"Degrowth" is misanthropic, I guess, unless you think the world is overpopulated structurally somehow, as in you'd like more humans but only in due course and under more favorable (global?) circumstances.
But I think looking at this in global terms is wrong-headed anyway, whether you're for or against. The question is whether a specific person should be a parent here and now in specific personal circumstances. So of course it tends to be selfish. It's not entirely selfish since others are involved locally, including the future child. But "the world needs more children" or "the world needs fewer children" is barely relevant at all.
Quick reminder than you can have (gradual) degrowth with every couple having 2 children.
The extreme mode of 50% of child-bearing age adults going 0 kids is not necessary and will probably end up being disastrous.
Childlessness is a beautifully self-removing trait.
Ideas aren't genetic.
It doesn't have to be genetic to be 'self-removing'.
What happened to the Shakers?
1 reply →
No choice is more selfish and misanthropic.
"Degrowth" is misanthropic, I guess, unless you think the world is overpopulated structurally somehow, as in you'd like more humans but only in due course and under more favorable (global?) circumstances.
But I think looking at this in global terms is wrong-headed anyway, whether you're for or against. The question is whether a specific person should be a parent here and now in specific personal circumstances. So of course it tends to be selfish. It's not entirely selfish since others are involved locally, including the future child. But "the world needs more children" or "the world needs fewer children" is barely relevant at all.