Poll of the Day > Why is it expected in society that we praise someone who has or is having a kid?

(+) Yeah! (+)

There is already a huge population problem now. Plus i find it more praiseworthy who adopts a child that is already out there. If anything people should slow down on having kids. They take up more space and resources.
---

To just be nice to each other
---

WhiteWolf338 posted...

There is already a huge population problem now.

Overpopulation is an issue only in a relatively small number of countries. Hell, places like Japan need way more kids.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

WhiteWolf338 posted...

There is already a huge population problem now.

Overpopulation is an issue only in a relatively small number of countries. Hell, places like Japan need way more kids.

This. Even US states like Vermont have an aging population. I believe they're actually paying people to move to Vermont in hopes of bolstering a younger demographic.

Yup:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2018/06/03/vermont-wants-to-pay-you-10000-to-move-there-and-work/
---

When a couple has two kids, then they are really just "breaking even" since the two kids replace the two parents. It's only a "surplus" when there are three or more kids in the family. Having just one kid would actually be a "shortage."

because you have now fulfilled the only reason you were created for, the reason you even exist is to procreate.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

WhiteWolf338 posted...

There is already a huge population problem now.

Overpopulation is an issue only in a relatively small number of countries. Hell, places like Japan need way more kids.

i dont think people realize that the entire population of the world could all live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.
---

There is a baby shower here where I work and I'm like "The fuck do I care?" : /

helIy posted...

i dont think people realize that the entire population of the world could all live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.

Bullshit. Do you have an actual source for that or is your butthole your source?

China has a population of about 1.4 billion and a total area of about 3.7 million square miles.

The world population is about 7.6 billion, and Texas has a total area of about 260,000 square miles.

So you're saying you can put 5.5 times the Chinese population into a total area that is 14 times smaller, and everyone could "live comfortably"? That may be one of the stupidest things ever said on GameFAQs. You do realize that China is already very overcrowded and people already don't live comfortably there, don't you?

TaKun782 posted...

There is a baby shower here where I work and I'm like "The fuck do I care?" : /

I always thought the term "baby shower" was very odd. Why do we have a party where everyone gathers to give a baby a shower? I know that's not literally what it is, but surely there's a better name for it....

Having kids was never on my list. I've gone a step further and haven't even been asked on a date yet. Don't we all have more interesting things to do than procreate?

Because its a pretty major thing, as having children upends your life. You go from normal people living to a place of massive sleep deprivation for multiple months or years, while learning how to care for a completely helpless being that they just send home with you and you have to figure it out - no manual included. And once you figure them out, then their needs change just enough that it feels like starting from scratch again. Becoming a parent is simultaneously the best and worst decision you can make in your life.
---

If there were less people there would be less problems, and the ones we had would be less severe.

I understand why a country would need to continue to create new people, but we never should have let the populations grow so wildly out of control in the first place.

But mention anything like 'mandatory parenting schools, and those who fail get snipped' and that's "fascist" and "unrealistic".

Is it, though?

If we don't do something about the population, one day (sooner than you might think) we'll literally be shoulder-to-shoulder.

I'm pretty sure this whole Mars experiment is their solution, and there will be strict regulations limiting reproduction this time.

As for your question, the way the world is going, I have no idea. I'd honestly give the kid my condolences.
---

zebatov posted...

But mention anything like 'mandatory parenting schools, and those who fail get snipped' and that's "fascist" and "unrealistic".

Is it, though?

Yes it is. That was called eugenics
---

WhiteWolf338 posted...

There is already a huge population problem now.

Whats the problem?
---

rogerskg1979 posted...

helIy posted...

i dont think people realize that the entire population of the world could all live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.

Bullshit. Do you have an actual source for that or is your butthole your source?

China has a population of about 1.4 billion and a total area of about 3.7 million square miles.

The world population is about 7.6 billion, and Texas has a total area of about 260,000 square miles.

So you're saying you can put 5.5 times the Chinese population into a total area that is 14 times smaller, and everyone could "live comfortably"? That may be one of the stupidest things ever said on GameFAQs. You do realize that China is already very overcrowded and people already don't live comfortably there, don't you?

