The morality of Population growth control measures

[ruby sparks]

So, I've been engaged in a lively debate elsewhere about how the topic of population relates to the wider issue of climate change.

As part of that, I came across the paper below, written by a philosopher (I believe).

Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change
https://www.npr.org/documents/2016/jun/population_engineering.pdf

And so I thought it might be interesting to discuss the topic in a philosophical (specifically moral) context.

The writer identifies a spectrum of measures:




A typical example of measures at the left side might be voluntary Family Planning policies such as promoting and increasing access to contraception and allowing/facilitating safer abortion, etc.

Allowing voluntary euthanasia (and even perhaps decriminalising suicide) might also figure, though some may feel these would belong further to the right.

Somewhere nearer the middle (but arguably still mostly on the left side) might be media (such as advertisements) promoting the benefits of having smaller families and the merits and social acceptability of remaining childless by choice. This could be called 'preference adjustment'. It could vary in strength. It could merely be about presenting unconsidered options or it could be more about persuasion and trying to change mindsets and culture and bring them up to date in light of non-evolved societal and global changes. It has been used in certain countries at certain times.

Somewhere near the middle might be natalist-neutral policies, which might involve not having pro-natalist policies such as blanket incentives (eg tax breaks) for having children. Many voluntarily childless people are highlighting this issue.

Moving right, we might have actual incentives (financial or otherwise) for not having children (or as they more usually have involved, not having more children).

On the right we might have forced sterilisation for example. Or laws against having children, for only having one child, or having more than one.

We could probably go even further right and include the option of culling.

So my questions are, where do posters, philosophically and morally, feel it is appropriate to draw the line, at this time. And could anyone ever envisage moving their line to the right if the situation ever became even more urgent than it already arguably is? And when if ever does the downside for humans (and perhaps all living things on the planet) generally start to outweigh the needs, concerns and rights of individual humans, or should the latter always have priority?

It could be said that the OP is in some ways hypothetical, as philosophy often is, but the last two questions are to some extent more hypothetical, since they might describe situations which might not arise, if, for example, other measures to counter climate change were to rapidly progress and this resulted in us at least mitigating the worst aspects of the disaster that may be ahead, or if the lower estimates of future world population come to pass.

I am obviously not intending to overstate the role of population. For the record, I do not believe it offers the main or only avenue for solutions. The greatest opportunity has to do with decreasing CO2 emissions, and although population plays a part in this (sometimes understated or at least under-researched, it seems to me lately*), ending a reliance on fossil fuels or other measures to reduce carbon footprints per capita would imo make a greater difference. Other measures may also be useful, such as ending or reducing deforestation, increasing reforestation, improving agricultural practices (eg promoting conservation tillage) and developing non-natural carbon sequestration.

Measures which indirectly affect population growth could also be relevant, including measures which might have population growth reduction as a side effect, bonus or byproduct.

I am also happy to have the survival of other animals and other living things included in a list of valid concerns, because morally, we don't necessarily need to be entirely anthropocentric.

Finally, in my opinion, it is relevant to not only consider global environmental catastrophe and survival of the (our) species, but also general issues which relate to quality of life.







* If correct, I am not sure why this might be the case. One factor may have to do with earlier forebodings about overpopulation not coming to pass having given population growth policies a bad name. Ditto for cases where such policies were misused. Fear of a slippery slope into misuse generally might play a valid part. Another (I'm guessing) might be that we, and especially those wielding economic power, might prefer the agenda to be about technological innovations (in a globally consumerist culture predicated on economic growth and short-termism, there may be perceived to be more incentives, and people these days do love technology). Nationalism may also impinge, which might involve individual governments not wanting to promote reductions in their own populations (this could include fears about immigration). Similarly for the traditional impulses of religions and other 'tribal' groupings. Also, it seems at least some consider human reproductive rights to trump almost anything else. As someone said, 'people want to have babies'.

