Preety_India

I have decided to not have children because of population.

42 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

It also has to be said that the population numbers will stabilize, regardless of your individual decision.

Africa will boom with an industrial revolution as well and the population should stabilize at around 13 billion people.

The reason for this is that highly developped countries do not have many kids, only poor countries and countries in development do. After all countries become developped there will no longer be population booms.

Just look at Japan, their numbers are going down because they have less than 2 children per couple.

Totally population is not declining. I don't see the human population stabilizing or declining, only increasing.


 INFJ loner... .shy girl.. 

Quick access to journal entries

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Pew research is a total joke!

 

From the united nations:

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html

https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/900

 

Others:

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth-past-future

https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth

 

Nice wikipedia article with tons of sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

 

This isn't a controversial point, it's a well agreed hypothesis among demography researchers. There is a lot of data supporting this, I found those sources with a 2 minute search.

Edited by 4201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@4201  and you should carefully double check and read every word of this -

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/world-s-population-could-swell-10-9-billion-2100-u-ncna1017791

Not trying to argue, but simple logic and historical analysis of human population does not indicate a drop in population despite the introduction of the birth pill or latest technology and spread of science.

You're mistakenly assuming that high industrialization reduces population because of fewer children. There's a slight nuance there. Yes! There are fewer kids. But on the flipside these are the same countries allowing massive immigration to run their economies. What's the end result - a surge in total population!

Population won't decline for the very same fears that are causing you to cite those articles. The entirety of humanity has lived on the fear of death/extinction from the beginning of Time. This is coded in our DNA that if we don't reproduce, we die out. However this was perfectly true during the Neanderthal period. 

Now infant mortality is extremely low in comparison to ancient times. Medical technology is so advanced that life spans of people have significantly improved, people live much longer than a couple of centuries ago. 

We will always have people, not necessarily youthful active working age people, yet we will always have people.

When you have people, you have mouths to feed, whether those people can work or not is irrelevant. There are mouths to feed and the earth and human "mismanagment/mangled/bungled"  system cannot cope providing so many people.

As a result there will be widespread destruction, faux poverty (people with cell phones and money bills but no bread, reminiscent of Germany during world war, artificial inflation) and a plethora of problems.

Human population will be one of the most challenging problems of the new century and most people will keep believing that we have enough to provide.

Edited by Preety_India

 INFJ loner... .shy girl.. 

Quick access to journal entries

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

You're mistakenly assuming that high industrialization reduces population because of fewer children. There's a slight nuance there. Yes! There are fewer kids. But on the flipside these are the same countries allowing massive immigration to run their economies. What's the end result - a surge in total population!

Hahaha, unless we are immigrating aliens, immigration does not change global population. Unless you are perhaps concerned about the population of your specific country?

 

14 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Population won't decline for the very same fears that are causing you to cite those articles. The entirety of humanity has lived on the fear of death/extinction from the beginning of Time. 

If people are scared of extinction, why is the population of Japan declining?

 

14 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Human population will be one of the most challenging problems of the new century and most people will keep believing that we have enough to provide.

I'm not saying it won't be a challenge, but this challenge won't be overcame by individuals not reproducing out of good will. Reducing the average carbon footprint and required resource per person seems to be the way we will face this issue. Perhaps overpopulation will force a major part of the world to be vegetarian.

The good news is, since the population will peak at ~11 billions, once overcame it will be overcame. The population will not grow infinitely into the 100 billions and more, at least according to the predictions. If you don't want to believe those predictions that's up to you, but not my problem.

To me it sounds better to survive in a way that is in alignment with the resources of the earth and teaching my kids to do the same, instead of not having kids. But you do you.

Edited by 4201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm a parent myself, one of the last baby boomer generation and I can see that the younger generations are becoming more knowledgeable and responsible towards these issues of sustainability than my generation (I'm generalising here and only aware of my country). But there is a new atmosphere of change in the air, so imo having children now isn't any more irresponsible than say 100 or 200 years ago, when fewer people cared about human and environmental exploitation. But it's an individual choice at the end of the day. 