But you realize China isn't overcrowded actually though, right? It's only because people choose to live in select metro areas and not in rural areas. There is lots of space left in China that people just choose not to live in.
---

rogerskg1979 posted...

When a couple has two kids, then they are really just "breaking even" since the two kids replace the two parents. It's only a "surplus" when there are three or more kids in the family. Having just one kid would actually be a "shortage."

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Yes it is. That was called eugenics

To be fair, just because fascists embraced the idea of eugenics doesn't mean that eugenics is inherently fascist. Any more than the fact that eugenics was embraced by racists make it inherently racist.

The main problem with eugenics is how you justify it, and what criteria you use as "good" or "bad". Since humans are pretty much incapable of being impartial or unbiased, personal views are always going to creep in to any system, so there's always the risk that whoever runs the program will use it in discriminatory ways (like how when some gay people were paranoid that if science ever discovered the gene for homosexuality, people would deliberately try to breed "gay" out of the species).

Arguably, eugenics isn't automatically a terrible thing, depending on how it's handled. Technically speaking, we already practice it to some degree unconsciously (ie, humans tend to view disfigurement as unattractive and stronger forms of insanity as a deterrent, which limits their ability to perpetuate if they're genetic in nature), and we do engage in it to some degree on a more active level as well (ie, parents who believe their child will be born with a debilitating genetic disease based on pre-natal testing may choose to abort rather than give birth).


---

Jen0125 posted...

There is lots of space left in China that people just choose not to live in.

"Choose" not to live in is a strong word.

In some cases, there are regions where people avoid settling because the environment itself is too harsh by human standards for viable habitation. Whether it be too hot or too cold, too dry, too mountainous, or relatively infertile, there are going to be a lot of places where you simply cannot live without making massive sacrifices.

In other cases, lack of access or support infrastructure may make certain areas infeasible. Even if you have a perfect valley where the temperature is always lovely, the ground is fertile, and there is ample fresh water available, it may not be an acceptable location simply because there's no easy way in or out - and if no one lives there, than the first settlers will have no real access to outside medical facilities or trade to support them.

Australia is an extreme example of that sort of thing (with most of the population on the coasts because the interior is so harsh), but even in the US there are large swathes of land that are pretty much empty for one reason or another.

Humans tend to live in clustered cities because it's one of the most efficient ways (if not always the most plefor large groups of people to live.

(It's also part of why people tend to move INTO cities when an economy is on the downturn, but OUT of them when the economy is strong enough for people to pay more and live in suburbs.)


---

WhiteWolf338 posted...

If anything people should slow down on having kids. They take up more space and resources.

If folk can support the lifestyle they want, providing it's legal then I see no issue with it and other peoples life choices shouldn't concern you as they don't concern you.
---

Jen0125 posted...

rogerskg1979 posted...

helIy posted...

i dont think people realize that the entire population of the world could all live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.

Bullshit. Do you have an actual source for that or is your butthole your source?

China has a population of about 1.4 billion and a total area of about 3.7 million square miles.

The world population is about 7.6 billion, and Texas has a total area of about 260,000 square miles.

So you're saying you can put 5.5 times the Chinese population into a total area that is 14 times smaller, and everyone could "live comfortably"? That may be one of the stupidest things ever said on GameFAQs. You do realize that China is already very overcrowded and people already don't live comfortably there, don't you?

But you realize China isn't overcrowded actually though, right? It's only because people choose to live in select metro areas and not in rural areas. There is lots of space left in China that people just choose not to live in.

That's all well and good but we already use almost all of the land that's doable for agriculture as it is. While there might be enough room for humans physically, we do not produce enough to support the world. We're draining water tables and escalating desertification just trying to keep up with current lifestyles. It's not just food. It's everything. And yeah if we stopped producing most of the food on the planet just to feed billions of feed animals instead of more efficiently feeding humans we'd be much better off, but I don't see many people putting down the hamburgers

People need to scale back big time on what they're consuming just to support the population we have
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

People need to scale back big time on what they're consuming just to support the population we have

Well thanks to vegans and vegetarians there is more meat for the rest of us to consume so thanks!
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

People need to scale back big time on what they're consuming just to support the population we have

Well thanks to vegans and vegetarians there is more meat for the rest of us to consume so thanks!

