meh. there's always going to be this argument in all kinds of resource-depletion scenarios. If i (and presumably other good people like me) don't grab what we can now, then the bad guys will take all the resources, and become even more powerful! If you can ever accept this line of reasoning, what cause do you have to ever reject it? The real answer to conflicts over limited resources is for all parties involved to reduce their resource use, not to increase it. Sure, it may mean that the cheaters temporarily improve their individual lots, but the limited resources are still exhausted for everyone if there's a mad grab.
Some say that their religious or political belief system needs more members to make the world a better place, but there's no guarantee that offspring will follow the traditions of their parents. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the norm in modern societies. Besides, if the only people who will accept a belief system are those born into it, there must be some serious flaws in that system. [...] Anyway, simply increasing the sheer numbers of people who share a philosophy or genetic makeup doesn't always improve their status. "Breeding wars" between rival groups have shifted political power in a few majority-rule governments, however, members of those groups usually aren't any better off just by being in a larger voting block. Breeding for power is a remnant of that ancient tradition of mass murder we call genocide. The motivation remains the same.
also, the relationship between birth rate and patriarchy is certainly not a clear, unidirectional relationship. From a MADRE position paper:
In poor communities, birth rates rise as women’s access to education, information, and reproductive healthcare diminishes. More children means greater dependency on male wages, which increases vulnerability to male violence.
doesn't that MADRE quotation suggest that diminished women's power (i.e., patriarchy) leads to higher birth rates?
oh -- are you talking about the causal directions? then i think I see what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that the birthrate leads to sexist oppression, rather than the other way around?
As the good people at the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement say:
Some say that their religious or political belief system needs more members to make the world a better place, but there's no guarantee that offspring will follow the traditions of their parents. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the norm in modern societies. Besides, if the only people who will accept a belief system are those born into it, there must be some serious flaws in that system.
[...]
Anyway, simply increasing the sheer numbers of people who share a philosophy or genetic makeup doesn't always improve their status. "Breeding wars" between rival groups have shifted political power in a few majority-rule governments, however, members of those groups usually aren't any better off just by being in a larger voting block. Breeding for power is a remnant of that ancient tradition of mass murder we call genocide. The motivation remains the same.
Reply
Reply
In poor communities, birth rates rise as women’s access to education, information, and reproductive healthcare diminishes. More children means greater dependency on male wages, which increases vulnerability to male violence.
Reply
doesn't that MADRE quotation suggest that diminished women's power (i.e., patriarchy) leads to higher birth rates?
oh -- are you talking about the causal directions? then i think I see what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that the birthrate leads to sexist oppression, rather than the other way around?
Reply
Leave a comment