428
submitted 11 months ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Planned Parenthood Great Plains is holding a free two-day vasectomy clinic next month, and all the spots filled up in less than 48 hours.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] GregoryTheGreat@programming.dev 26 points 11 months ago

Whatever gets fewer kids into the world I support.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

I understand the sentiment, but supporting this is sort of conceding the anti-abortion laws are there to stay and I don't think we should accept that.

If you want to get a vasectomy, fine. That's a personal choice. But the reason so many men are signing up for a free vasectomy isn't because it's a good financial deal. It's because we're losing the fight and we need to start winning it again.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago

I completely agree about the need to fight for our bodily autonomy. I'm old and postmenopausal even if I hadn't yeeted the uterus years ago. But I am appalled that my daughters don't have even the meager protection of Rowe v Wade.

There's a tiny bit of my soul that is gratified however by the way more men are starting to step up and take on the responsibility of pregnancy prevention.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Anti-natalism definitely the most empathetic ideology and not at all misanthropic

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 8 points 11 months ago

Fewer unwanted kids, I can get behind.

If you’re talking about global sustainability, it’s a little more complicated than just “less is better”.

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

Please expound on the complexity.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Well a lot of social safety nets require on a continually growing work force, of course they could be removed but that will never happen. Immigration is also a good solution but it's unclear if in many places that will ever be expanded. But furthermore, there is no reason to stop people having kids in most situations.

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

But furthermore, there is no reason to stop people having kids in most situations.

have you seen the hellscape out there mate?

introducing more load onto an overloaded system isn't going to do those future generations any favors.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

The world is not overloaded, Malthus thought it was a long time ago, but the planet I pretty big.

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

fuck malthus he didn't know shit from shinola. the world is cooking friend. baking. shit's on fire yo.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah but that's not due to pure numbers of people

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

you're disregarding basic physics. more consumers burning more shit for energy food and heat.

this is ridiculous, I'm done here. blocking.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Exactly, burning. If we do away with the burning, trading fossil fuels for environmentally friendly alternatives, we can reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases, the biggest contributor to climate change.

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 3 points 11 months ago

Here's a few things to consider, but I'm hardly the person to give an authoritative list.

  • What are our quality of life targets?

We can support a crapton more people if we all go Amish. We gotta reduce growth to a global lottery system 30 years ago if we want everyone in the world to live like a median American.

This isn't a one-size-fits-all-age answer, either. People need more resources as they get older, and contribute less work in return. An aging population means more economic stress on the younger population, and less economic output relative to each senior citizen means less access to medical care.

  • What are our sustainability targets?

Some things are getting bad faster than others, some things are closer to breaking points, etc.

  • How much do we want to bet on degrowth vs. innovation?

If we assume only tiny incremental improvements for centuries to come, then we're preparing for something very different than if we're trying to keep research investment steady or even accelerate progress on things like fusion, carbon removal, microplastics remediation, and power distribution and storage.

  • What policies are on or off the table?

Some philosophies say that limiting a person's reproduction is categorically immoral, even if the predictable consequence is that everyone dies. Some TESCREAL dudes say we should use nukes cuz the ends justify the means.

  • How do we mobilize these policies?

We have lived experience that an aging population isn't great for getting effective policy in place.

  • What about the political fallout?

Population change policies certainly won't be done globally in lockstep, which means in order to stabilize local economies, there will be more immigration for places where the internal population growth is slowing/reversing. That can easily lead to xenophobia, which could destabilize everything. It's hard to fight global climate change when you're dealing with local fascism.

etc.

That's why I can pretty much only reliably say "people who don't want kids... not being forced to have kids... is an unambiguously good thing" and I can't extend that to people who do want kids.

this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
428 points (100.0% liked)

News

22896 readers
3961 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS