/u/SnappleCider on Apparently, Death Stranding has something to say about asexuality too. (Spoilers: It's not great)

I'd argue one or two generations of helpless dying out elderly humans would result in less overall suffering compaired to constantly bring into existence new generations to help the previous generations elderly, repeatedly, for thousands of years.

.... No? That's like saying if your car is not running properly its best to keep the old parts. Or like saying our bodies shouldn't produce new skin cells.... Everything is made to replace itself. That's the law of nature, hell, the universe. Nothing is constant, so assuming that keeping allowing the elderly to maintain everything in hopes that it prevents suffering is just flawed. Literally, my country is the prime example of this logic failing. We are behind on everything because people are still stuck in the past.

But let's humor your idea. Say no one has kids from 2020 onward. What will that do? Everyone will just grow old with no one new to replace them. Hard labor can no longer be done, technology will be slowed down significantly, the country's very functionality will halt itself. That sounds like a big deal to me.

Like the previously mentioned aspect of "danger", as the amount of life gradually becomes less through low birth rates, the amount of living things that can care about a culture also becomes less. The amount of humans existing and the importance of a culture both follow the same line graphically, if there are no people to acknowledge a culture, than a culture means nothing.

Also false. Culture can have a huge impact on the country, even the world. Religion is the biggest example of a culture influence. Many wars and trends are influenced by faiths. Medicinal practices, even circumcision are influenced by culture. Culture itself is how a group of people think. Think of it like a mindset. Saying it doesn't have much affect is false as culture will always exist among a group of people.

You seem to be over simplifying the concept of birth rate, which I get, it sounds cool so say "oh we're all gonna die in the end" followed by a poor knowledge of statistics. If there are less people, there won't be a decrease in danger. That never EVER works out. You're looking at how much danger there is vs how much out of the population creates danger.

Ill give you an example. Say there are 8 lions and 8 zebras. The danger is present, resulting in 0 zebras surviving. What if the population doubled? Now the danger level is reduced to a possibility of 50%. Double it again and now it's a 25% chance of risk. Yes, the number of zebras being harmed may go up, but out of the population, the number goes down.

We're also talking about Japan's issue, so trying to generalize the concept is a moot point as it serves no relevance on top of being inaccurate.

November 12, 2019 at 12:16AM