I don't think overpopulation should ever be a factor in determining if you want to have a child or not. A layperson has no responsibility nor influence in that matter - that's something for policymakers and implementers to handle. You should decide on a child based on your situation and desires.
Also, more people isn't always a bad thing, even in an overpopulated world. If a person is a net gain for society, then it would be a loss not to have him born. If you're healthy and are willing and capable of raising a child in nurturing family, please do so. A well raised person can offset his impact on the world and contribute even more than they take.
> I don't think overpopulation should ever be a factor in determining if you want to have a child or not. A layperson has no responsibility nor influence in that matter - that's something for policymakers and implementers to handle.
On the contrary! Deferring to governments a responsibility for personal choices is always a dangerous mistake. Governments are supposed to reflect the values of the people. But if the people automatically defer to the government responsibility for their values, the entire system collapses.
To me, the remedy is education, and it's been demonstrated over and over again that, as a woman's educational prospects improve, so does her wish to limit her family size.
Overpopulation doesn't result from masses of people letting governments choose their values. Overpopulation results from billions of individual choices, based on rationalizations like yours. To wit:
> Also, more people isn't always a bad thing, even in an overpopulated world.
This is like arguing that, during a forest fire, more fuel isn't always a bad thing. But in point of fact, yes, it is always a bad thing.
> A well raised person can offset his impact on the world and contribute even more than they take.
Yes and every parent on this planet blithely rationalizes that his/her children will be that sort of child. And they're wrong.
It seems we all live in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.
The basic logic is that, when there are too many people, who they are as individuals stops mattering. Even if we could control the outcomes and only have extraordinary, saintly children, do we really want a world filled with starving saints?
>I don't think overpopulation should ever be a factor in determining if you want to have a child or not. A layperson has no responsibility nor influence in that matter - that's something for policymakers and implementers to handle.
The very notion of democracy is that there is NO layperson.
The citizen very much has responsibility for his state's actions, and policymakers and implementers are only supposed to reflect the general will of the population.
> A layperson has no responsibility nor influence in that matter - that's something for policymakers and implementers to handle
If you start from belief that you and your children won't be able to influence policy and government, and people also can't make a difference by acting locally and practicing what they preach... you paint a pretty bleak picture.
It's always commendable to do your own share, but at the individual level, a single layperson choosing not to have kids won't have any significant affect on overpopulation. What matters is the actions of a large group of people, which is determined by culture makers and policy makers.
I'm not saying it's worthless to practice what you preach - rather, we can't rely on individual convictions as the solution to our collective problems. It certainly helps, but the majority of the solution will have to come from elsewhere.
> at the individual level, a single layperson choosing not to have kids won't have any significant affect on overpopulation.
Sorry, that's irrational. The only choices are individual ones -- governments can't really control what individuals do. Look at China's failed one-child policy.
Overpopulation results from billions of people rationalizing that their individual choice can't possibly matter.
> we can't rely on individual convictions as the solution to our collective problems.
What? Did I hear you right? Don't you understand that democracy is designed to honor and respect individual choices? The collective problem of overpopulation results from many individual choices to have children.
> the majority of the solution will have to come from elsewhere.
Healthy, non-dictatorial governments wait for the people to tell them what values to reflect and enforce. By contrast, dictators rely on the kind of person who says, "Let the experts solve these problems, individuals don't count."
On the positive side, education works wonders. Many studies show that educated women have smaller families.
A well raised person can probably offset his net direct impact. The point made by Stallman is that this person has no possibility to asses (much less offset) his descendants impact (children, children's children, ...)
To make sure you are offsetting your complete global impact, you have to get rid of the unknowns. Hence, no having children is the only option.
Comments
I don't think overpopulation should ever be a factor in determining if you want to have a child or not. A layperson has no responsibility nor influence in that matter - that's something for policymakers and implementers to handle. You should decide on a child based on your situation and desires.
Also, more people isn't always a bad thing, even in an overpopulated world. If a person is a net gain for society, then it would be a loss not to have him born. If you're healthy and are willing and capable of raising a child in nurturing family, please do so. A well raised person can offset his impact on the world and contribute even more than they take.
> I don't think overpopulation should ever be a factor in determining if you want to have a child or not. A layperson has no responsibility nor influence in that matter - that's something for policymakers and implementers to handle.
On the contrary! Deferring to governments a responsibility for personal choices is always a dangerous mistake. Governments are supposed to reflect the values of the people. But if the people automatically defer to the government responsibility for their values, the entire system collapses.
To me, the remedy is education, and it's been demonstrated over and over again that, as a woman's educational prospects improve, so does her wish to limit her family size.
Overpopulation doesn't result from masses of people letting governments choose their values. Overpopulation results from billions of individual choices, based on rationalizations like yours. To wit:
> Also, more people isn't always a bad thing, even in an overpopulated world.
This is like arguing that, during a forest fire, more fuel isn't always a bad thing. But in point of fact, yes, it is always a bad thing.
> A well raised person can offset his impact on the world and contribute even more than they take.
Yes and every parent on this planet blithely rationalizes that his/her children will be that sort of child. And they're wrong.
It seems we all live in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.
The basic logic is that, when there are too many people, who they are as individuals stops mattering. Even if we could control the outcomes and only have extraordinary, saintly children, do we really want a world filled with starving saints?
>I don't think overpopulation should ever be a factor in determining if you want to have a child or not. A layperson has no responsibility nor influence in that matter - that's something for policymakers and implementers to handle.
The very notion of democracy is that there is NO layperson.
The citizen very much has responsibility for his state's actions, and policymakers and implementers are only supposed to reflect the general will of the population.
> A layperson has no responsibility nor influence in that matter - that's something for policymakers and implementers to handle
If you start from belief that you and your children won't be able to influence policy and government, and people also can't make a difference by acting locally and practicing what they preach... you paint a pretty bleak picture.
It's always commendable to do your own share, but at the individual level, a single layperson choosing not to have kids won't have any significant affect on overpopulation. What matters is the actions of a large group of people, which is determined by culture makers and policy makers.
I'm not saying it's worthless to practice what you preach - rather, we can't rely on individual convictions as the solution to our collective problems. It certainly helps, but the majority of the solution will have to come from elsewhere.
> at the individual level, a single layperson choosing not to have kids won't have any significant affect on overpopulation.
Sorry, that's irrational. The only choices are individual ones -- governments can't really control what individuals do. Look at China's failed one-child policy.
Overpopulation results from billions of people rationalizing that their individual choice can't possibly matter.
> we can't rely on individual convictions as the solution to our collective problems.
What? Did I hear you right? Don't you understand that democracy is designed to honor and respect individual choices? The collective problem of overpopulation results from many individual choices to have children.
> the majority of the solution will have to come from elsewhere.
Healthy, non-dictatorial governments wait for the people to tell them what values to reflect and enforce. By contrast, dictators rely on the kind of person who says, "Let the experts solve these problems, individuals don't count."
On the positive side, education works wonders. Many studies show that educated women have smaller families.
A well raised person can probably offset his net direct impact. The point made by Stallman is that this person has no possibility to asses (much less offset) his descendants impact (children, children's children, ...)
To make sure you are offsetting your complete global impact, you have to get rid of the unknowns. Hence, no having children is the only option.