The sidebar linked article about middle children is a good read, too. (Happy belated Middle Child Day!) This hits home for me. I'm not in Australia, but I think it's much the same almost...
This hits home for me. I'm not in Australia, but I think it's much the same almost everywhere. My wife and I are just now expecting our first child: 10 years later in life than when my dad had his first child. For my wife, the discrepancy in age between her and her mother when she first started having children is also about 10 years.
I always thought it would be nice to have 3 children—possibly even more!—but who has the time? People just have a lot more going on now, and need a lot more time to establish themselves (and their careers). If we want to go back to the days when people raised (big) families in their 20s, we're going to need serious changes to society, but I think that's unreasonable. Those days are just gone now.
Given how overpopulated the planet is, why would anyone want this? The first signs of changes in the temperature record during the anthropocene happened during the 1920's, when the world...
If we want to go back to the days when people raised (big) families in their 20s, we're going to need serious changes to society, but I think that's unreasonable. Those days are just gone now.
Given how overpopulated the planet is, why would anyone want this? The first signs of changes in the temperature record during the anthropocene happened during the 1920's, when the world population was a mere 1.7 billion.
Overpopulation isn't a "future" issue, or a non-issue, as much as Kurzgesagt and co would like people to believe. It was an issue that existed 50 years ago, and it's only getting worse. We need to be promoting sensible family planning that results in families having 1 or 2 kids maximum, and we should be heavily sponsoring foreign aid, specifically education, in third-world countries where the birth rate remains above 3-4.
I don't understand this viewpoint. What do you mean by underpopulation? How can you look at the temperature trends, sea level rise, ocean acidification, our greenhouse gas emissions, our poisoning...
I don't understand this viewpoint. What do you mean by underpopulation? How can you look at the temperature trends, sea level rise, ocean acidification, our greenhouse gas emissions, our poisoning of waterways, destruction of forests, desertification of arable land, and really say we're an underpopulated species? It boggles the mind.
You’re arguing from a technofuturistic perspective which is not only implausible, but impossible. Yes, that’s a nice ideal you’ve got there, but it’s not how humanity seems to want to operate. And...
You’re arguing from a technofuturistic perspective which is not only implausible, but impossible. Yes, that’s a nice ideal you’ve got there, but it’s not how humanity seems to want to operate. And in the mean time, we’re killing the planet.
Even if you reduced CO2 emissions. Even if we managed to undo the vast consequences we’ve inflicted on the planet: people are still going to litter. We’re still going to expand and grow destroying natural habitats. We’ll still own dogs and cats which attack and kill endemic and endangered species. Teenagers will still be assholes and burn entire forests to the ground with a match.
What you’re arguing for isn’t just impossible, it’s dangerous. It’s very very clear we’re an overpopulated, cruel, spiteful species, and the quicker we reduce our numbers to something our environment and planet can handle, the better.
Here's a little intro to underpopulation. I personally don't agree with it as an issue and certainly not as a greater issue than over population. If I were to summarize the views, overpopulation...
I personally don't agree with it as an issue and certainly not as a greater issue than over population. If I were to summarize the views, overpopulation is about the scarcity of resources and underpopulation is about sustaining people's current social and economic models.
So, my perspective is one of environmental preservation. We could argue what is or not intrinsically "valuable" for hours, no doubt. But I consider this planet, specifically, it's biosphere and...
So, my perspective is one of environmental preservation. We could argue what is or not intrinsically "valuable" for hours, no doubt. But I consider this planet, specifically, it's biosphere and geography, to be of utmost value. Why? I see the beauty in nature, I guess.
I think we do need to be a bit alarmist here, actually. Given how temperatures are spiralling out of control, sea level rise may exceed 2-3 feet within the century, and species are dying at a rate not seen since the K-Pg extinction event; this makes me extremely concerned. This is directly correlated with human population.
Yes, it's true that population is eventually stabilising, but right now all we're doing is shouting "it's okay, the ball is just rolling to the edge of the cliff slower than it was before".
I think it's a major discussion that needs to be had.
Well we all know this won't fly :) I do agree with you for the rest of your commentary, though. I just think we should be promoting the idea of population loss (and eventually, stability), over...
you would be more effective to advocate for killing people rather than telling them not to have children
Well we all know this won't fly :)
I do agree with you for the rest of your commentary, though. I just think we should be promoting the idea of population loss (and eventually, stability), over growth. Remove tax incentives to have children, heavily promote and subsidise higher education, and so forth.
It's a bit of a niggle but I hate how articles like this frame the issue as "wow look what millennials are doing". Because no, there's nothing special or unique about millennials, we're just...
It's a bit of a niggle but I hate how articles like this frame the issue as "wow look what millennials are doing". Because no, there's nothing special or unique about millennials, we're just shaped by the world that the previous generations have built for us, just like any generation before. And in the world that the asshole boomers in Parliament and uber-rich investors have built, having a big home and starting a family of three children by 30 is just not a reasonable goal for our generation. The article mentions that one of the most common reasons is financial concerns - but instead of addressing that, the article frames itself as being about the quirky choices of today's wacky youth. It's annoying.
If it's any consolation, we GenX-ers had the same sort of articles written about us: how we were doing things differently to our parents and grandparents, and how our opinions were different to...
If it's any consolation, we GenX-ers had the same sort of articles written about us: how we were doing things differently to our parents and grandparents, and how our opinions were different to our parents' and grandparents'. And the Baby Boomers were treated as near-lunatics by their elders. Sure, the labels might change, but there have always been people writing about the strange behaviour of young people today - for more than two and a half millennia...
Oh I don't doubt you at all, and that post is a great piece of evidence. Hopefully I don't end up harping on about Gen Z (or whatever's after that) in the same way. (Or if I do make observations...
