8 ms·

Welcome to the reality of not bearing enough children.

by dadjoker 2y ago

recursive 2y ago
If it can be solved with conveyer belts, maybe we didn't that many children?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- salad-tycoon 2y ago
  We’ve had children longer historically than conveyor belts. Therefore we need more children and not belts if we, as people, want to leave a legacy of humans instead of a legacy of literal actual real life conveyor belts. Also, this is just one symptom. If the only problem of humans being/needing to be replace by conveyor belts than, yay. Ok, maybe. But I think it’s more like the bubbles underneath paint of your ceiling or that mud tube on the outside of a house. It’s a warning sign of what’s to come and not the finality of consequences. Or maybe not, this article didn’t speak about any of that but I’d wager a 41% transport shortage is big problem for food/medicine/toilet paper etc which can only lead to problems as we just recently experienced with Covid and civil unrest. I’d also be willing to bet this will be problematic for things like house and goods price stability, hospitals, schools, whatever kind of public works they have and societal fall nets, and what about the really crappy jobs people want to do less than trucking? The exceptional quality of life that many of our countries from which we post are only possible by the lowest rung of ladder holding it all up. Not to mention that on the whole of it humans are good! We love, love, create, invent, hack, explore. Yeah there’s bad stuff too but I think the extreme comfort in which many of us finds us helps to numb us the goodness around us and we just get a thrill from the bad. At least that my argument to your stated questions and implied construction. Ie why did we need all those humans anyways, they were unnecessary and a drain. Excuse me if I assumed the later. Anyways, that’s just, like, my opinion man so maybe I’m wrong.
  - recursive 2y ago
    Consider two candidate numbers of kids: k2 > k1. Which is a better quantity of kids? Is it k2? Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of humans, in general. Given our (current) means, I think there can be such a thing as too many, globally or locally. We maintain hunting seasons for certain animals. One of the ostensible purposes is that, with the current dynamics, animals like deer would over-populate in some areas. This would cause suffering in deer. It would also have ripple effects throughout the system. I'm not proposing that we hunt people. I'm saying that within the constraints of a system (like earth or a local system) there's an ideal number of people. People have their own reasons for having kids or not. Humans are one of the most wildly successful species on the planet. We are FAR from having to worry about not having a legacy.

Welcome to the reality of not bearing enough children.

recursive 2y ago

If it can be solved with conveyer belts, maybe we didn't that many children?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
salad-tycoon 2y ago
We’ve had children longer historically than conveyor belts. Therefore we need more children and not belts if we, as people, want to leave a legacy of humans instead of a legacy of literal actual real life conveyor belts. Also, this is just one symptom. If the only problem of humans being/needing to be replace by conveyor belts than, yay. Ok, maybe. But I think it’s more like the bubbles underneath paint of your ceiling or that mud tube on the outside of a house. It’s a warning sign of what’s to come and not the finality of consequences. Or maybe not, this article didn’t speak about any of that but I’d wager a 41% transport shortage is big problem for food/medicine/toilet paper etc which can only lead to problems as we just recently experienced with Covid and civil unrest. I’d also be willing to bet this will be problematic for things like house and goods price stability, hospitals, schools, whatever kind of public works they have and societal fall nets, and what about the really crappy jobs people want to do less than trucking? The exceptional quality of life that many of our countries from which we post are only possible by the lowest rung of ladder holding it all up. Not to mention that on the whole of it humans are good! We love, love, create, invent, hack, explore. Yeah there’s bad stuff too but I think the extreme comfort in which many of us finds us helps to numb us the goodness around us and we just get a thrill from the bad. At least that my argument to your stated questions and implied construction. Ie why did we need all those humans anyways, they were unnecessary and a drain. Excuse me if I assumed the later. Anyways, that’s just, like, my opinion man so maybe I’m wrong.
- recursive 2y ago
  Consider two candidate numbers of kids: k2 > k1. Which is a better quantity of kids? Is it k2? Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of humans, in general. Given our (current) means, I think there can be such a thing as too many, globally or locally. We maintain hunting seasons for certain animals. One of the ostensible purposes is that, with the current dynamics, animals like deer would over-populate in some areas. This would cause suffering in deer. It would also have ripple effects throughout the system. I'm not proposing that we hunt people. I'm saying that within the constraints of a system (like earth or a local system) there's an ideal number of people. People have their own reasons for having kids or not. Humans are one of the most wildly successful species on the planet. We are FAR from having to worry about not having a legacy.