by The Land Named Bob » Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:57 pm
by Thee North American Technate » Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:03 pm
by Eahland » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:03 am
by Dowaesk » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:36 am
Dreria wrote:ah yes a middle ground between reproducing and not reproducing
by The Alma Mater » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:50 am
by -Astoria- » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:57 am
☆ Republic of Astoria | Pobolieth Asdair ☆
Bedhent cewsel ein gweisiau | Our deeds shall speak
IC: Factbooks • Location • Embassies • FAQ • Integrity | OOC: CCL's VP • 9th in NSFB#1 • 10/10: DGES
⌜✉⌟ TV1 News | 2023-04-11 ▶ ⬤──────── (LIVE) | Headlines Winter out; spring in for public parks • Environment ministry announces A₤300m in renewables subsidies • "Not enough," say unions on A₤24m planned Govt cost-of-living salary supplement | Weather Liskerry ⛅ 13° • Altas ⛅ 10° • Esterpine ☀ 11° • Naltgybal ☁ 14° • Ceirtryn ⛅ 19° • Bynscel ☀ 11° • Lyteel ☔ 9° | Traffic ROADWORKS: WRE expwy towards Port Trelyn closed; use Routes P294 northbound; P83 southbound
by Kaczynskisatva » Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:20 am
The land named bob wrote:A question regarding the optimal handling of populations by a nations government or any system
With the idea that:
Natalism leads towards overpopulation through population growth
Antinatalism leads towards extinction and self destruction through population stagnation
And keeping in mind one of the main supporting concepts of antinatalism is to prevent unnecessary and preventable suffering of future sentient beings,
What specifically would be some important aspects of a rule or guidance system that would be most optimal in terms of:
1. upholding a stable population
2. preventing overpopulation
3. maintaining a large enough population to sustain itself in a variety of settings and situations (climates, resource shortages, etc.)
4. as low amount of suffering as possible
And, if these terms themselves are flawed, what better terms should be used to define such a system of population control (for sustainability)?
(To be clear, this question excludes options such as abortion, execution, mandatory expansion or eugenics for the sake of simplicity and morality.)
(This question is not intended to be political and is for worldbuilding a futuristic utopia with reasonable systems that are also applicable to real world situations.)
If you have any ideas for a possible solution, please respond with them!
by Mtwara » Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:20 am
by GuessTheAltAccount » Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:28 am
Mtwara wrote:Is it really true that there are too many people, or is it really our current lifestyles that's unsustainable?
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by Burgundy Russia » Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:39 am
Eahland wrote:If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.
by Mtwara » Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:00 am
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Mtwara wrote:Is it really true that there are too many people, or is it really our current lifestyles that's unsustainable?
Is there really a meaningful distinction? If people aren't willing to give up their lifestyles, doesn't that leave "fewer people" as the only sustainable option left?
by Vikanias » Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:17 am
by Bloodstained Castle » Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:27 am
by GuessTheAltAccount » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:39 am
Mtwara wrote:GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Is there really a meaningful distinction? If people aren't willing to give up their lifestyles, doesn't that leave "fewer people" as the only sustainable option left?
Of course there's a meaningful distinction. In terms of sustainability, how something is made is just as important as why it's made. If energy is clean, is using it a problem? If cheap crap is made using reneweable materials, is it a problem?
Vikanias wrote:It’s great that I watched something about antinatalism on Friday!
So let’s begin, technically yes, but also no. You see some Antinatalists go too far and address anyone who has a kid or in a relationship as a ‘Breeder’. These redditors have never had a positive interaction with a person of the other sex. Now there are moderates for antinatalism saying that having children should be limited but not banned, but these people get knocked out of the antinatalist subreddit anyway. Let people pursue the interest they want, if they don’t to have kids? That’s fine. If they do? That’s fine as well.
1 fedora’s/10
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by The Land Named Bob » Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:36 pm
Kaczynskisatva wrote: The solution is genetically engineering the human population, and the positive effects of this would endure any subsequent policy.
by The Land Named Bob » Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:47 pm
Eahland wrote:If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.
by Neutraligon » Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:51 pm
by Vikanias » Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:21 pm
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Mtwara wrote:
Of course there's a meaningful distinction. In terms of sustainability, how something is made is just as important as why it's made. If energy is clean, is using it a problem? If cheap crap is made using reneweable materials, is it a problem?
The problem is the consumer doesn't care if it isn't clean or renewable. At least not enough to do something about it, anyway.Vikanias wrote:It’s great that I watched something about antinatalism on Friday!
So let’s begin, technically yes, but also no. You see some Antinatalists go too far and address anyone who has a kid or in a relationship as a ‘Breeder’. These redditors have never had a positive interaction with a person of the other sex. Now there are moderates for antinatalism saying that having children should be limited but not banned, but these people get knocked out of the antinatalist subreddit anyway. Let people pursue the interest they want, if they don’t to have kids? That’s fine. If they do? That’s fine as well.
1 fedora’s/10
Bill "having more people isn't green" Maher isn't an incel.
by Rusozak » Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:35 pm
Eahland wrote:If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.
by Haganham » Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:31 pm
Rusozak wrote:Eahland wrote:If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.
But what if it's a matter of mass death and breakdown of society? It's easy to kick the overpopulation can down the road, until we HAVE to start limiting reproduction or people die. The rate of population growth is not sustainable, and I doubt enough people will do their part to fight it.
by Fractalnavel » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:14 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Gesaria, Johodovill, Likhinia, Neu California, New Temecula, The Holy Therns
Advertisement