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?
A majority of German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish citizens were just fine with their fascist dictators.
I’m not sure why you’re saying that to me.
You wrote that majoritarianism isn’t fascist and that’s not true so I am pointing out how you are wrong.
So democracy is facist? If more than 50%, or even 90+% of people are in favor of something, it’s suddenly fascist?
No, literally no one wrote that or anything like it.
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.
What I am saying is that majorities can support fascism. Just because 50%+1 agree with something does not make it democratic, as democracy supports minority rights and fascism does not.
Of course. This is what I said:
What I said isn’t just about the majority. It’s also about the rules being fair, useful and for everyone.
If the votes were free and informed, then that’s literally what democracy is.
Democracy really is just a way to vote on a government, or in broader terms to participate in defining ones society. That government is making such rules as this, but only because the majority wants these rules. In a perfect democracy, the government wouldn’t do anything that the majority doesn’t want. Democracy isn’t a moral agent. The public is the agent.
Democracy doesn’t just apply to states or how elections are run: were that true, there would be no democratic workplaces. I also never said that democracy is a moral agent. I have no clue why you keep on responding in this conversation or what your endgame is here.