this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
688 points (98.0% liked)
memes
9840 readers
3503 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When one species growing prevents others from doing the same there is a problem in that ecosystem. For example too many wolves in an area can cause a reduction in prey which is also bad for the wolves. We're just smart enough to see what we're doing is harmful to the world around us and we can do things to limit our damage.
And not enough wolves causes an unchecked increase in prey which is bad for the rest of the environment. As I said, harmonious coexistence is best. We have the knowledge and tools to live harmoniously. My problem is with the trend of un-nuanced universal anti-natalism.
That's not really a salient argument. Can you think of even one place where it would be appropriate to say there aren't enough humans? Besides that, humans and wolves have completely different impact on the environment.
Additionally, after the advent of agriculture and industrialization, I think there is a fair argument to be made that humans are no longer capable of living an environmentally harmonious life. Think of all the resource depletion and fossil fuel consumption required just for you to post that argument on the internet.
Until we regain the ability for, not just individuals, but entire societies to live in harmony with the environment, I believe there is a strong argument for reducing your impact by not having children.
All I'm saying is that there's a logical breakdown at play. Any argument in favor of "the environment" had to be based on the value of individual life. I'm not even saying that we shouldn't be moderating our population growth, we should. I'm just saying the environmentally friendly angle is a logically strange argument, from first principles.
And what do we do with the prey when there are too many? Let them keep living or sell more hunting licenses?
We moderate, not eradicate. The middle path, not extremism.
Choosing not to have a child is extremism?
Didn't say that. Un-nuanced universal anti-natalism is extremism.
No one mentioned that but you. No one here is asking for that or suggesting it.
That is the implication of
You read that and you think the writer meant "all humans should stop reproducing?" That's a you problem.
Framing not having kids as conscientious means only the unconscientious will have kids. That is an everyone problem.
"I'd guess that having children, in the long run is more environmentally harmful than you eating meat the rest of your life." =/= "people who have kids are bad people"
you're starting to come across as someone who is only in this discussion because you feel personally attacked and since you haven't I'm done conversing with you
Don't know how you jumped to that conclusion, but okay.