Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,698
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That's not true, but I do agree that in many ways overly stressing the problem rather than the solutions comes off as problematic.The problem is that you continue to handwave away the problem. He is calling you on this handwaving--you say you are not advocating genocide but you present no other meaningful approach.Fine. If you think a person may be promoting genocide, even though he has not said that, ask.
If the person insists that he is against genocide, as I have persistently done throughout this thread, then drop it.
I will say that many people want to reign in population growth somehow, but because we don't want to be perceived as discussing things with ulterior motives, we discuss the measures we think will have the side effects of reducing births rather than directly advertising a desire to reduce births.
The only time that it becomes directly pertinent is when some natalist starts whinging that some lifestyle doesn't result in children, when discussing why we need to tolerate that lifestyle. By pointing out that there is a "Goldilocks zone" on population growth which can actually window on "population decline", and which currently does, those arguments fizzle out.