• rglullis@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    62
    ·
    1 year ago
    • 1990: “wow, the ozone layer is getting destroyed. Who knows if we might have a planet. Might be better to not have kids”
    • 1970: “wow, life is more expensive than ever and the world might end in a nuclear war. Might be better to not have kids”
    • 1950: “wow, we just got out of the war and will need to rebuild the whole continent. Might be better to not have kids”
    • 1800: “wow, I spend 15 hours a day working in a factory and I can barely sustain myself. Might be better to not have kids”.
    • 1400: “wow, I have back-breaking work in a farm and all of it goes to some king and I will never see. What is the point of this? Might be better to not have kids.”
    • inlandempire@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed, anyone can make up quotes about anything, without providing any substance to a discussion.

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        53
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you need it spelled out for you, I’ll help: life was never easy, but it never stopped people from stepping up to it and taking the responsibility for it. That includes having kids. Being “afraid of having kids” because of some external issue seems like a bad excuse from people who just don’t want to accept the responsibility.

        • vmaziman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Saying it’s our responsibility to have kids it’s implying it’s our responsibility to endlessly expand and multiply. That is the domain of viruses and creatures that exceed the environmental carrying capacity of their species

          • rglullis@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            29
            ·
            1 year ago

            it’s our responsibility to endlessly expand and multiply.

            Not necessarily. We can still encourage people to have kids but keep it close to replacement rate (2.3 kids per woman)

            • vmaziman
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              1 year ago

              But isn’t it the fact that we have so many people coming into the middle class with middle class resource usage that causes planetary resource overruse? Either we need less people in the middle class, or 7 billion ppl have got to go back to pre industrial levels of consumption

              • rglullis@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                21
                ·
                1 year ago

                Either we need less people in the middle class, or 7 billion ppl have got to go back to pre industrial levels of consumption

                No, we need less people living with the north american standard of consumption. This is not the same as “middle class”.

        • RIPandTERROR@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What a fucking stupid argument. How is it anyone’s “responsibility” to have a kid? Please spell it out.

          Here’s my argument: it sounds hard and I don’t wanna. Explain to me how I’m irresponsible. JFC 😂

            • force@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Use the hundreds of thousands I would have otherwise spent on kids to live my best life until I die? duh

              • rglullis@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Understand that we are talking here about a scenario where the global fertility rate drops significantly (less than one child per woman), like what is happening now in South Korea, Spain, Italy, ok?

                Given that scenario and the economic collapse that would be coming with it, what would you be spending on, exactly?

                Has it occurred to you that all that money that you have been saving and putting in some pension fund will likely not be there if there are no younger people to keep the economy going?

                Also: what is stopping you from “living your best life” now that you are young?

                Lastly

                Use the hundreds of thousands I would have otherwise spent on kids

                Yeah, that is not a thing in Germany. Decent public schools, decent health care system, government gives you 250 euro per kid per month, no car dependency, which means that kids are a lot more independent a lot earlier in life… having kids does not cost that much.

        • awwwyissss
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are already way, way too many people on the planet.

    • Konlanx@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So what you’re saying is this all could have been avoided if people had less children in the 1400s?