this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
59 points (98.4% liked)
Interesting Shares
833 readers
40 users here now
Companion community of [email protected] to share interesting articles, projects and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.
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
Is reduced sperm count a bad thing at this point in time? Didn’t we just pass the 8 billion mark in Earth’s population recently? We could probably stand to reduce the population gain for a bit.
Theoretically, but if the population falls from current numbers, the life quality will fall too because smaller number of working age people will have to support a higher population of retired people. That puts an enormous burden on young generations and strains the economy.
Will we though? Will we have to?
Or might we just set their gophers on an ice floe from the arctic ice sheets they helped to melt and nudge them off into the ocean?
Life's a pyramid scheme where you screw over the next generation by instilling a sense of duty in them to the ones that brought them here, in a non-consensual quid-pro-quo. 'You were given this gift of life so you must take care of those that gave you this gift'.
Then, of course, in order to keep it going, they themselves do the same, lest they end up holding the bag. Fun fact - some nations had titles like 'hero mothers' for people that had 3+ children.
Though, I'd say that it isn't really fair to collectively punish all retirees as they were also forced into this system by the ones before them and some may have chosen to not participate in it by increasing the population count further.
It conflicts with growth at all cost economic systems which obviously are sustainable forever.