• pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s already a thing in many countries, an opt-out program for organ donating, so by default they will take my organs if I’m braindead

    • MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If we’re going to delve into some seriously murky ethical water here, why not forcus on something there’s an actual need for, like organ and blood harvesting?

      Speaking of, I just watched the MST3K episode on The Clonus Horror. It didn’t end well.

      Tap for spoiler

      It didn’t start particularly good either. And the middle was a slog.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But like… why babies? We already have way too many of those. We need fewer babies.

      Capitalism has a need for unlimited growth and also most national pension systems globally take the current working generation’s money to pay for the retirement of the current retired generation - so the future working generation needs to be big enough to support the current working generation in turn.

      My own country did a footgun thing here. We had a mandatory 2nd pillar system where you contribute to a fund, the gvt matches (well, doubles) your contribution, and that gets added to the normal 1st pillar national pension when you retire, either you take it out as a lump sum, or get paid a portion of it per month. You literally couldn’t take money out of it prematurely. Except the right-wing populists decided to allow taking money out of it with the caveat that you can’t rejoin it for 10 years. A large percentage of people took money out, something like 30%?

      Now the next generation are going to have to shoulder the responsibility for the current generation again. This was supposed to reduce this dependence on future generations.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But governments are not willing to do the one thing that would make for higher fertility - make the country a nice place to live, with enough support for parents so having a child isn’t an economic disaster

        I wonder what my country will be like with half the number of people. We’re building so many houses, my town has two new suburbs opened in the last ten years as we head toward peak population, but our fertility rate is just over 1.6, replacement rate is 2.1. many countries are worse

        I remember when we had a population in my town of 200,000 we are currently just short of half a million

        We also let people take their money out of their retirement fund if they want it for buying a home (or rather put a deposit on a mortgage for a home).

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need fewer babies.

      I don’t know who this “we” is. Circumstances vary heavily by household and neighborhood.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Making a baby is one of the largest carbon footprint things anyone can do.

          The median Indian resident produces carbon under the threshold for a sustainable climate. And that country has some of the highest population growth in the world. Babies aren’t the reason your carbon footprint is high. Coal fired power plants and ICE powered automobiles and AI data centers are what’s driving up the emissions rate.

          The needs of the individual household include not being cooked to death

          The emissions of a single household are minuscule relative to the emissions of international industry. Not having a child will do nothing to discourage Andressen Horowitz or Jack Ma from shoving another billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere in pursuit of a larger ROI.

          We need fewer babies.

          We need fewer billionaires.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Population reduction needs to happen in tandem with guillotine day

              Population reduction is already in force because guillotine day isn’t coming. The whole peril of climate change is that is renders large developed regions and concentrations of people impossible to sustain. But our inability to curb emissions isn’t a consequence of our sheer quantity of people. It is deliberately obstructed by profit-seeking actors in the highest reaches of authority.

              You can kill every Gazan, bomb out every Ukrainian or Russian city, and massacre humanity along the length and breadth of the US-Mexico border. It won’t curb emissions because these aren’t the people burning all the fossil fuels.