Edited by snowyowl

Relax, it's just my loosely held opinion.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/07/2021 at 4:02 AM, Preety_India said:

To bring a child into this world would be a huge error on my part after all the spiritual growth I had over last 3 years.

Thank you, on behalf of your hypothetical children for sparing them from existence. It is not an easy choice to make given the enormous social pressure (especially for women). But citing overpopulation is not a particularly good argument. I think there are some bulletproof arguments against procreation in antinatalist philosophy, like for example Benatar's axiological asymmetry.

My own personal reasoning for not having kids was simply based on risk: Even if you were confident that you could provide your children a reasonable quality of life, there would be absolutely no way to guarantee that. If you are on the fence about procreating, make a list of the worst possible things that could potentially happen your child (cancer, disability, birth defects, rape, torture, severe mental illness, suicide, gruesome accidents, excruciating slow death, etc.) and try to graphically visualize those things happening to your child. Sure optimism bias might convince you that the odds of those happening are low, but there is no way to guarantee your child wont experience some or even all of them. If you are still willing to roll the dice on that, ask yourself why?

Also take into account that those risks for future offspring of your children increases exponentially with each generation. Over time, catastrophic outcomes become inevitable.  Yet you can avoid all risk simply by not procreating. Arguments against this are usually in the line of "But your kids will be deprived of all the beauty in life!" - No, they won't. Because there is no one to deprived of any goodness unless you create them in the first place. By doing that, you also sign them up for any and all potential horrors. If I personally had been given a choice to be born or not, I would not have taken the deal. The least I can do is to not impose it on anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Stomatopod said:

Thank you, on behalf of your hypothetical children for sparing them from existence. It is not an easy choice to make given the enormous social pressure (especially for women). But citing overpopulation is not a particularly good argument. I think there are some bulletproof arguments against procreation in antinatalist philosophy, like for example Benatar's axiological asymmetry.

My own personal reasoning for not having kids was simply based on risk: Even if you were confident that you could provide your children a reasonable quality of life, there would be absolutely no way to guarantee that. If you are on the fence about procreating, make a list of the worst possible things that could potentially happen your child (cancer, disability, birth defects, rape, torture, severe mental illness, suicide, gruesome accidents, excruciating slow death, etc.) and try to graphically visualize those things happening to your child. Sure optimism bias might convince you that the odds of those happening are low, but there is no way to guarantee your child wont experience some or even all of them. If you are still willing to roll the dice on that, ask yourself why?

Also take into account that those risks for future offspring of your children increases exponentially with each generation. Over time, catastrophic outcomes become inevitable.  Yet you can avoid all risk simply by not procreating. Arguments against this are usually in the line of "But your kids will be deprived of all the beauty in life!" - No, they won't. Because there is no one to deprived of any goodness unless you create them in the first place. By doing that, you also sign them up for any and all potential horrors. If I personally had been given a choice to be born or not, I would not have taken the deal. The least I can do is to not impose it on anyone else.

Thanks for understanding.


 INFJ loner... .shy girl.. 

Quick access to journal entries

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some interesting musings I can have with this area. Whether we decide to have children or not, we're playing God either way, because nobody chooses to be born into the world, and if you don't have them, they don't get to make that choice about whether life is worth living. You're making the choice for potentially thousands of other people. Yet we say suicide is bad, we're content to live our own lives as best we can. And how about animals, should we try to stop them breeding too? Life is pretty tough for them, but I like to feed the birds and encourage other wildlife in my garden. 

Another contemplation is that currently there's no shortage of people having kids so there's no problem economically with relatively large numbers abstaining. As long as we're ok with immigration to even the balance. 

In middle ages Europe there were many thousands of Catholic priests, monks & nuns opting out of family life altogether, also in some Buddhist countries there's many long-term monks & nuns. They don't get into these kind of arguments. 

Population predictions are fascinating and I wonder what it will be like when the total human population starts to decline: will that be a good time to live in, or not. 


Relax, it's just my loosely held opinion.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, snowyowl said:

Whether we decide to have children or not, we're playing God either way, because nobody chooses to be born into the world, and if you don't have them, they don't get to make that choice about whether life is worth living.

