Discussion of this topic can be heated or emotionally difficult for some. We would like to remind everyone to adhere to forum norms: be respectful, interpret others’ comments charitably, and avoid personal attacks. Please don’t assume other people’s values or backgrounds.
As Richard notes at the end of the post, reproductive rights are an orthogonal conversation — you can be worried about low fertility rates and population decline without it affecting your view on abortion, contraception, or social conservatism.
However, some readers may come from contexts where severe restrictions have been placed on their ability to make personal decisions — for example, related to family formation, reproduction, or identity — under the justification of managing population trends. This means that this isn’t a purely theoretical debate for everyone.
We ask that posts avoid inflammatory claims, particularly those that touch on gender, race, ethnicity, or geography in ways that could be harmful or exclusionary. Moderators will be closely monitoring this thread for norm-breaking comments.
Personally, I’d be most interested in a conversation focused on Richard’s argument — i.e. the case for and against a lower population being a bad thing.
P.S. – The best-case scenario (and the most likely one, based on my understanding of the Forum community) is that this comment ends up looking pretty unnecessary/​ overkill.
P.P.S – I like Kelsey Piper’s piece can we actually be normal about birth rates?, which highlights a few ways this conversation can get weird/​ hateful/​ impractical, in ways it really doesn’t need to.
This means that this isn’t a purely theoretical debate for everyone.
Most forum readers are continually surrounded by factory farmed meat. Some will live in areas with Malaria or other problems associated with global poverty, some will experience the debilitating pain of severe headaches and other conditions. All readers live in a world facing the risks of nuclear war, global pandemics, and the rise of unaligned artificial intelligence. Most debates we have here are not purely theoretical for everyone! That doesn’t mean we can’t approach them logically.
You’re right! Maybe it’s a bit of a lazy phrase. Another way of phrasing it is that this debate can very quickly become very personal, in ways the other debates you list in practice do not. From my read of the comments, it hasn’t so far, so I’m hopeful (as I mention in P.S.) that this mod comment is an overreaction.
Discussion of this topic can be heated or emotionally difficult for some. We would like to remind everyone to adhere to forum norms: be respectful, interpret others’ comments charitably, and avoid personal attacks. Please don’t assume other people’s values or backgrounds.
As Richard notes at the end of the post, reproductive rights are an orthogonal conversation — you can be worried about low fertility rates and population decline without it affecting your view on abortion, contraception, or social conservatism.
However, some readers may come from contexts where severe restrictions have been placed on their ability to make personal decisions — for example, related to family formation, reproduction, or identity — under the justification of managing population trends. This means that this isn’t a purely theoretical debate for everyone.
We ask that posts avoid inflammatory claims, particularly those that touch on gender, race, ethnicity, or geography in ways that could be harmful or exclusionary. Moderators will be closely monitoring this thread for norm-breaking comments.
Personally, I’d be most interested in a conversation focused on Richard’s argument — i.e. the case for and against a lower population being a bad thing.
P.S. – The best-case scenario (and the most likely one, based on my understanding of the Forum community) is that this comment ends up looking pretty unnecessary/​ overkill.
P.P.S – I like Kelsey Piper’s piece can we actually be normal about birth rates?, which highlights a few ways this conversation can get weird/​ hateful/​ impractical, in ways it really doesn’t need to.
Most forum readers are continually surrounded by factory farmed meat. Some will live in areas with Malaria or other problems associated with global poverty, some will experience the debilitating pain of severe headaches and other conditions. All readers live in a world facing the risks of nuclear war, global pandemics, and the rise of unaligned artificial intelligence. Most debates we have here are not purely theoretical for everyone! That doesn’t mean we can’t approach them logically.
You’re right! Maybe it’s a bit of a lazy phrase. Another way of phrasing it is that this debate can very quickly become very personal, in ways the other debates you list in practice do not. From my read of the comments, it hasn’t so far, so I’m hopeful (as I mention in P.S.) that this mod comment is an overreaction.