 

[PyramidHead]

The paper raises many good points, thanks for posting it! In addition to the argument that procreation is a "tip of the iceberg" problem because the product of procreation may go on to procreate further, I will provide my usual refrain that we must not discount the reduction of harm accomplished by preventing the harm that would have befallen those we chose not to create. Even if other methods of dealing with climate change may yield better outcomes for the environment, it cannot be ignored that the population variable is unique in this way. In a scenario where population size is not controlled, even if we are successful in mitigating climate change to below the 2° specification we might still be worse off overall, as more sentient beings will exist to endure the hardships of reaching that goal, assuming it is ever reached. If it is not, we will have produced a generation of victims who did not need to be there to witness the aftermath of our failure to protect them. The article talks about the manipulation and coercion risks of preventing procreation, but fails to mention the inherent manipulation and coercion of bringing someone into existence so that they can be fodder for the climate change prevention effort, or if the problem cannot be solved, a hapless bystander in a world of chaos and unrest. These factors greatly add value to the prospect of population reduction in a way that cannot be said for other methods of mitigation, and in my view tilt the balance toward adopting policies like those mentioned in the article just as a precautionary measure. Even if they don't work, even if nothing works, we will have still lessened the scale of sentient suffering compared to leaving population alone.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thanks. I hoped you would spot it and contribute.

Oh, I may have amended my OP while you were reading and/or replying. It's a terrible habit of mine.

Laters. Real work to do here........

 

[ruby sparks]

The paper raises many good points, thanks for posting it! In addition to the argument that procreation is a "tip of the iceberg" problem because the product of procreation may go on to procreate further, I will provide my usual refrain that we must not discount the reduction of harm accomplished by preventing the harm that would have befallen those we chose not to create. Even if other methods of dealing with climate change may yield better outcomes for the environment, it cannot be ignored that the population variable is unique in this way. In a scenario where population size is not controlled, even if we are successful in mitigating climate change to below the 2° specification we might still be worse off overall, as more sentient beings will exist to endure the hardships of reaching that goal, assuming it is ever reached. If it is not, we will have produced a generation of victims who did not need to be there to witness the aftermath of our failure to protect them. The article talks about the manipulation and coercion risks of preventing procreation, but fails to mention the inherent manipulation and coercion of bringing someone into existence so that they can be fodder for the climate change prevention effort, or if the problem cannot be solved, a hapless bystander in a world of chaos and unrest. These factors greatly add value to the prospect of population reduction in a way that cannot be said for other methods of mitigation, and in my view tilt the balance toward adopting policies like those mentioned in the article just as a precautionary measure. Even if they don't work, even if nothing works, we will have still lessened the scale of sentient suffering compared to leaving population alone.

Well, again, as in previous threads which touch on this, I think you make a solid case on moral grounds. I'm not sure I can add anything other than my general agreement.

I take it that if someone has been born (or to put it another way, for those people who are born, rightly or wrongly) that you might then start to make distinctions on the spectrum suggested by the author?

 

[Bronzeage]

The fundamental problem of population control is that the incentives and disincentives which guide people's choices, have no effect on the people who create the population problem, who of course are people have yet to be conceived and be born.

It's usually a petulant adolescent complaint, "I didn't ask to be born!", but true, none the less. If we want to decrease the rate of population increase, legal suicide(boy, is that a dumb idea) and euthanasia won't put a dent in the statistics. After all, what's the point of killing someone who's time to consume resources is near the end, anyway. How much could you save?

The only practical way to control population growth, without cutting back on vaccines or turning off the tsunami warning systems, is to make life for the currently alive, conducive to having a minimal number of children and for many people, no children at all. The best way to do this may sound counter intuitive, but reducing infant mortality is a good start. The second step is to raise the standard of living, especially for people who now subsist off the land, which for millennia have depended upon large families, simply to have a ready labor supply. Reduce the need for labor and reduce the population.

 

[Tigers!]

The fundamental problem of population control is that the incentives and disincentives which guide people's choices, have no effect on the people who create the population problem, who of course are people have yet to be conceived and be born.

It's usually a petulant adolescent complaint, "I didn't ask to be born!", but true, none the less. If we want to decrease the rate of population increase, legal suicide(boy, is that a dumb idea) and euthanasia won't put a dent in the statistics. After all, what's the point of killing someone who's time to consume resources is near the end, anyway. How much could you save?

