Tempting to indulge in schadenfreude, but did you pick up on the author's subtext that we're facing the end of humanity? We have to negotiate with reasonable women and come to an agreement or it's game over.
I'm not a malthusian so I don't agree with population reduction as a matter of policy. The way I interpreted her fears was that the nightmare of transhumanism and the bio-security state could spell our doom if we don't settle our differences and start strengthening the bonds between men and women, creating strong families and reproducing in greater numbers.
The theory states that food production will not be able to keep up with growth in the human population
While that's probably true, it would also be self-correcting.
My objection to excessive numbers of people is because of what I've seen it do to our landscapes, and because of how overcrowding drives humans insane. Think it's bad now, just wait until 10 billion. Plus, there's not a single problem facing humanity that wouldn't be totally solved by a correctly sized population for the territory.
This is just a problematic way for you to be thinking because it's not rooted in freedom.
If we take your statements as a given, then who decides what the proper sized population is? Who decides what people have to die or be relocated? This is authoritarian thinking of top-down control, like Communist China. Maybe you solve some of the problems, but you're bound to create all kinds of new problems with these ideas.
Tempting to indulge in schadenfreude, but did you pick up on the author's subtext that we're facing the end of humanity? We have to negotiate with reasonable women and come to an agreement or it's game over.
Live on your knees or die on your feet. The writer is the problem, compromising with people who view you as slaves will never end with balance.
Yeah, she picks up on that but still can't quite over that last hurdle of realizing feminism was a large part of why we've gotten here.
If we wanted to be uncharitable we could say she wanted men to come in and pick up the mess women made lol
It's the end unless we drastically reduce the human population.
I'm not a malthusian so I don't agree with population reduction as a matter of policy. The way I interpreted her fears was that the nightmare of transhumanism and the bio-security state could spell our doom if we don't settle our differences and start strengthening the bonds between men and women, creating strong families and reproducing in greater numbers.
While that's probably true, it would also be self-correcting.
My objection to excessive numbers of people is because of what I've seen it do to our landscapes, and because of how overcrowding drives humans insane. Think it's bad now, just wait until 10 billion. Plus, there's not a single problem facing humanity that wouldn't be totally solved by a correctly sized population for the territory.
This is just a problematic way for you to be thinking because it's not rooted in freedom.
If we take your statements as a given, then who decides what the proper sized population is? Who decides what people have to die or be relocated? This is authoritarian thinking of top-down control, like Communist China. Maybe you solve some of the problems, but you're bound to create all kinds of new problems with these ideas.