This seems like a paradox. If we were to imagine such a thing as (retroactive) consent to be born or not be born, it would presuppose that there are somehow non-existent non-persons that can regret never have been brought into existence.

If you go down that path - postulate a reservoir of unborn souls waiting to be born - then giving birth becomes a moral duty. Every time a woman menstruates, she would be cheating a soul out of being born. The disastrous consequences of this for women would be obvious.

 

11 hours ago, snowyowl said:

And how about animals, should we try to stop them breeding too? Life is pretty tough for them, but I like to feed the birds and encourage other wildlife in my garden. 

My personal opinion is that we may want to address the industrial forced breeding of animals for human consumption. About 70 billion animals per year are "produced" for food, not counting the billions killed by the farming of crops to sustain these captive populations. I suppose that would have been considered a bit of an ethical crisis for humanity. But it's only considered a practical problem because the industry has become a threat to human survival in the way of environmental destruction.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, Stomatopod said:

This seems like a paradox. If we were to imagine such a thing as (retroactive) consent to be born or not be born, it would presuppose that there are somehow non-existent non-persons that can regret never have been brought into existence.

If you go down that path - postulate a reservoir of unborn souls waiting to be born - then giving birth becomes a moral duty. Every time a woman menstruates, she would be cheating a soul out of being born. The disastrous consequences of this for women would be obvious. 

I'm not going that far, just saying that we have to use our free choice either way to make plans on behalf of the not-yet-existing people who don't get to have their own choices until they're grown up enough, or not at all if they aren't born. When we are grown up, it's too late to go back and opt out of life anyway. But that's life, as a parent you're making lots of big choices for your kids like food, education, religion (or lack of), clothes etc. No wonder it's a source of arguments! 

If there is a reservoir of souls somewhere I'd hope they can choose whether to jump into a human body / foetus and be born, perhaps even choose which parents to have. I've read some people who believe this type of thing, that after death we review our lives with a spiritual guide, and you can even choose a difficult reincarnation, like being very poor, in a warzone, or disabled, because of the lessons they will learn. Personally I don't buy it, lack of evidence. 

Edit - pressed submit too soon. 

"My personal opinion is that we may want to address the industrial forced breeding of animals for human consumption. About 70 billion animals per year are "produced" for food, not counting the billions killed by the farming of crops to sustain these captive populations. I suppose that would have been considered a bit of an ethical crisis for humanity. But it's only considered a practical problem because the industry has become a threat to human survival in the way of environmental destruction."

Totally agree, there's huge suffering caused to animals and we treat them badly. Being a wild animal isn't easy either, but we can only do so much. 

Edited by snowyowl

Relax, it's just my loosely held opinion.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is the world overpopulated? By what metric do you conclude this? The world population will peak around 9 billion and then stabilize after that as more 3rd more countries continue to develop and grow. 1st world countries have much fewer children and 3rd world countires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2021 at 4:45 PM, Preety_India said:

Sometimes nihilism is the most beautiful thing! A gift !

In the deepest moments of pain and agony, it becomes a medicine. A healing balm on wounds.

I totally understand you <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/07/2021 at 3:38 PM, Preety_India said:

I have decided that I won't have kids because I don't wish to contribute anymore to the population. I'll anyways die one day and that would be the end of it.

I can't bear the overpopulation.

 

Overpopulation?? 

I suspect that the global population is going to start sharply declining very soon. Fertility rates have been declining for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Space said:

Overpopulation?? 

I suspect that the global population is going to start sharply declining very soon. Fertility rates have been declining for decades.

But statistics don't show a declining number. They show a rising population. 


 INFJ loner... .shy girl.. 

Quick access to journal entries

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Preety_IndiaLook your body is your choice, I may not agree with such approach but I defiantly respect it. As far as logic, can’t see much. I remember about 20 or so years ago, one lady decided to starve herself because she saw how kids in Africa starve. I believe after few days she did died but kids still continue to starve in Africa. If you are truly want to change world population you can defiantly start traveling to third world countries and educate people about having less kids. Or join bill gates and his organization gavi. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now