Can't eyeroll hard enough at that kind of attitude. Pretty much beyond selfish and shortsighted and into callous misanthropy.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Jen0125 posted...

rogerskg1979 posted...

helIy posted...

i dont think people realize that the entire population of the world could all live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.

Bullshit. Do you have an actual source for that or is your butthole your source?

China has a population of about 1.4 billion and a total area of about 3.7 million square miles.

The world population is about 7.6 billion, and Texas has a total area of about 260,000 square miles.

So you're saying you can put 5.5 times the Chinese population into a total area that is 14 times smaller, and everyone could "live comfortably"? That may be one of the stupidest things ever said on GameFAQs. You do realize that China is already very overcrowded and people already don't live comfortably there, don't you?

But you realize China isn't overcrowded actually though, right? It's only because people choose to live in select metro areas and not in rural areas. There is lots of space left in China that people just choose not to live in.

That's all well and good but we already use almost all of the land that's doable for agriculture as it is. While there might be enough room for humans physically, we do not produce enough to support the world. We're draining water tables and escalating desertification just trying to keep up with current lifestyles. It's not just food. It's everything. And yeah if we stopped producing most of the food on the planet just to feed billions of feed animals instead of more efficiently feeding humans we'd be much better off, but I don't see many people putting down the hamburgers

People need to scale back big time on what they're consuming just to support the population we have

I didn't say anything about that. I was only addressing his idea that China is overpopulated because of overcrowding.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Can't eyeroll hard enough at that kind of attitude. Pretty much beyond selfish and shortsighted and into callous misanthropy.

I'm happy you understand.
---

rogerskg1979 posted...

TaKun782 posted...

There is a baby shower here where I work and I'm like "The fuck do I care?" : /

I always thought the term "baby shower" was very odd. Why do we have a party where everyone gathers to give a baby a shower? I know that's not literally what it is, but surely there's a better name for it....

You shower the parents with baby gifts, I guess...
---

rogerskg1979 posted...

helIy posted...

i dont think people realize that the entire population of the world could all live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.

Bullshit. Do you have an actual source for that or is your butthole your source?

China has a population of about 1.4 billion and a total area of about 3.7 million square miles.

The world population is about 7.6 billion, and Texas has a total area of about 260,000 square miles.

So you're saying you can put 5.5 times the Chinese population into a total area that is 14 times smaller, and everyone could "live comfortably"? That may be one of the stupidest things ever said on GameFAQs. You do realize that China is already very overcrowded and people already don't live comfortably there, don't you?

"Live comfortably" is an exaggeration, but you'd have a pretty comparable population density to that of Manhattan (26,403 people/mi^2, whereas putting 7.6 billion people into Texas would yield a density of 28,297). Establishing the infrastructure necessary to sustain that kind of density over such an area would be extremely challenging, certainly, and won't ever be practical without communist-style resource control, but if we're strictly looking at the density that's not a degree of overcrowding that people aren't already perfectly willing to live with.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

zebatov posted...

But mention anything like 'mandatory parenting schools, and those who fail get snipped' and that's "fascist" and "unrealistic".

Is it, though?

Yes it is. That was called eugenics

I don't believe everyone has the right to have kids, as I believe for some people to have kids is a breach of human rights for the child in itself. Ergo, it's hard for me to understand how some people don't support the idea of mandatory parenting schools/classes for all people as a part of the standard education program.
---

If you actually cared about the use of resources, you wouldn't be wasting electricity here.
---

WhiteWolf338 posted...

There is already a huge population problem now. Plus i find it more praiseworthy who adopts a child that is already out there. If anything people should slow down on having kids. They take up more space and resources.

Overlooking that overpopulation isn't nearly as big of an issue as people seem to believe, that's only for THIS generation. If nobody has kids, the race dies. However, even if there aren't enough kids, the system falls apart. Even if we scaled down the population, it needs to happen slowly.

And, as a general rule, the countries with the highest birth rates tend to have lower life expectancies so you kinda need more kids to offset that.

Far-Queue posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

WhiteWolf338 posted...

There is already a huge population problem now.

Overpopulation is an issue only in a relatively small number of countries. Hell, places like Japan need way more kids.

