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?

  • koavf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    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.

    • Stoned_Ape
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      What I am saying is that majorities can support fascism.

      Of course. This is what I said:

      It wouldn’t be fascist if the majority of people are on board, and the rules are fair, useful and are for everyone.

      What I said isn’t just about the majority. It’s also about the rules being fair, useful and for everyone.

      Just because 50%+1 agree with something does not make it democratic

      If the votes were free and informed, then that’s literally what democracy is.

      democracy supports minority rights

      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.

      • koavf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        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.

        • Stoned_Ape
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          Democracy doesn’t just apply to states or how elections are run: were that true, there would be no democratic workplaces.

          That’s what I meant with “in broader terms”. It would really be nice if you read my complete comments, and not just fragments of it.

          I have no clue why you keep on responding in this conversation or what your endgame is here.

          Maybe I just want to talk about this. I don’t need an “endgame”, nor do you. If you think I have an endgame or agenda, it’s no wonder that you misinterpret my comments like that.

          • koavf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            Well, I’m not interested in mindless chatter, so please stop responding to me on this topic. Have a nice day.