

[The2ndWheel]

12. Short term beats long term, every time

That's just how we're built. Our abstract imaginations can think of all kinds of things for the future, but we exist in the right now. If you want to have a kid, if you want to have 10 kids, nobody gets to stop you. Why? Because humans aren't good at making choices for other humans. We always complain about fairness.

Medical science. Short term, people live. Long term, there are more people alive, needing more resources. The Green Revolution. Short term, people live. Long term, there are more people alive, needing more resources. Having a child. Short term, parents might be happy, the child has a world full of potential in them. Long term, it's another person, needing more resources.

There might be 7+ billion people on the planet, but you don't know and will never even meet the vast majority of them. Your friend or relative that just had a kid? You may know and love them, and are happy for them, because their kid is just one kid who you will know. That kid isn't just 1 in the abstract number of 7+ billion other humans.

[Glassunion]

15. Because it will get better.

My wife and I have personally chosen not to have children, but this is our choice. We do not do it to save the planet or any such reason.

However, when someone we know or love decides to have a child, we celebrate that life. We do not see it as greedy people doing the absolute worst thing for they environment that they possibly could.

We are not so pessimistic. I try to see limitless possibilities and potential. Right now, a child is alive who will live to see 150 years old. Right now someone is alive who will discover the cure for AIDS, Cancer, and possibly the common cold. Someone is walking the earth right now who will discover a cheap, and easy to deploy clean alternative energy source. Right now there is a baby who will be her generation's David Bowie, Prince, Michael Jackson, Donna Summer, Blondie, etc... And frankly, I cannot wait to hear her music. Right now, just take a look at any toddler, and in all of their pudgy, clumsy glory, and realize you are looking at a Picasso, an Armstrong, a Angelou, a Marley, a King, a Mozart... They just haven't achieved their potential.

It will get better.

[NickB79]

21. That's not what the science is telling us

We're on track for 3-4C of warming.

[PoutrageFatigue]

25. At a minimum...

.....

[Warren DeMontague]

32. "On track" assumes no game changing technological advances.

Our brains got us here, they will get us out.

[eShirl]

93. failing that, our AI robot "progeny" will carry on

[truebluegreen]

104. Maybe they would if we actually used them

but we are showing no inclination to do so.

[hatrack]

117. Yes, we're so smart that an end-run around thermodynamics is just around the corner . . .

.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. end run around thermodynamics, no.

a more clean way of powering our shit, possibly.

[Silver_Witch]

124. I am afraid that is simply not true.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. Okay, well, if I'm wrong then we're fucked anyway.

So really, there isn't much point in debating it, is there.

[Silver_Witch]

135. I suppose that is true.

[Sissyk]

58. I LOVE this post! N/t

[Skittles]

73. we could have already discovered all those things

but we spend money on senseless wars

[Glassunion]

114. Indeed.

Personally I'd rather remain more optimistic in our future. It's better for my overall health. I thinking the younger generations in their teens to 30's are going to make significant strides. They will get us off oil, they will cure our modern day plagues, they will begin the healing process of all the shit we have done to the environment.

[Throd]

17. Should I apologize to my children for having them?

Doom Underground

[Dawgs]

24. You can do whatever you want.

I know I would apologize to mine.

[philosslayer]

68. You would apologize to your own children...

For the fact that they were alive. Umm...okay!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Are we at peak scold yet?

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Thread Win.

[Rex]

22. We got a long way to go before we overpopulate the planet.

Food and water shortages can be fixed, but we are greedy by nature so that is probably out. Nobody is going to fix global warming, it evidently eats into the bottom line.

What makes me sad is that we live in an advanced age where we can wipe out famine, but it cost money and nobody wants to pony up. We could also at least reduce green house gases, but that too would mean ponying up money. Never happen.

[The2ndWheel]

40. With humans it's also not just the raw number of people

7+ billion people need infrastructure. Our technology amplifies everything that we do.

[Binkie The Clown]

50. We already comsume 2-1/2 planet's worth of renewable resources.

We are already overpopulated. And no, we can't fix food and water shortages.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-world-faces-food-shortages-and-mass-migration-caused-by-global-warming-a6784911.html

The world is facing a future of food shortages and mass migration as a consequence of widespread water shortages caused by global warming, the outgoing head of the World Meteorological Society has warned.

Michel Jarraud, the WMO’s Secretary-General, said of all the dangers posed by climate change – from increasingly intense storms and a growth in disease to rising sea levels that may submerge cities – the greatest threat is from dwindling water supplies.

Of course, most people are still living in the "Star Trek" fantasyland of future unlimited growth. It's time the human race grows up and stops believing fairy tales.

[Rex]

51. Nobody lives in the Star Trek fantasyland world, most are busy getting food and water.

That fantasy world is a 1st world problem. Don't worry a new Ice Age will fix the population.

[Binkie The Clown]

52. .

[LiberalLoner]

61. +1

[Wayburn]

27. Man will survive.

Every time I visit places like the grand canyon, the SD badlands, devils tower and a multitude of proof that the earth has undergone massive climate changes, it makes me laugh to think we won't survive. Now I believe we are changing the planet and need to do what we can to protect our earth, I'm not convinced we are changing her any more or worse than she has and might do on her own.

[truebluegreen]

107. The planet will survive just fine.

The question is will we? It makes me laugh to think that anyone considers us as resilient as she is.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. and what happens if Compact high beta Fusion comes online in the next couple decades?

just freeballin' here, of course..

I mean, I realize it's incredibly unpopular to suggest that maybe there might be any potential possibility of us not being completely and irrevocably doomed (DOOOOMED!), however, stranger shit has happened.

[Binkie The Clown]

81. In my 70 years I've seen so many miracle technologies that are ALWAYS just a few decades away...

...that I've simply stopped believing the hype.

Starting in the 1960s when I first went to work as a computer programmer, each year somebody would make the bold prediction that human-level artificial intelligence was just ten years away. Then in the 1970s it was just ten years away; in the 1980s it was just ten years away, in the 1990s it was just ten years away; in the 2000s it was just ten years away, and now in the 2010s all the experts agree, it's only, (wait for it) ten years away! How miraculous! That's something to really look forward to.

And how do we finance some grandiose massive construction project such as a fusion reactor (if it ever becomes possible) under the conditions of a collapsing economy?

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Sure, and people have been predicting total doom for humanity since forever, too.

If Skunk Works manages to get their fusion project working- a longshot, to be sure- then part of the point of their project is to make it scalable, mass producible, and low cost/not a "massive construction project" at all.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

I don't believe the hype, necessarily, but I also don't believe the "fuck it, we're doomed, there's no hope" stuff either.

4 billion years of life surviving, we're going to survive the next hundred years too.

[Binkie The Clown]

85. 4 billion years of life, most of it without humans, and most of the future also without humans. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Like i said.

If im wrong, im wrong, but I dont see any benefit to assuming there is zero point in trying.

[skip fox]

31. I have 4 grandchildren who I love.

But I see the world doomed as well. The 6th major extinction event will likely include us.

Perhaps we not yet have crossed the final line of no return, but I don't sense we have the political will to change our course of direction.

The one item that has the ability to change climate deniers' minds (those not ideological, crazy, or in the pocket of the petroleum industry) is the fact the 97.1% of the relevant scientists agree that climate change is occurring, that it is man-made, and that it is extremely dangerous for our species.

Ask deniers how hard it is to get even 60% of people to agree on anything. Then consider that a majority of these scientists dedicated their lives to the discovery of physical truths in their adolescents.

Ask deniers if 97.1% of such dedicated people would fudge their research and predictions simply to gain tenure or obtain grants.

By the way, the 97.1% number is on the NASA website:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I love my grandchildren and celebrate each child born, but . . .

[Dawgs]

33. I have a lot of young children in my life now. I love them all.

But, I agree with you.

I just can't deny facts, science, and my own eyes.

[Auggie]

36. I felt that way 30 years ago, Dawgs

Climate change was yet to be an issue, but overpopulation wasn't.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. And what is the fertility rate in the United States, currently?

Or the rest of the developed world?

[Revanchist]

41. US is ranked 124 with a fertility rate

Of 2.01. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=31

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Point being, in the developed world where people are free and have access to reproductive services

The so-called "population problem" manages itself just fine on its own.

[Auggie]

53. It's areas of the world where it doesn't that will drag us all down

[Warren DeMontague]

37. I come from a very long line of survivors.

Fuck giving up.

[seanbnewyork4]

39. I guess it depends where you live

In Africa, people have a high mortality rate, so they need as many children as possible to survive. In Europe, on the other hand, they are having less children overall.

[LWolf]

42. Because

life, new life, affirms our existence and infuses us with hope and energy. That's why people get happy.

That said, I certainly think that global warming, food and water shortages, species decline, and other ills are due to overpopulation. I'd love nothing more than to see human population decline to more manageable levels across the globe. It's the dark side of reproductive choice, to allow people to reproduce irresponsibly. Still, I don't think forced birth limits is a viable long-term solution.

For the U.S., I favor flipping the tax code. Deductibles and tax breaks for those who do not produce biological children; smaller benefits for those who produce 1, no benefits but no extra taxes for those who produce two, and a carbon tax, growing larger with each child, for every child after two.

[The2ndWheel]

44. The government needs more taxpayers, not less.

[LWolf]

46. That continuous growth model

is what will ultimately kill the planet.

A new model is needed; one that achieves sustainability and population stability.