This. Even US states like Vermont have an aging population. I believe they're actually paying people to move to Vermont in hopes of bolstering a younger demographic.

Yup:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2018/06/03/vermont-wants-to-pay-you-10000-to-move-there-and-work/

I was also surprised to see that story the other day. Granted, that's also just a way to bring new money into the state and build their economy around it. States like Vermont tend to be left behind.

rogerskg1979 posted...

helIy posted...

i dont think people realize that the entire population of the world could all live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.

Bullshit. Do you have an actual source for that or is your butthole your source?

China has a population of about 1.4 billion and a total area of about 3.7 million square miles.

The world population is about 7.6 billion, and Texas has a total area of about 260,000 square miles.

So you're saying you can put 5.5 times the Chinese population into a total area that is 14 times smaller, and everyone could "live comfortably"? That may be one of the stupidest things ever said on GameFAQs. You do realize that China is already very overcrowded and people already don't live comfortably there, don't you?

A *lot* of China's space is unused. It's not like you have an even distribution across the entire country.

Kigalas posted...

Because its a pretty major thing, as having children upends your life. You go from normal people living to a place of massive sleep deprivation for multiple months or years, while learning how to care for a completely helpless being that they just send home with you and you have to figure it out - no manual included. And once you figure them out, then their needs change just enough that it feels like starting from scratch again. Becoming a parent is simultaneously the best and worst decision you can make in your life.

Yeah, it's a huge sacrifice. Even if you're a shit parent, it's still a lot of extra work.
---

helIy posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

WhiteWolf338 posted...

There is already a huge population problem now.

Overpopulation is an issue only in a relatively small number of countries. Hell, places like Japan need way more kids.

i dont think people realize that the entire population of the world could all live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.

no
---

zebatov posted...

If there were less people there would be less problems, and the ones we had would be less severe.

And I'm quite honestly not sure how true that would be unless you eliminating specific groups rather than just reducing the overall population.

zebatov posted...

I understand why a country would need to continue to create new people, but we never should have let the populations grow so wildly out of control in the first place.

...first, it's generally not a conscious choice. Second, most aren't "wildly out of control." Third, a large population carries many benefits.

zebatov posted...

If we don't do something about the population, one day (sooner than you might think) we'll literally be shoulder-to-shoulder.

It's actually nowhere near as likely as you think. As population increases, so does the ability to sustain a population (or it dies off)

Doctor Foxx posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

People need to scale back big time on what they're consuming just to support the population we have

Well thanks to vegans and vegetarians there is more meat for the rest of us to consume so thanks!

Can't eyeroll hard enough at that kind of attitude. Pretty much beyond selfish and shortsighted and into callous misanthropy.

Gee, and to think people believe that vegetarians and vegans have holier-than-thou attitude =p
---

rogerskg1979 posted...

TaKun782 posted...

There is a baby shower here where I work and I'm like "The fuck do I care?" : /

I always thought the term "baby shower" was very odd. Why do we have a party where everyone gathers to give a baby a shower? I know that's not literally what it is, but surely there's a better name for it....

Not only that, but its just some potluck and an excuse for free food or whatever because I hardly don't even know who the fuck this guy is and I really don't care. And its suppose to be a surprise... Jesus.. and ya know, TC is right. I hate having to cater to people like this because they arnt the only ones to procreate and have a child. Maybe im just an asshole here or a cynic, or maybe both but probably just an asshole in a good way. But anyways... its just stupid and really awkward as fuck for half of us who dont even know this guy like I said. Those of us who share the same lunch hours during this little event that will happen but we don't work with him. Half of us don't and like only 2 percent does. See what im getting at here? And a baby shower potluck at work? Really man...? Come on...

: /

TaKun782 posted...

rogerskg1979 posted...

TaKun782 posted...

There is a baby shower here where I work and I'm like "The fuck do I care?" : /

I always thought the term "baby shower" was very odd. Why do we have a party where everyone gathers to give a baby a shower? I know that's not literally what it is, but surely there's a better name for it....