The only practical way to control population growth, without cutting back on vaccines or turning off the tsunami warning systems, is to make life for the currently alive, conducive to having a minimal number of children and for many people, no children at all. The best way to do this may sound counter intuitive, but reducing infant mortality is a good start. The second step is to raise the standard of living, especially for people who now subsist off the land, which for millennia have depended upon large families, simply to have a ready labor supply. Reduce the need for labor and reduce the population.

Which historical is accurate.
It is well known that as the general affluence of a society increases and infant mortality is reduced teh number of children per couple deceases. The west still this without need for large scale abortion or the need for euthanasia.

 

[Tigers!]

So, I've been engaged in a lively debate elsewhere about how the topic of population relates to the wider issue of climate change.

As part of that, I came across the paper below, written by a philosopher (I believe).

Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change
https://www.npr.org/documents/2016/jun/population_engineering.pdf

And so I thought it might be interesting to discuss the topic in a philosophical (specifically moral) context.

The writer identifies a spectrum of measures:

View attachment 18318


A typical example of measures at the left side might be voluntary Family Planning policies such as promoting and increasing access to contraception and allowing/facilitating safer abortion, etc.

Allowing voluntary euthanasia (and even perhaps decriminalising suicide) might also figure, though some may feel these would belong further to the right.

Somewhere nearer the middle (but arguably still mostly on the left side) might be media (such as advertisements) promoting the benefits of having smaller families and the merits and social acceptability of remaining childless by choice. This could be called 'preference adjustment'. It could vary in strength. It could merely be about presenting unconsidered options or it could be more about persuasion and trying to change mindsets and culture and bring them up to date in light of non-evolved societal and global changes. It has been used in certain countries at certain times.

Somewhere near the middle might be natalist-neutral policies, which might involve not having pro-natalist policies such as blanket incentives (eg tax breaks) for having children. Many voluntarily childless people are highlighting this issue.

Moving right, we might have actual incentives (financial or otherwise) for not having children (or as they more usually have involved, not having more children).

On the right we might have forced sterilisation for example. Or laws against having children, for only having one child, or having more than one.

We could probably go even further right and include the option of culling.

Regarding the picture - does the author state that moving to the left and right or right has any relationship to political thought i.e. China rigorously enforced a 1 child policy but they were 'left wing' politically.

Regarding culling - who chooses and what would be the criteria?

 

[PyramidHead]

The paper raises many good points, thanks for posting it! In addition to the argument that procreation is a "tip of the iceberg" problem because the product of procreation may go on to procreate further, I will provide my usual refrain that we must not discount the reduction of harm accomplished by preventing the harm that would have befallen those we chose not to create. Even if other methods of dealing with climate change may yield better outcomes for the environment, it cannot be ignored that the population variable is unique in this way. In a scenario where population size is not controlled, even if we are successful in mitigating climate change to below the 2° specification we might still be worse off overall, as more sentient beings will exist to endure the hardships of reaching that goal, assuming it is ever reached. If it is not, we will have produced a generation of victims who did not need to be there to witness the aftermath of our failure to protect them. The article talks about the manipulation and coercion risks of preventing procreation, but fails to mention the inherent manipulation and coercion of bringing someone into existence so that they can be fodder for the climate change prevention effort, or if the problem cannot be solved, a hapless bystander in a world of chaos and unrest. These factors greatly add value to the prospect of population reduction in a way that cannot be said for other methods of mitigation, and in my view tilt the balance toward adopting policies like those mentioned in the article just as a precautionary measure. Even if they don't work, even if nothing works, we will have still lessened the scale of sentient suffering compared to leaving population alone.

Well, again, as in previous threads which touch on this, I think you make a solid case on moral grounds. I'm not sure I can add anything other than my general agreement.

I take it that if someone has been born (or to put it another way, for those people who are born, rightly or wrongly) that you might then start to make distinctions on the spectrum suggested by the author?