Oh I don't doubt you at all, and that post is a great piece of evidence. Hopefully I don't end up harping on about Gen Z (or whatever's after that) in the same way.
(Or if I do make observations about their behaviour, which is probably inevitable, hopefully I at least try to gain a deeper understanding of it than just "wacky kids".)
The article uses the Real Insurance Australian Family Values Survey as it's source. From a cursory glance, I wouldn't exactly call that a high quality source. Unfortunately a bit of googling...
The article uses the Real Insurance Australian Family Values Survey as it's source. From a cursory glance, I wouldn't exactly call that a high quality source.
Unfortunately a bit of googling around didn't turn up much information on the reliability of this source, but personally I would view it as a poor quality survey sample at best, and unverifiable advertising at worst.
The sidebar linked article about middle children is a good read, too. (Happy belated Middle Child Day!)
This hits home for me. I'm not in Australia, but I think it's much the same almost everywhere. My wife and I are just now expecting our first child: 10 years later in life than when my dad had his first child. For my wife, the discrepancy in age between her and her mother when she first started having children is also about 10 years.
I always thought it would be nice to have 3 children—possibly even more!—but who has the time? People just have a lot more going on now, and need a lot more time to establish themselves (and their careers). If we want to go back to the days when people raised (big) families in their 20s, we're going to need serious changes to society, but I think that's unreasonable. Those days are just gone now.
Given how overpopulated the planet is, why would anyone want this? The first signs of changes in the temperature record during the anthropocene happened during the 1920's, when the world population was a mere 1.7 billion.
Overpopulation isn't a "future" issue, or a non-issue, as much as Kurzgesagt and co would like people to believe. It was an issue that existed 50 years ago, and it's only getting worse. We need to be promoting sensible family planning that results in families having 1 or 2 kids maximum, and we should be heavily sponsoring foreign aid, specifically education, in third-world countries where the birth rate remains above 3-4.
I'll bite. :)
What's the environmental drive to having more babies? How does having more humans on the planet benefit the environment?
I don't understand this viewpoint. What do you mean by underpopulation? How can you look at the temperature trends, sea level rise, ocean acidification, our greenhouse gas emissions, our poisoning of waterways, destruction of forests, desertification of arable land, and really say we're an underpopulated species? It boggles the mind.
You’re arguing from a technofuturistic perspective which is not only implausible, but impossible. Yes, that’s a nice ideal you’ve got there, but it’s not how humanity seems to want to operate. And in the mean time, we’re killing the planet.
Even if you reduced CO2 emissions. Even if we managed to undo the vast consequences we’ve inflicted on the planet: people are still going to litter. We’re still going to expand and grow destroying natural habitats. We’ll still own dogs and cats which attack and kill endemic and endangered species. Teenagers will still be assholes and burn entire forests to the ground with a match.
What you’re arguing for isn’t just impossible, it’s dangerous. It’s very very clear we’re an overpopulated, cruel, spiteful species, and the quicker we reduce our numbers to something our environment and planet can handle, the better.
Come now! I wouldn't say it's misanthropy to have an alternative viewpoint. I just don't see humanity as a positive force.
Woah, I’ve never heard this perspective before. Is there an article somewhere about this?
Here's a little intro to underpopulation.
I personally don't agree with it as an issue and certainly not as a greater issue than over population. If I were to summarize the views, overpopulation is about the scarcity of resources and underpopulation is about sustaining people's current social and economic models.
So, my perspective is one of environmental preservation. We could argue what is or not intrinsically "valuable" for hours, no doubt. But I consider this planet, specifically, it's biosphere and geography, to be of utmost value. Why? I see the beauty in nature, I guess.
I think we do need to be a bit alarmist here, actually. Given how temperatures are spiralling out of control, sea level rise may exceed 2-3 feet within the century, and species are dying at a rate not seen since the K-Pg extinction event; this makes me extremely concerned. This is directly correlated with human population.
Yes, it's true that population is eventually stabilising, but right now all we're doing is shouting "it's okay, the ball is just rolling to the edge of the cliff slower than it was before".
I think it's a major discussion that needs to be had.
Well we all know this won't fly :)
I do agree with you for the rest of your commentary, though. I just think we should be promoting the idea of population loss (and eventually, stability), over growth. Remove tax incentives to have children, heavily promote and subsidise higher education, and so forth.
It's a bit of a niggle but I hate how articles like this frame the issue as "wow look what millennials are doing". Because no, there's nothing special or unique about millennials, we're just shaped by the world that the previous generations have built for us, just like any generation before. And in the world that the asshole boomers in Parliament and uber-rich investors have built, having a big home and starting a family of three children by 30 is just not a reasonable goal for our generation. The article mentions that one of the most common reasons is financial concerns - but instead of addressing that, the article frames itself as being about the quirky choices of today's wacky youth. It's annoying.
If it's any consolation, we GenX-ers had the same sort of articles written about us: how we were doing things differently to our parents and grandparents, and how our opinions were different to our parents' and grandparents'. And the Baby Boomers were treated as near-lunatics by their elders. Sure, the labels might change, but there have always been people writing about the strange behaviour of young people today - for more than two and a half millennia...
Oh I don't doubt you at all, and that post is a great piece of evidence. Hopefully I don't end up harping on about Gen Z (or whatever's after that) in the same way.
(Or if I do make observations about their behaviour, which is probably inevitable, hopefully I at least try to gain a deeper understanding of it than just "wacky kids".)
The article uses the Real Insurance Australian Family Values Survey as it's source. From a cursory glance, I wouldn't exactly call that a high quality source.
Unfortunately a bit of googling around didn't turn up much information on the reliability of this source, but personally I would view it as a poor quality survey sample at best, and unverifiable advertising at worst.