An often overlooked aspect of reducing one’s environmental footprint is having no children or having fewer children. It’s the only ethical form of population reduction for obvious reasons, and less people means that humanity’s collective environmental impact is reduced.

To my knowledge, China is the only country to have national legislation limiting the number of children people can have through its one-child policy, which has recently been changed to allow two children per family to reduce the risk of having a population where the elderly massively outnumber young people. Of course, this policy needs to be combined with sex education, easy access to contraception, etc in order to actually work.

What would your opinion be on other countries, especially other developed countries, adopting policies like this? Do you think the environmental benefits outweigh the issues caused?

    • Stoned_Ape
      12·
      4 years ago

      It wouldn’t be fascist if the majority of people are on board, and the rules are fair, useful and are for everyone. It would only be facist if it would be made in a fascist way.

      • koavf
        51·
        4 years ago

        A majority of German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish citizens were just fine with their fascist dictators.

          • koavf
            11·
            4 years ago

            You wrote that majoritarianism isn’t fascist and that’s not true so I am pointing out how you are wrong.

            • Stoned_Ape
              11·
              4 years ago

              So democracy is facist? If more than 50%, or even 90+% of people are in favor of something, it’s suddenly fascist?

              • koavf
                11·
                4 years ago

                No, literally no one wrote that or anything like it.

                • Stoned_Ape
                  1·
                  4 years ago

                  I was referring to democracy with “majority”. I’m not sure what you understood from my first comment. I really have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • roastpotatothief
          3·
          4 years ago

          Is there even any definition of fascism? Some equate it with supremacism, others with authoritarianism. For me, the definitive thing about the fascist party was morality - they enforced morally good behaviour as laws.

          Using the word at all invites misunderstanding.

  • nromdotcom
    12·
    4 years ago

    I think certainly better sex education and access to contraception is important.

    Reproductive legislation probably wouldn’t do too terribly much on any sort of reasonable timeframe given how much pollution is produced by multinational corporations versus individuals and families.

    If we’re going to do any sort of sweeping and binding legislation let it be against corporations rather than people.

        • roastpotatothief
          1·
          4 years ago

          Good answer. If the is a horrific means to achieve a goal, and an alternative means too the same goal, don’t do the horrific thing.

    • AgreeableLandscapeOP
      4·
      4 years ago

      Reproductive legislation probably wouldn’t do too terribly much on any sort of reasonable timeframe given how much pollution is produced by multinational corporations versus individuals and families.

      If we’re going to do any sort of sweeping and binding legislation let it be against corporations rather than people.

      Good point.

      • Redstone
        23·
        4 years ago

        But dont those corporations pollute to make things for the people? So less people, less things, less pollution by corporations.

          • Redstone
            24·
            4 years ago

            That’s very a simplistic view. There is no dr Evil corp that exist just to pollute the world. The real problem is that we (people) don’t give a #$#%$# about the environment when we buy stuff. So why would a company sell stuff green but more expensive than the competition? That’s a formula to go broke, as long as the consumers doesn’t care. And that where I think governments have a role. The should make rules and regulations that make the green chose the more profitable one. But a single government can’t make that policy because than production just leaves your country. Not because company’s are evil, but because if they don’t and the competitions does they go broke. That’s why we have (the beginning) of international agreements like the Paris Agreement. That in my opinion don’t go way far enough.

              • Redstone
                12·
                4 years ago

                If nobody buys their oil they will stop . So back to the original topic less people = less polution.

              • nutomicA
                7·
                4 years ago

                The problem is that big companies use legal bribery (called lobbying) to prevent governments from doing anything like that.

                • Redstone
                  22·
                  4 years ago

                  The problem is the politicians people vote for. If you want to change stuff get the right people in the right spot. In the USA more than 74 milion people voted for a guy whu doesn’t give an f about the environment, and quit the paris agreement. Thats the real probleem.

  • oriond
    5·
    4 years ago

    It is funny how you need an environmental impact assessment to build a house but not to have a freaking child!

    • roastpotatothief
      1·
      4 years ago

      Or very liberal abortion or infanticide, which would bring down numbers much faster. All are ethically very controversial.

  • koavf
    2·
    4 years ago

    To the extent that having fewer children is a desirable public policy (and that is very much debatable), there should be nudge libertarian policies that incentivize or disincentivize the free choice to have or not have children. Outright banning of reproduction is not democratic.