Good point. The obvious, and unpopular, take would probably be per uterus insteadnof per couple, since that is almost completely trackable, unlike paternity.
This is already a tracked statistic. It’s called the fertility rate. Yes, it’s tracked per uterus, and it’s actually been falling precipitously for decades:
Ooo, do women have the power or are they a commodity valued on ability to have kids. Will this be a boon for feminine rights or a massive step backwards.
Young men, okay I’m a man in my late 30s, so throw young out as your argument. Second my wife shares the same thoughts, so, I don’t want to speak to her but maybe the gender side isn’t as important either.
Childless, well yes, my wife and I are both childless because of the massive problems facing the world today, mostly caused by overpopulation. I’d say being childless is more of a logical conclusion to having these thoughts rather than the other way around. It’s also more likely in your assumptions that a married woman with 3 kids would be pro having kids.
I don’t know what you thought you were proving, but to me it’s very logical why childless people are the people who are in favor of people having less children.
Got it, sorry I didn’t not pick up on the joke. I’ve been accused by my parents for being selfish that I don’t want kids and so I take things as “only young dumb people have these opinions” a bit too personally. Appreciate the explanation
I stopped talking to my mother (with rare exception) due to that very emotional blackmail. Knew I didn't want kids but started hounding me about "grandbabies" when I was all of 17.
The opinion that childfree people must be young, immature, and selfish is shockingly common.
Having children is a selfish choice as well--people have them because they want them. That's selfish. It's not wrong, but it's not some altruistic deed, either.
At least society is slowly coming around to the idea that having children is a choice and not a requirement.
People with 3-4 kids regretting a couple of them is perhaps more common than you'd think. I've known people with 2 kids - like, had kids at 18 and 20 with someone they broke up with at 23 and then had to spend the next 15 years collaborating with on custody and child-rearing even though they hated each other - who would dream what their lives would be like if they hadn't decided to reproduce vs. going to college or enjoying their youth.
Unlike just about everyone else here, I agree with this 100%. Population does not need to increase. Take either men or women and limit their number of children to 2; that would ensure a 1-to-1 replacement with the exception of early deaths. Once population decreases, maybe increase the limit to 3 if the numbers support it.
I’m not sure where I heard this quote, but it holds true here: “Save the earth; don’t give birth.”
Sorry, but I’m disagreeing with you, in an unpopular way …
: P
the average reproductive-rate need be managed,
BUT …
it is much saner to have some couples childfree ( which many, if not the majority, nowadays, want ), & then have total support for the reproducing mothers.
I wouldn’t want any genetic child-of-mine to exist, for any reason whatsoever.
However, since your, & my, & everyone’s, Soul/CellOfGod/ChildOfGod can ONLY have life-experiencings in a life, and since our Souls/Continuums already competed successfully for conceptions/lives,
then it’d be idiotic to block/deny all other Souls/CellsOfGod to have lives of their own.
( that isn’t against your argument, that is against others’ arguments, in the reproduction debate )
Since many lives want to NOT reproduce, but to instead have their own lives for adult living, and not for children-family living, isn’t that a right, too?
Therefore, to keep the reproductive-rate where it needs to be, to fend-off economic-collapse ( there needs to be sufficient next-generation, or collapse enforces economic hellscape on all of us ), those who do reproduce, need to do-so at the required rate,
and, obviously, social-support, education, etc, needs to be configured to back this reality.
Just curious, you do know that such a rule would eventually reduce the human race to nill? Natural and unnatural deaths requires 2,X to remain at same level.
Well this sure is an unpopular opinion. Mostly because there is no way to define or enforce this and a draconian limitation of individual rights to a nonexistent problem, over population is a smoke screen. There is more than enough land and resources to support billions more people.
This is literally captilsism 101, if the rich have you angry at other humans that don’t even exist yet you will spend less time on disturbing the resources they are hoarding.
Thinking it’s easier to enforce humanity wide birth control than to tax and build houses in the empty areas is dillusional.
Add comment