You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The Deadpost Initiative - Week 14 - Share your most undervalued work + week 13 winners ($10 STEEM prize pool) - Let's go Trending this week to get a huge prize pool next week!

in #contest8 years ago

Thank you @amariespeaks, both for your vote as well as your fabulously insightful comment. :c)

I would definitely agree that the question of what human population the Earth can comfortably sustain comes down to not only numbers but also the quality of living afforded.

And that leads to the question - Is it better to sustain many people in squalor or few people in abundance?

In truth I really do not have any ill feelings toward persons who (without passive-aggressive political or religious motive) opt to have more children. Those who do not know better - do not know better.

And in truth one needs to birth 'more' than two children per couple so as to contribute towards population 'growth'.

China approached this problem in a way that drew a lot of criticism (a fair portion of which was unwarranted and politically motivated). It is in part thanks to its one child policy that significant portions of the population are in a much better situation that the previous generation. Even without factoring in economic growth, distributing that to half the population would signify an increase in wealth per capita (and yes, I am aware that the population didn't halve since many people take longer than a generation to pass away).

Even with all this knowledge, there is no reason to have second guesses about having a second child. Even if it were your third you should feel comfortable to love and care for him or her as if s/he were your one and only. :c)

Thanks again!

Sort: