LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Novowarsawianka wrote:Not to forget, while you measure the tiniest changes to the environment, overpopulation is a way worse problem for Africa than just a slightly bigger carbon emission. Resources are scarce enough there, they will only get worse if they keep up the trend. The climate isn't favouring them either, so you will see not just even less resources, especially food, but more conflict.
That's their business; only if they impact the climate will they be making it ours.
And I'm not going to condemn them for what they might do to the climate in the future.Novowarsawianka wrote:Instead of being an authoritarian who wants to limit people from breeding, rather help those who truly need help and help protection and sexual education, or rather, education in general, to reach them.
Education doesn't always convince people to have fewer kids, as western couples with several children have demonstrated.Novowarsawianka wrote:Instead of going crazy over the sea levels rising for a milimeter, or so, rather worry that millions of children will grow up in even worse conditions than they do now in those places.
They wouldn't have grown up in those conditions if they were never born.
Also, it's not just "sea levels rising for a milimeter," it's droughts and floods and hurricanes.Novowarsawianka wrote:We need more children growing up in develop countries to continue development, while the underdeveloped world is stabilized. We can reach the technological level to reverse or adapt to any changes, or even begin space colonialization
We've been promised that for decades now, and still haven't gotten it.
But you wish to condemn Western children for things that have no happened? Actually, the current birthrates mixed with clean energy and so on, already ensures a cleaner future, your entire argument is invalid.
That a few educated people have a lot of kids is not an argument either, it is a minor divergent from the trend of having less kids. I'd wish that they did, because those people can give more to their kids, kids with a better childhood will have more chances in life and ensure a better future for the rest of us. A wealthy person can support 5 children with ease, a poor one can not. The trend should at best be to have only as many children as you can afford to send to college and not even this should be enforced, as you'd want to do your thing, but rather proposed.
As for: "They wouldn't have grown up in those conditions if they were never born." You do realize I was talking about children in third world countries which are and will be the greatest victims of overpopulation there, right? So, what, you agree with me?
Like I've said, you going all despotic and lowering the birth rate in developed countries by force won't change much, but sending help, by means of free sexual protection and education on the matter to underdeveloped places will improve the situation drastically for them over time.
But, do enlighten me, how would you go on with your despotic measures? How do you wish to harras the parents of the developed world who already have birthrates below 2?