[philosslayer]

69. Social security is dead without it.

[LWolf]

70. Not necessarily.

Only if you accept the status quo system.

[The2ndWheel]

79. Anything short of continuous growth creates social problems

We're not good at trying to choose who gets what in a shrinking pie. We even have the idea that every generation needs to be better off than the previous one. Not the same, and certainly not worse. If we can just get the right measurement. That perfect equation. If we can account for every variable, which we can't do, because reality doesn't have to bend to the whim of the human imagination. That's where the numbers to measure and account for every variable come from anyway. It's not like they actually exist somewhere outside of the human mind.

That's where the battle is. The limitless human imagination vs. a finite physical reality. Progress is squeezing that reality for all it's worth.

[LWolf]

105. That continuous growth model

is doomed to fail, now or later.

I'm thinking that it's a hell of a lot easier to share out a shrinking pie if we simply let capitalism die.

[The2ndWheel]

141. Civilization is a resource concentration mechanism

It requires continuous growth no matter what economic system we put in place. The whole point of mass society is growth. Without the growth, why do we do it?

[LWolf]

146. To be, of course. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Except, in the US, the fertility rate is at about replacment levels.

And what population growth there is, is due to immigration.

These are not Trump talking points, they're statistical facts. Now, if the argument is that we in the US need to reduce our population, okay, make that argument. But it's going to be a hard one to make without mentioning the "i" word.

The standard answer to this is, "well we in the West, like the US, use a disproportionate amount of resources"- true. But that is a resource utilization problem, NOT a population one.

And again, every time someone immigrates from the 3rd world to the 1st, they are ostensibly changing from a 3rd world level resource utilizer, to a 1st one.

The population problem is in places with high fertility rates. It isn't in the US. Trying to limit Americans to 2 kids is a solution in search of a problem, motivated more by ideology than any actual statistical reasoning. Roe v. Wade and oral contraceptives have already brought the average to around 2 kids anyway.

[LWolf]

66. Population reduction

needs to happen globally, of course.

And also, of course, if we're going to start at home, we have to have somewhere to start. I'm all for open borders, with the understanding that all immigrants are going to have the same tax code as the rest. And yes, I think the U.S. needs to reduce our population, along with the rest of the planet.

Education is an obvious need, although I don't think that alone will do the job. I sure would like it to become a focus, though, with all kinds of people bringing their ideas and commitment together.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I'm pro-choice.

Like I said, when people have the tools and the freedom, they manage their fertility rate just fine on their own.

The problems facing the First world are not so much overpopulation as they are resource utilization and a need for clean renewable power.

[riderinthestorm]

45. The planet's in it's 11th hour

We need aggressive, bold action on this, not incrementalism.

I grieve for my children's future. Climate and environmental catastrophic events are already upon us. Our window of opportunity for any effective action is 5 years or less according to forecasts.

[jpak]

47. That's how species survive

by making babies that survive

[DonCoquixote]

55. there is one question I think of

whenever this comes up, and no, it is not meant as a dodge to the fact this world does have too many people.

How determines who does not have kids, and why?

A perfect example is in China, where the Muslim Ugyurs often get forced sterilization. Population if a factor, but there are also political overtones of "we do not want too many of them." It is the same reason why the victims of forced sterilization in America were often black. It may sound far off, but as much as a heroine of reproductive rights as Margaret Sanger was, she called blacks "human garbage" and brought a Eugenics Racist bent to things, thanks to her patron Prescott Bush.

I short, if we have to do this, how do we avoid it being racist?

[auntpurl]

57. You must be fun at a baby shower. nt

[taught_me_patience]

59. Not everyone has such a depressing view of the world

Humans will survive. Babies always give me more hope for the future. Why are you so sure that these forces are "unstoppable"?

[Calculating]

60. Agreed with OP

Overpopulation is the huge elephant in the room, and nobody wants to deal with it. It doesn't matter if we cut carbon emissions 50% by 2050, if there are another 4-5 billion people all wanting their own cars and electricity. We're also ruining the habitable areas of our planet because we've exceeded the carrying capacity for our species. A world with only 500mil-1bil humans would actually be a wonderful place. Resources for all. Clean water and food for all. No major climate change issues. People wouldn't need to live in deserts, or tropical areas with diseases. By all means though, keep multiplying and being fruitful. Having more than 1 kid is doing a disservice to future generations.

[undergroundpanther]

63. it makes me sad too

I wonder how they can even think of having kids. we will have nothing but a polluted
Ravaged. Dead.hollowed out violent world for them. I think having kids thse days
Is a selfish thing.double selfish if you do not treat them with respect and prepare them
For the rough reality they will be dealing with in the future honestly.

[romanic]

64. I thought the overall birthing population was leveling out though.

At least in the first world.

[rjsquirrel]

65. Leveling out

Still requires millions of babies to be born a year.

[madville]

71. What if global warming caused the opposite?

Like an overabundance of food and water? That would be interesting. Then if the earth cooled it would cause starvation/famine, quite the paradox.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

95. Poe's Law. ^^^ nt

[Skittles]

77. individual baby announcements are fine

but shit like the DUGGARS on TV - that is sickening

[calendargirl]

97. Qualifiers-nice!

It's sad how so many are aggressively pro-choice until people choose to have large families, or if they choose not to eradicate the human race on a hypothesis of doom.

[Skittles]

120. LOL

pro-choice does not mean pro-idiocy

they can have all the kids they want and I can be sickened by it

their children are commodities they exploit on TV - if you're fine with that, more power to you

[Silver_Witch]

126. This^^^^

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

90. Perspective from a "breeder" here

Honestly, stuff just happens... my first pregnancy was not planned and I did consider abortion, but given that I was with the father in a good relationship (and I still am 14 years later) and he wanted to keep the child (he wasn't overbearing about it, he still let me decide) I decided that I would go forward with having my first child out of respect for his wishes and also I was convinced that I would want a child with him eventually, so might as well be then. Really, it is just different making the decision when you are already pregnant. Choosing abortion is not so simple as others make it seem. Years later we decided to have a second child because there were no other children between our two families (no cousins). Both my husband and I are from small families to begin with and two kids is our max. Why would I get sad if I knew that having a child made someone else happy? It is probably the most natural thing we humans do... have families and babies.

[ronnie624]

94. The ignorance and denialism displayed on this thread is your answer.

Here is a handy resource for addressing the pseudoscientific gibberish from nitwit denialists:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Tommy_Carcetti]

96. Because many of us are social creatures who enjoy a family life.

For fuck's sake.

[lapislzi]

98. I hear you, but...

This is not a choice you can make for others.

I chose to make one offspring, kind of despite my own better judgment. Not sorry I did it, but I've told said offspring to strongly consider not reproducing, given the current state of the world. If I had the choice to make today, I would probably choose differently.

Not much we can do, especially with the death grip poverty and religion have on women's bodies.

[Dawgs]

99. Okay, but I never suggested that I make a choice for anyone else. nt

[ronnie624]

108. It's a common line of 'reasoning'.

The act of discussing and providing information is 'forcing'.

People are highly resistant to seeing their cognitive inconsistencies, and will go through all sorts of contortions to avoid the discomfort of such introspection.

[lapislzi]

109. Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I agree with you in the main that reproducing is a bad idea at this point in human history. Regrettably, the stupid people haven't gotten that clue yet, not that they ever will, and that's a problem.

We need more smart people, not more Duggars and Palins.

[6chars]

106. we already tried promoting family planning.

didn't work in most of the world. next idea?

[cosmicone]

110. Is this a joke?

It makes neither economic nor biological sense.

We live in a time where population growth is more from longevity rather than birth rates. People who used to die by 50 are now living 80+ years. When the equilibrium catches up in another 25-30 years, the population growth will actually erase itself.

[Dawgs]

111. Totally missed the point, but thanks for the kick. nt

[Starry Messenger]

129. Another Malthusian.

Resources are being wasted and distributed poorly. The problem isn't children, it's hoarding.

[Dawgs]

134. Another one that missed the point.

Surprised?

[Starry Messenger]

136. That you think there should be less people?

Unless you were hiding the point in secret code, I can only read what you type.

[Dawgs]

144. I didn't say there should be less people. I said that I don't understand why people reproduce.

Big difference.

[Starry Messenger]

147. Not really. LOL. Since one leads to the other.

[ronnie624]

133. Is climate change humanity's greatest-ever risk management failure?

To that 42 percent chance of an average American developing cancer in his or her lifetime, we're unwilling to add another 0.001 percent. The reason is simple - we really, really don't want cancer, and thus consider even a small added risk unacceptable.

Yet we don't share that aversion to the risks posed by human-caused climate change. These risks include more than half of global species potentially being at risk of extinction, extreme weather like heat waves becoming more commonplace, global food supplies put at risk by this more frequent extreme weather, glaciers and their associated water resources for millions of people disappearing, rising sea levels inundating coastlines, and so forth.

This isn't some slim one-in-a-million risk; we're looking at seriously damaging climate consequences in the most likely, business-as-usual scenario. The forthcoming fifth IPCC report is likely to state with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main drivers of climate change over the past 60 years, and the scientific basis behind this confidence is quite sound. It's the result of virtually every study that has investigated the causes of global warming.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/23/climate-change-greatest-risk-management-failure

[milestogo]

140. I remember hearing about ZPG (Zero Population Growth) in sixth grade.

But I doubt most of the class even gave it a serious thought.