Sure, I'd say that's a good place to start. Well, to be accurate I guess the best place to start would be to lump everything on that spectrum into the bin of "various levels of moral transgression that may or may not serve our purposes as a society". I'm always happier to concede right off the bat that there are no moral options, at least none that come out unscathed all the way through. Somebody's getting their preferences stifled by the hand of the state one way or another, it's just a reality of large groups trying to solve urgent problems at the last minute. I would of course hope that the correct balance is struck, and I agree that the accusations of extremism are unwarranted when you think of what we already tolerate in our lives.

What I'm certainly not is a utilitarian, in that I don't believe we can justify any kind of behavior towards individuals or groups by offsetting it elsewhere (or else-when, in the case of preserving future generations) and make it acceptable. That is, while it may be true that we can prevent X amount of climate-related misery in the distant future by simply sterilizing the population against their wishes today, I'm not interested in weighing the numbers. Once you cross a certain threshold of just blatantly disrespecting other people, you've stepped into a realm of practical policy concerns and out of the moral world. I've never been good with policy ideas, so I can't really say which ones would work better in terms of empirical efficacy, and there is a whole dimension of culture and public opinion to take into account that I couldn't begin to predict.

 

[PyramidHead]

The fundamental problem of population control is that the incentives and disincentives which guide people's choices, have no effect on the people who create the population problem, who of course are people have yet to be conceived and be born.

I'm sorry, in what way do as-yet-unborn people create the population problem? What act of theirs, that they could have avoided doing, creates the problem we're trying to solve? Merely existing?

That's a lot like saying gun control doesn't target what really creates the problem, which is the energy transferred from a bullet to flesh upon impact.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's delusional to think that having children is within our conscious control. I think we're remote controlled by our genes to have children, and our idea that it's within our conscious control is after the fact rationalisations.

I think people who are emotionally shut down for whatever traumatic reasons may have more of a conscious control over this. But these are not happy people, and shouldn't be a emotional state we wish to live in.

So I think the entire discussion is moot. We can only talk about morality regarding things we can control. This ain't it.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think it's delusional to think that having children is within our conscious control. I think we're remote controlled by our genes to have children, and our idea that it's within our conscious control is after the fact rationalisations.

There is actually no genetic compulsion to have children that has ever been identified. Nature just made sex pleasurable enough for us to want to do it, and for eons (until contraceptives became available) that was enough. Why should we have evolved anything like a specific desire for children when a simple physical urge for sex would have been enough? Wanting children, apart from just wanting sex, is 100% cultural.

I think people who are emotionally shut down for whatever traumatic reasons may have more of a conscious control over this. But these are not happy people, and shouldn't be a emotional state we wish to live in.

You actually don't know what you're talking about and the fact that you just typed that, read it over, and decided it was worth posting is shocking to me. Every feminist icon that has ever struggled against the social obligation to churn out babies is either rolling her eyes or rolling in her grave. You're taking a page out of a cultural playbook that should have been put back on the shelf a long time ago.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's delusional to think that having children is within our conscious control. I think we're remote controlled by our genes to have children, and our idea that it's within our conscious control is after the fact rationalisations.

There is actually no genetic compulsion to have children that has ever been identified. Nature just made sex pleasurable enough for us to want to do it, and for eons (until contraceptives became available) that was enough. Why should we have evolved anything like a specific desire for children when a simple physical urge for sex would have been enough? Wanting children, apart from just wanting sex, is 100% cultural.

The fact that none has been identified doesn't mean it isn't there. I'd turn it around, the idea that we aren't remote controlled to have children would be absurd. Since that's how nature works in every other species. We're not that special.

In every culture children are valued highly, and society bends over backwards to protect children and mothers. If it was cultural we'd see some sort of variation in this. But we don't. Things that are genetic tend to be stable across the globe.

I think people who are emotionally shut down for whatever traumatic reasons may have more of a conscious control over this. But these are not happy people, and shouldn't be a emotional state we wish to live in.

You actually don't know what you're talking about and the fact that you just typed that, read it over, and decided it was worth posting is shocking to me. Every feminist icon that has ever struggled against the social obligation to churn out babies is either rolling her eyes or rolling in her grave. You're taking a page out of a cultural playbook that should have been put back on the shelf a long time ago.

It's amusing how your complete lack of counter-arguments led you down this road of hyperbole and non-sequiturs. If reality is shocking to you... it can't be an easy life for you

 

[PyramidHead]

The fact that none has been identified doesn't mean it isn't there. I'd turn it around, the idea that we aren't remote controlled to have children would be absurd. Since that's how nature works in every other species. We're not that special.

Genetic impulses aren't a good fit for abstract concepts. There are plenty of ways to nurture the young, get sexual satisfaction, and contribute to the future of the kin group (to use examples that might have imposed selection pressures) without specifically having biological offspring. So, it's hard for me to imagine why there would be a predisposition for specifically that, rather than some proxy like a natural protective impulse toward children, which would have been much easier to encode at the protein level through gradual mutations. A trait like "wanting to produce a new organism" contains a lot of conceptual nuance that I don't see much evidence for being under genetic control, especially when there are plausible other traits like sexual pleasure and care for children that would seemingly do the job. You mention other species as if it is confirmed that they all have the genetic impulse you're talking about, to produce more of themselves, when that's just a higher-level abstraction that we map onto what is a wholly biological phenomenon. If a chimp is provided with a sexual outlet and a young member of the species, unless it has a scent that specifically means stay away, it will go through all the same motions as it would have for a biological offspring of its own.

It also shouldn't need to be mentioned that little about society that we wish to preserve, enforce, or get more of flows naturally from the tendencies we share with other animals. Subjugating what we are pre-cognitively driven to want in favor of the wants and needs of others, even if itself rooted in some ancestral version of tribalism, is already something we accept as necessary to counterbalance the innate violence of our genetic temperament.

In every culture children are valued highly, and society bends over backwards to protect children and mothers. If it was cultural we'd see some sort of variation in this. But we don't. Things that are genetic tend to be stable across the globe.

From an article about the topic I encourage you to read:

The deep feelings of wanting to have a child have their roots in a learned desire from strong, long-standing social and cultural pronatal influences — not biological ones. And we’ve been influenced so strongly for so long that it just feels “innate.”

Early feminist Lena Hollingsworth gets to the heart of why it isn’t: If the “urge” was actually innate or instinctual, we would all feel it, she argues — and we don’t. If it were instinctive, there would have been no need to introduce social messaging to encourage and influence reproduction. If it were instinctive, there would be no need for social and cultural pressures to have children.

Your explanation for why some people don't feel the urge to procreate at all is that they are emotionally damaged. Do you know any people who don't have children? Are literally every one of them suffering from some past trauma that caused them to become "emotionally shut down"? What if they claim to be happy, fulfilled people with lives they enjoy... are they lying? Deluding themselves? Who are you to say?

It's amusing how your complete lack of counter-arguments led you down this road of hyperbole and non-sequiturs. If reality is shocking to you... it can't be an easy life for you

It's not an easy life for anybody, but at least I take people seriously when they say no-thank-you to creating a new life that will be subjected to that same unease. Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, it's born out of empathy, and not emotional blankness. I mean... I ask again, do all of the non-trauma-afflicted people in your life have children, really?

 

[ruby sparks]

Regarding the picture - does the author state that moving to the left and right or right has any relationship to political thought i.e. China rigorously enforced a 1 child policy but they were 'left wing' politically.

No I don't think the left and right are that sort of left and right.

Regarding culling - who chooses and what would be the criteria?

That's almost too hypothetical to answer.

 

[ruby sparks]

The paper raises many good points, thanks for posting it! In addition to the argument that procreation is a "tip of the iceberg" problem because the product of procreation may go on to procreate further, I will provide my usual refrain that we must not discount the reduction of harm accomplished by preventing the harm that would have befallen those we chose not to create. Even if other methods of dealing with climate change may yield better outcomes for the environment, it cannot be ignored that the population variable is unique in this way. In a scenario where population size is not controlled, even if we are successful in mitigating climate change to below the 2° specification we might still be worse off overall, as more sentient beings will exist to endure the hardships of reaching that goal, assuming it is ever reached. If it is not, we will have produced a generation of victims who did not need to be there to witness the aftermath of our failure to protect them. The article talks about the manipulation and coercion risks of preventing procreation, but fails to mention the inherent manipulation and coercion of bringing someone into existence so that they can be fodder for the climate change prevention effort, or if the problem cannot be solved, a hapless bystander in a world of chaos and unrest. These factors greatly add value to the prospect of population reduction in a way that cannot be said for other methods of mitigation, and in my view tilt the balance toward adopting policies like those mentioned in the article just as a precautionary measure. Even if they don't work, even if nothing works, we will have still lessened the scale of sentient suffering compared to leaving population alone.

