> 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?
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.
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?