Not only that, but its just some potluck and an excuse for free food or whatever because I hardly don't even know who the fuck this guy is and I really don't care. And its suppose to be a surprise... Jesus.. and ya know, TC is right. I hate having to cater to people like this because they arnt the only ones to procreate and have a child. Maybe im just an asshole here or a cynic, or maybe both but probably just an asshole in a good way. But anyways... its just stupid and really awkward as fuck for half of us who dont even know this guy like I said. Those of us who share the same lunch hours during this little event that will happen but we don't work with him. Half of us don't and like only 2 percent does. See what im getting at here? And a baby shower potluck at work? Really man...? Come on...

: /

Normally, I see more women, and its usually for the mom, I thought. But I guess it can be for the dad, too. Also, you probably shouldnt go if you dont know the people having the baby. And honestly, AFAIK, you arent Normally forced to go to those... unless you are for some reason...
---

Whether intended or not, I see it as another chapter in their lives and worthy of recognition. I would congratulate folks on getting a new job, buying a home, hitting a new mile marker in their lives, etc.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Jen0125 posted...

rogerskg1979 posted...

helIy posted...

i dont think people realize that the entire population of the world could all live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.

Bullshit. Do you have an actual source for that or is your butthole your source?

China has a population of about 1.4 billion and a total area of about 3.7 million square miles.

The world population is about 7.6 billion, and Texas has a total area of about 260,000 square miles.

So you're saying you can put 5.5 times the Chinese population into a total area that is 14 times smaller, and everyone could "live comfortably"? That may be one of the stupidest things ever said on GameFAQs. You do realize that China is already very overcrowded and people already don't live comfortably there, don't you?

But you realize China isn't overcrowded actually though, right? It's only because people choose to live in select metro areas and not in rural areas. There is lots of space left in China that people just choose not to live in.

That's all well and good but we already use almost all of the land that's doable for agriculture as it is. While there might be enough room for humans physically, we do not produce enough to support the world. We're draining water tables and escalating desertification just trying to keep up with current lifestyles. It's not just food. It's everything. And yeah if we stopped producing most of the food on the planet just to feed billions of feed animals instead of more efficiently feeding humans we'd be much better off, but I don't see many people putting down the hamburgers

People need to scale back big time on what they're consuming just to support the population we have

adjl posted...

"Live comfortably" is an exaggeration, but you'd have a pretty comparable population density to that of Manhattan (26,403 people/mi^2, whereas putting 7.6 billion people into Texas would yield a density of 28,297). Establishing the infrastructure necessary to sustain that kind of density over such an area would be extremely challenging, certainly, and won't ever be practical without communist-style resource control, but if we're strictly looking at the density that's not a degree of overcrowding that people aren't already perfectly willing to live with.

to be fair, i didn't get into sustainability

just that the entire population could fit into texas

but we can bump it up, say, alaska if someone doesn't feel that texas is big enough. it is, though.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

Whether intended or not, I see it as another chapter in their lives and worthy of recognition. I would congratulate folks on getting a new job, buying a home, hitting a new mile marker in their lives, etc.

Plus, it might be a while before they can have another party. I also know some people who like to combine parties. Like housewarming + Baby Shower. Or new job + birthday. Stuff like that. But it is a new chapter in their life...
---

LinkPizza posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

Whether intended or not, I see it as another chapter in their lives and worthy of recognition. I would congratulate folks on getting a new job, buying a home, hitting a new mile marker in their lives, etc.

Plus, it might be a while before they can have another party. I also know some people who like to combine parties. Like housewarming + Baby Shower. Or new job + birthday. Stuff like that. But it is a new chapter in their life...

Not to mention it's a new life. You're supporting the family with starting the next generation. Note you don't normally have baby showers for anything after the first baby' and you also don't normally go to a shower unless you know the family. Work parties are whatever. They do it for things I don't care about like random birthdays, why not a shower too
---

So I guess TC wont be back?
---

Zeus posted...

snip

1. Fewer people, less pollution, fewer need for GMOs... Only so much land can grow food naturally.

2. It should have been a conscious choice. The fact that it's happening tells me that all of the human race is brainless and never thought it could happen, or liberal and never thought or fought to restrict it.

Smaller populations worldwide = decreased need for natural resources = longer lasting resources = lower demand = lower supply = lower cost... On and on it goes. A smaller population carries the same benefits at a lower necessity.