Well, again, as in previous threads which touch on this, I think you make a solid case on moral grounds. I'm not sure I can add anything other than my general agreement.

I take it that if someone has been born (or to put it another way, for those people who are born, rightly or wrongly) that you might then start to make distinctions on the spectrum suggested by the author?

Sure, I'd say that's a good place to start. Well, to be accurate I guess the best place to start would be to lump everything on that spectrum into the bin of "various levels of moral transgression that may or may not serve our purposes as a society". I'm always happier to concede right off the bat that there are no moral options, at least none that come out unscathed all the way through. Somebody's getting their preferences stifled by the hand of the state one way or another, it's just a reality of large groups trying to solve urgent problems at the last minute. I would of course hope that the correct balance is struck, and I agree that the accusations of extremism are unwarranted when you think of what we already tolerate in our lives.

What I'm certainly not is a utilitarian, in that I don't believe we can justify any kind of behavior towards individuals or groups by offsetting it elsewhere (or else-when, in the case of preserving future generations) and make it acceptable. That is, while it may be true that we can prevent X amount of climate-related misery in the distant future by simply sterilizing the population against their wishes today, I'm not interested in weighing the numbers. Once you cross a certain threshold of just blatantly disrespecting other people, you've stepped into a realm of practical policy concerns and out of the moral world. I've never been good with policy ideas, so I can't really say which ones would work better in terms of empirical efficacy, and there is a whole dimension of culture and public opinion to take into account that I couldn't begin to predict.

Thanks.

My guess is that most people would prefer to stick to the left hand side of the spectrum. But they might move to the right (to varying extents) if they believed the level of urgency was increasing or the consequences of not moving to the right were perceived to be (or likely to be) dire.

Of course, things are arguably already urgent, and may have been for almost 50 years, and we may be underestimating the level of urgency. We could be the frogs being boiled so slowly in the proverbial saucepan that we don't try to jump until it's too late.

Or, things might be ok.

When I say 'move to the right' I mean that their moral standpoint, or limit, might be subject to change.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think it's delusional to think that having children is within our conscious control. I think we're remote controlled by our genes to have children, and our idea that it's within our conscious control is after the fact rationalisations.

I think people who are emotionally shut down for whatever traumatic reasons may have more of a conscious control over this. But these are not happy people, and shouldn't be a emotional state we wish to live in.

So I think the entire discussion is moot. We can only talk about morality regarding things we can control. This ain't it.

There would be no one choosing not to have children if that were the case. In fact, there might be no one stopping after just one.

I think you might have thought that one through better, to be honest.

In fact...

Ha. You're kidding. Lol. It took me a while to realise. Good one.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Genetic impulses aren't a good fit for abstract concepts. There are plenty of ways to nurture the young, get sexual satisfaction, and contribute to the future of the kin group (to use examples that might have imposed selection pressures) without specifically having biological offspring. So, it's hard for me to imagine why there would be a predisposition for specifically that, rather than some proxy like a natural protective impulse toward children, which would have been much easier to encode at the protein level through gradual mutations. A trait like "wanting to produce a new organism" contains a lot of conceptual nuance that I don't see much evidence for being under genetic control, especially when there are plausible other traits like sexual pleasure and care for children that would seemingly do the job. You mention other species as if it is confirmed that they all have the genetic impulse you're talking about, to produce more of themselves, when that's just a higher-level abstraction that we map onto what is a wholly biological phenomenon. If a chimp is provided with a sexual outlet and a young member of the species, unless it has a scent that specifically means stay away, it will go through all the same motions as it would have for a biological offspring of its own.

