Not entirely accurate. Shit hits the fan before this changes too much and we are in much debt. Also infrastructure is somewhat of a fixed cost. I.e. being fewer people does not reduce infrastructure emissions.
Antinatalism isn’t ab answer to the problem, but might be a reasonable reaction.
That being said I do not want to advocate for having more children or put the blame for the systemic issues on the individuals suffering from them.
some infrastructure, but by no means all. But I think my stance has always been closer to “if they wanted me to bring in additional players, they should’ve made the game more fun to play”
Population decline will be the socio-economic epoch which finally puts an end to obligate growth capitalism, and the initial demographic crisis will force us to reprioritize how we use resources and technology to support aging populations. Historical materialism goes brrrrrr.
Refusing to make children for the capitalist machine is just good praxis.
For the time being, most countries can get a younger population by letting in immigrants (who are statistically younger). Would probably result in a softer landing than otherwise.
Debt and money are make-believe anyway. Just tokens in a game we play called capitalism.
I’m not sure about the infrastructure claim. Generally, if infrastructure is used less, it requires less maintenance.
50% of all habital land is already being used by humans and being degraded, which doesn’t seem sustainable, especially since so much of the world still lives in poverty. World population doubles every 61 years, so it seems like it would be nearly impossible to stay on the current trajectory for much longer.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc.
The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level).
Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone.
But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc.
The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level).
Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone.
But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc.
The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level).
Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone.
But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc.
The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level).
Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone.
But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc.
The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level).
Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone.
But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Please consider kids in foster care before adopting. Adoption is a huge problem in the USA and doesn’t always consider the child’s needs over the potential buyers. ); <3
I’m not sure where in my comment I said “but not kids in the foster system, screw them”. I imagine theres probably some hyper-literal reading of the word “adopt” that somehow excludes foster kids, but was it really necessary to read my comment that way? Is this a legitimate misunderstanding, or are you just really eager to have something to be mad at?
Figured by the use of a heart and kind language it wouldn’t feel like an attack, but I suppose this is still text and some folks are more sensitive to things. My attempt was to add and not to take away from your post. I’m sorry it felt any other way.
the thing is, while not having babies is good for the planet, it is really bad or even a huge crisis for the economy depending on how it is set up as most economies are set up so that you people take care of the old
The following is a statement of intentional hyperbole and is in no way meant to be construed as a statement of fact:
I swear to God that any slack jawed meth head can be a foster parent, but if you want to adopt, you better be in your mid-thirties, Christian, married to your original opposite sex spouse for a period of no less than forty years, possess no fewer than five Ivy League degrees, own a house with a structural footprint of at least two hundred thousand square feet free of mortgage, have monthly income of seven figures, preferably eight, never have even heard of alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine, never have a speeding ticket, possess perfect teeth, even your still intact and pearly white wisdom teeth, be a leader of your community, state, nation, and have a permanent seat at the UN security council, and oh yeah, please give us fifty thousand dollars in fees up front before we find reason to reject you.
Back to reality: I did raise a child by myself. I would NEVER have been allowed to adopt her. We endured my failed marriage, several years of poverty making potatoes stretch past their prime to survive type stuff. She lived, grew up, attended and graduated from an ivy, got a six figure job out of school, and is generally a happy person who still voluntarily speaks to me. She’s artistic and caring and giving. The kind of person others like to be around. But were it not my sperm that contributed to her existence, I would never have been allowed anywhere near her.
Literally the opposite of this is true. Not having kids is one of the single best things you can do for the planet.
(Still want to raise a child? Adopt! There are so many kids out there looking for good homes and people who will love and care for them)
Not entirely accurate. Shit hits the fan before this changes too much and we are in much debt. Also infrastructure is somewhat of a fixed cost. I.e. being fewer people does not reduce infrastructure emissions.
Antinatalism isn’t ab answer to the problem, but might be a reasonable reaction.
That being said I do not want to advocate for having more children or put the blame for the systemic issues on the individuals suffering from them.
some infrastructure, but by no means all. But I think my stance has always been closer to “if they wanted me to bring in additional players, they should’ve made the game more fun to play”
Population decline will be the socio-economic epoch which finally puts an end to obligate growth capitalism, and the initial demographic crisis will force us to reprioritize how we use resources and technology to support aging populations. Historical materialism goes brrrrrr.
Refusing to make children for the capitalist machine is just good praxis.
The human population has been smaller in all of history, yet we’ve managed to feed enough people that the population has increased.
If we focus only on providing enough for everyone I’m pretty sure it’ll work. The issue is when we waste so much on excess and unnecessary things.
For the time being, most countries can get a younger population by letting in immigrants (who are statistically younger). Would probably result in a softer landing than otherwise.
Debt and money are make-believe anyway. Just tokens in a game we play called capitalism.
I’m not sure about the infrastructure claim. Generally, if infrastructure is used less, it requires less maintenance.
50% of all habital land is already being used by humans and being degraded, which doesn’t seem sustainable, especially since so much of the world still lives in poverty. World population doubles every 61 years, so it seems like it would be nearly impossible to stay on the current trajectory for much longer.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc. The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level). Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone. But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc. The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level). Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone. But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc. The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level). Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone. But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc. The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level). Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone. But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Reads and rails tend to have a lifetime due to freeze/that cycles and weather/Vegetation unless heavily frequented. A dam does not get easier to maintain because fewer people use it’s water etc. The external burden of mining does not get easier to maintain (groundwater, general loss of height above sea level). Same goes for electricity grids that try to reach everyone. But a 4 lane super highway is easily downgraded to a 1 lane highway.
Please consider kids in foster care before adopting. Adoption is a huge problem in the USA and doesn’t always consider the child’s needs over the potential buyers. ); <3
I’m not sure where in my comment I said “but not kids in the foster system, screw them”. I imagine theres probably some hyper-literal reading of the word “adopt” that somehow excludes foster kids, but was it really necessary to read my comment that way? Is this a legitimate misunderstanding, or are you just really eager to have something to be mad at?
Figured by the use of a heart and kind language it wouldn’t feel like an attack, but I suppose this is still text and some folks are more sensitive to things. My attempt was to add and not to take away from your post. I’m sorry it felt any other way.
the thing is, while not having babies is good for the planet, it is really bad or even a huge crisis for the economy depending on how it is set up as most economies are set up so that you people take care of the old
The following is a statement of intentional hyperbole and is in no way meant to be construed as a statement of fact:
I swear to God that any slack jawed meth head can be a foster parent, but if you want to adopt, you better be in your mid-thirties, Christian, married to your original opposite sex spouse for a period of no less than forty years, possess no fewer than five Ivy League degrees, own a house with a structural footprint of at least two hundred thousand square feet free of mortgage, have monthly income of seven figures, preferably eight, never have even heard of alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine, never have a speeding ticket, possess perfect teeth, even your still intact and pearly white wisdom teeth, be a leader of your community, state, nation, and have a permanent seat at the UN security council, and oh yeah, please give us fifty thousand dollars in fees up front before we find reason to reject you.
Back to reality: I did raise a child by myself. I would NEVER have been allowed to adopt her. We endured my failed marriage, several years of poverty making potatoes stretch past their prime to survive type stuff. She lived, grew up, attended and graduated from an ivy, got a six figure job out of school, and is generally a happy person who still voluntarily speaks to me. She’s artistic and caring and giving. The kind of person others like to be around. But were it not my sperm that contributed to her existence, I would never have been allowed anywhere near her.