3. There's only so much habitable land, taking into account natural food growth (also why GMOs exist - not enough land to grow the food we need is a part of it). It is a fact that one day humans will be shoulder-to-shoulder unless something is done about it. The population has only increased, and recently at an exponential rate.

Changes need to be made whether people agree or not.
---

zebatov posted...

1. Fewer people, less pollution, fewer need for GMOs... Only so much land can grow food naturally.

There's literally nothing wrong with GMOs. In fact, they have the potential to be far healthier than their normal counterparts depending on what genes are introduced. And, no matter how few people you have, the population benefits from GMOs.

zebatov posted...

2. It should have been a conscious choice. The fact that it's happening tells me that all of the human race is brainless and never thought it could happen, or liberal and never thought or fought to restrict it.

Outside of fascist, brutally repressive regimes (which is a brainless thing to advocate), there's no centralized way to forcibly control a population's reproduction patterns. And, quite honestly, there's less wrong with the current model than you think.

Not to mention that, for almost all of recorded history, there were strong benefits to having large families because it ensured that you would be taken care of in old age and your bloodline would continue. It was generally a pretty smart thing to do, especially given the mortality rates (and, by the way, high mortality rates still exist in some nations).

zebatov posted...

Smaller populations worldwide = decreased need for natural resources = longer lasting resources = lower demand = lower supply = lower cost... On and on it goes. A smaller population carries the same benefits at a lower necessity.

Quite a few problems with those assessments:

1) The nature of natural resources. Many resources people consume replenish naturally over time and, if we handled it more consciously, could replenish better. Likewise, without a suitable population, you can't adequately distribute many of those resources anyway.

2) Lower demand and lower supply would mean the same cost, not a lower cost >_> Same supply, lower demand might mean a lower cost but that's not even guaranteed since you also have to take infrastructure costs into account where a large number of consumers collectively bear the burden of those costs, thus lowering the costs for each participant. Fewer participants would mean higher infrastructure costs per participant and therefore likely higher costs.

Take a restaurant, for example. It needs to make a certain amount of gross profit to cover its costs. If it needed to make $1000/day, that could be spread $1 across 1,000 customers, $10 across 100 customers, or $100 across 10 customers. As a result, the menu prices would need to increase or decrease to reflect that margin. And sure, there are added costs when you have more customers but the added expense doesn't scale at the same rate and the fixed costs (ie, rent, lighting, etc) don't change regardless.

3) No, a smaller population absolutely does not confer all of the benefits of a larger population. Division of labor benefits under larger populations because so many things are incremental. Things don't just scale up and down evenly. And the more people you have, the more potential there is for innovation. The more people you have, the more likely you are to have meaningful diversity (ie, such as diversity of thought). When you have fewer people, the percentage of individuals required just to maintain the necessities goes up and therefore you have fewer people to work on the cool stuff that makes life fun.
---

I hope Trump and Kim will meet. Then one of them gets assassinated, which will start ww3 and wipe out half the population on earth.
---

zebatov posted...

3. There's only so much habitable land, taking into account natural food growth (also why GMOs exist - not enough land to grow the food we need is a part of it). It is a fact that one day humans will be shoulder-to-shoulder unless something is done about it. The population has only increased, and recently at an exponential rate.

Uh, no, GMOs exist because they're a natural progression. GMOs or not, farmers want to try to optimize crop yields because it's just stupid to not optimize... and, no matter what your resources look like, GMOs *can* optimize things further. And while you could argue that we'd be able to just waste resources to a far higher degree with a smaller population (which is a kinda stupid thing to want), there's really no benefit to wasting resources and likewise there's no inherent benefit to natural growing.

For most of the history of farming, we've had farmers attempting to modify plants through selective breeding so the idea that genetic modification is in itself bad is just silly. If we hadn't modified plants and animals, the human race would likely still be fairly small (which might please you) and we'd be living in a relatively primitive state because more effort would be put into just keeping us alive.

As for your claim about population growth, that's just flat-out wrong. The growth rate is SLOWING down and projected to slow further.
https://www.infoplease.com/world/population-statistics/total-population-world-decade-1950-2050

The fact that you somehow think it should fall instead of grow is ridiculous. The growth rate will likely reach equilibrium at some point (and it's likely it may fall for a bit after that before stabilizing at a somewhat lower number, which I'm sure will please you to no end -- but, given that it might be 100 years out, you'll likely be dead by then) which kills your dire predictions.

