• Rediphile@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    We all ought to focus on that whole 7 billion thing…or wait, isn’t it 8 now? Will be 9 soon.

    Infinite population growth in a world of finite resources is not, and never will be, possible. Less people = more resources per person and higher quality of life.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      any policy of population control is necessarily eugenecist. you can personally favor it, but kindly keep it away from politics.

      • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits. I never suggested anything like that at all.

        And sorry, discussion of population controls need to enter politics as that is literally the only meaningful way to fight climate change.

        But yeah, I’m not hopeful lol so you don’t have much to worry about. We will probably just continue to not take any meaningful action and continue to destroy our climate and world.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits.

          what policy can you introduce that doesn’t favor a specific trait?

              • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Literally everyone in the age range to be a potential parent. Perhaps drawn once a year. The winners can have children this year, while the others cannot. If both people in a couple win they can have two or something. Non-heteronormative couples and artificial insemination is fine. If someone wins and chooses not to have children that year or is unable for whatever that’s completely fine.

                  • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Those questions also apply to ideas like democracy or public education… but I still think those things are pretty good ideas.

                    All systems/ideas have implementation issues in real life. But the whole point of a randomized lottery system is to intentionally not select specific traits as much as possible. And the goal would be to continually improve this hypothetical system, constantly trying to determine if there was a trait being favored and what adjustments are needed to prevent it.

                    And even something as simple as enforcing a camp fire ban during a high risk dry spell also has issues with ‘how do you know where everyone is…to see if they are having a campfire’ and ‘what if they don’t know about the ban?’. But the general concept still seems like a good idea to me.