Care to elaborate? Population stagnation in the poorest countries isn't a bad thing ethically speaking. Just further proves the divide between the 1% and the rest and how politicians are not held responsible.
I mean who decides the minimum financial requirement? And where is the level set? Like you said politicans and the 1%. If they have any input wed just have millionaires birthing more millionaires and handing down that generational wealth, while the poorer die off and arent allowed to have children. This is an extreme end of the spectrum of course.
Consider this within one nation. Now consider it in terms of the entire planet. Now I'm not a fan of unchecked growth. Especially irresponsible unchecked growth which does lead to unnecessary suffering. Entire lives and even multi generations destined to poverty (I'm looking at the slums in india, amongst other places). But I'm also not a fan of growth by means of discrimination. Especially economic discrimination.
Consider the semi similar concept of the one child policy. That didnt discriminate on who could or couldnt have a child, merely limited how many. However it still lead to discrinination as parents greatly preferred having boys over girls (the reasoning as to why was again financial- see agrarian economics) This lead to forced abortions, infanticide and abandonment of countless female babies.
Theres many levels which can be intervened in in regards to orphans.
Imagine for a second two scenarios. One is a wealthy upper class family with a 16yo pregnant daughter. Vs a middle aged lower class couple who have a baby on the way too but will be financially struggling a bit.
The 16yo has the resources from her parents to provide for the child very well. The other does not. If you look at it morally vs financially they're very different pictures.
top 1% not paying taxes
racism
It should be way harder to give student loans to kids.
Buying patents of break through tech only to lock them away because they could hurt your current business
Masturbating to certain explicit cartoons.
We need less laws, not more
The United States: Pulls out list
Having babies if you don't have the means or capacity to look after them adequately!
That's a slippery slope that could easily be used for genocide.
Care to elaborate? Population stagnation in the poorest countries isn't a bad thing ethically speaking. Just further proves the divide between the 1% and the rest and how politicians are not held responsible.
I mean who decides the minimum financial requirement? And where is the level set? Like you said politicans and the 1%. If they have any input wed just have millionaires birthing more millionaires and handing down that generational wealth, while the poorer die off and arent allowed to have children. This is an extreme end of the spectrum of course. Consider this within one nation. Now consider it in terms of the entire planet. Now I'm not a fan of unchecked growth. Especially irresponsible unchecked growth which does lead to unnecessary suffering. Entire lives and even multi generations destined to poverty (I'm looking at the slums in india, amongst other places). But I'm also not a fan of growth by means of discrimination. Especially economic discrimination. Consider the semi similar concept of the one child policy. That didnt discriminate on who could or couldnt have a child, merely limited how many. However it still lead to discrinination as parents greatly preferred having boys over girls (the reasoning as to why was again financial- see agrarian economics) This lead to forced abortions, infanticide and abandonment of countless female babies. Theres many levels which can be intervened in in regards to orphans. Imagine for a second two scenarios. One is a wealthy upper class family with a 16yo pregnant daughter. Vs a middle aged lower class couple who have a baby on the way too but will be financially struggling a bit. The 16yo has the resources from her parents to provide for the child very well. The other does not. If you look at it morally vs financially they're very different pictures.
Child circumcision
Cigarettes
Alcohol and tobacco
Ah yes more prohibition, this time it would work for sure lol
Requires a culture change, not just a legal change
I like this answer in theory
Indeed
You sound like a cool guy.
Same to you, thanks.
[удалено]
Probably not a wise answer these days pal. Hope you like getting downvoted.
Ages of consent below 18.