VeeVees posted...

I hope Trump and Kim will meet. Then one of them gets assassinated, which will start ww3 and wipe out half the population on earth.

---

Admittedly I may have crapped a little too hard on the idea of a smaller population. First, it does depend on how much things are scaled back. Second, technological advancements and sociological changes will alter society's labor needs. Third, it depends where the reductions are happening (although, if the reductions are happening in the countrysides, the actual crowding issues don't go down and you *still* need improvements in efficiency to cater to the population centers).

However, that doesn't really change the fact that *most* of the perceived benefits associated with a smaller population are vastly overstated or misunderstood. And even the fear of living shoulder-to-shoulder is silly considering how many people cram themselves into cities today -- and, in fact, have done so for thousands of years. Living in close quarters is immensely practical, even when you have land to spare. Reducing the space between locations means that there's less travel time. And having a large population in a smaller area means that you can have a lot of businesses that wouldn't otherwise be viable in a lower-population area (and, of course, businesses like having larger labor markets because it means they have greater access to qualified candidates).

And keep in mind that the US has a lot of perfectly usable space that largely stays unoccupied. The population could easily spread out so everybody has a bit more space, but it doesn't happen because it's not convenient or efficient.

If somebody is concerned about farm-to-table, reducing the number of people in the countryside isn't going to make that more viable because food can spoil in transit and you need growing space. That'll *kind* of change with vertical growing practices -- which is a more efficient use of land -- but the same crowd that dislikes GMOs is likely to whine about those practices as well because it's "unnatural"
---

No.
Also, fuck people who think having a kid wasn't a personal choice that they made or a risk that they failed to assess properly. For the remaining tenth of a percent that took all precautions and still wound up having a kid, I can't fault them lol

InfestedAdam posted...

Whether intended or not, I see it as another chapter in their lives and worthy of recognition. I would congratulate folks on getting a new job, buying a home, hitting a new mile marker in their lives, etc.

All of those are accomplishments that took time and effort though. Having unprotected sex isn't a difficult thing to do if you're married lmao

GanglyKhan posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

Whether intended or not, I see it as another chapter in their lives and worthy of recognition. I would congratulate folks on getting a new job, buying a home, hitting a new mile marker in their lives, etc.

All of those are accomplishments that took time and effort though. Having unprotected sex isn't a difficult thing to do if you're married lmao

Maybe they have been trying, but it took a while for whatever reason. And it finally happened.
---

LinkPizza posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

Whether intended or not, I see it as another chapter in their lives and worthy of recognition. I would congratulate folks on getting a new job, buying a home, hitting a new mile marker in their lives, etc.

All of those are accomplishments that took time and effort though. Having unprotected sex isn't a difficult thing to do if you're married lmao

Maybe they have been trying, but it took a while for whatever reason. And it finally happened.

Took my wife and I almost a year to get pregnant with our first. We got to the point where we were consulting fertility docs and considering our options. Wife went to an acupuncturist a few times and bam she got pregnant. Second kid it happened almost immediately once my wife got off birth control lol
---

I clicked on this out of curiosity to see what people would say - I had to laugh because NO ONE actually answered the simple question of "Why is it expected in society that we praise someone who has or is having a kid?". I've seen answers about over-population, eugenics, etc. but no answer as to "WHY"

My answer to the "Why" is that we humans have always had an innate need to be praised/recognized for even the the most mundane of accomplishments. Reproduction is a natural biological process every living thing does - even down to the smallest microbe so you didn't do anything special in my opinion.

However; when my wife and I had OUR children - that's a different story! I'll wait for the thunderous applause, standing ovations, and "pats on the back" to settle down - and then take a bow! ROFL
---

Medic375th posted...

I clicked on this out of curiosity to see what people would say - I had to laugh because NO ONE actually answered the simple question of "Why is it expected in society that we praise someone who has or is having a kid?". I've seen answers about over-population, eugenics, etc. but no answer as to "WHY"

Post #2
---