RECENTLY ON TOL:
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
In the following I provide a critique of the overpopulation arguement for being childless. The dominant rationale provided is that overpopulation severly impacts natural resources, thereby resulting in irreversible environment damage. Therefore, childbirth should be restricted, as this is the cause of overpopulation.
This arguement fails to acknowledge that the increase in lifespan has a significant role to play in overpopulation. Following the logic of protection of natural resources, should not there then be "cap" on lifespan, such that people are only allowed to live to a certain age? Taking into account that the resources (on average) to maintain a 18-30 year old versus a 50+ are significantly less, and the formers potential contribution to society is far greater, should not we "swap" the 20 year olds for 50 years old? In practice, this is in much more accord to the "natural order" of the environment, than remaining childless.
Basically, the old were meant to die, and the young were meant to be born. That is how every able species survives on this Earth. It is unnatural to assume that we should not bring new life into this world, at the expense of being able live past 40. In my opinion the forsaking of youth for the elderly is the greatest selfish act dominant in Western thought today.
posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context