It also shouldn't need to be mentioned that little about society that we wish to preserve, enforce, or get more of flows naturally from the tendencies we share with other animals. Subjugating what we are pre-cognitively driven to want in favor of the wants and needs of others, even if itself rooted in some ancestral version of tribalism, is already something we accept as necessary to counterbalance the innate violence of our genetic temperament.

Nothing abstract about it. Just looking at children would make any human happy. It could be something as simple as just liking the smell of your own child. Children, while children, are literally worthless. They're nothing but a drag on resources. But still make us happy. The same impulse is co-opted by cats and dogs, which explains why we like having them around. Most people who have one tattoo wants more. People tend to be the same about kids. Yet, do a lot of complaining about how draining it is.

BTW, there's no studies that show that humans with children are overall happier than humans without children are. It's rather the opposite. Yet, people with children self report being way happier than people without children. So there's something psychologically weird going on.

There's a story of how a certain beetle in Australia had dropping numbers in an area and this was investigated. It turned out that the male beetles were attracted to a certain type of brown colour, curviness and sheen. The local beer bottles had this, so out-competed the females for attraction. Humans are obviously the same. We're programmed to be attracted to certain things, and when they're triggered they're set off. There's nothing abstract about it.

Most couples have children within the first two years of relationship. Everybody understands it would be smarter to wait. During a war child births go up. Yet, we all understand that a war zone is not an ideal place to raise a child. No, it can't be explained with rape. Especially women want children more during war. It's j

From an article about the topic I encourage you to read:

Too superficial to be meaningful.

The deep feelings of wanting to have a child have their roots in a learned desire from strong, long-standing social and cultural pronatal influences — not biological ones. And we’ve been influenced so strongly for so long that it just feels “innate.”

Pure assertion. You have no reason to be this confident.

Early feminist Lena Hollingsworth gets to the heart of why it isn’t: If the “urge” was actually innate or instinctual, we would all feel it, she argues — and we don’t. If it were instinctive, there would have been no need to introduce social messaging to encourage and influence reproduction. If it were instinctive, there would be no need for social and cultural pressures to have children.

It's a false deduction. There's no reason to think we'd be conscious of a sub-conscious drive. That's what sub-consciousness drives mean. On the other hand, our consciousness is arguably a function to provide coherent and rational stories for the stuff our sub-conscious gets up to. We know this from witness psychology and a bunch of scientific studies. We see patterns where there are none.

Your explanation for why some people don't feel the urge to procreate at all is that they are emotionally damaged. Do you know any people who don't have children? Are literally every one of them suffering from some past trauma that caused them to become "emotionally shut down"? What if they claim to be happy, fulfilled people with lives they enjoy... are they lying? Deluding themselves? Who are you to say?

Not emotionally damaged. That assumes there exists healthy humans. We're all a little nuts. So that's out.

I don't have children. But my life hasn't been easy. Most of my life I've had to put my emotional needs aside just because there was shit that needed to get done. I've been the emotional pillar others have leaned against. I've trained myself in dialing down my emotional needs, because I just didn't have time for them. It's overly simplistic... because even people who dial down their emotions are still ruled by emotions... just other emotions. But for simplicity... I'll call it that.

Being emotionally controlled is not a nice place to be. Life begins when we learn to let go of control. People who are are emotionally open and are good at making themselves vulnerable, also tend to want to have children. My experience. These are also people who it's the most fun to be around.

 

[Bomb#20]

Regarding culling - who chooses and what would be the criteria?

The revolution is successful, but survival depends on drastic measures. Your continued existence represents a threat to the well-being of society. Your lives mean slow death to the more valued members of the colony. Therefore I have no alternative but to sentence you to death. Your execution is so ordered.

- Kodos the Executioner​

 

[Tigers!]

Regarding culling - who chooses and what would be the criteria?

The revolution is successful, but survival depends on drastic measures. Your continued existence represents a threat to the well-being of society. Your lives mean slow death to the more valued members of the colony. Therefore I have no alternative but to sentence you to death. Your execution is so ordered.

- Kodos the Executioner​

Thank you.

I await my sentence with great joy and satisfaction.

 

[fromderinside]

Mao, is that you? You can't be here yano.