this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2021
15 points (100.0% liked)
Anarchism
3968 readers
7 users here now
Are you an Anarchist? The answer might surprise you!
Rules:
- Be respectful
- Don't be a nazi
- Argue about the point and not the person
- This is not the place to debate the merits of anarchism itself. While discussion is encouraged, getting in your “epic dunks on the anarkiddies” is not. As a result of the instance’s poor moderation policies and hostility toward anarchists by default, lemmygrad users are encouraged not to post here, though not explicitly disallowed if they aren’t just looking to start a fight.
See also:
- /c/debateanarchism
- /c/antiwork
- @lemmy.dbzer0.com
- @slrpnk.net
- Anarchy101
- Anarchism@lemmy.ca
- XMPP chat
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The current global fertility rate is 2.4. Well above replacement rate (fact).
There is no evidence that the rate will fall below 1 (fact). You just claim that this is a linear trend to the bottom, but it isn't. People still get plenty of children and the "norms" you talk about are about getting less (i.e. one or two) not no children (fact). Claiming that getting less children automatically leads to getting no children is factually incorrect. All sociological data shows that people still want to get children, just not as many as before (fact).
And if you actually did the math you should know by now that it means next to nothing if the global fertility rate falls to something like 1.8 in the fear future.
And your climate analogy also does not hold up at all. All the models only forecast until 2100, because the uncertainty on a longer time frame is so high that is would be ludicrous to extrapolate anything from it. Which is exactly what I am saying about forecast on fertility rate hundreds of years into the future.
You can claim as much as you want that your pet theory is right, but the facts are clearly on my side of the argument.