Most western nations have a declining population so there’s no need for that. When needed you can implement a 1-2 kid limit and that’d be fairly ethical, no? You can control human populations without killing, not sure why the comparison was necessary.
With our current lifestyles, 7 billion humans aren’t sustainable for earth, which results in a lot of habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and so on. That’s what my analogy to deer overpopulation was getting at. Even if we had a global 1 child limit, it would take a few generations until an actually sustainable population is reached.
If we have a right to live even though we cause so much destruction, it’s inconsistent to kill deer for causing way, way less damage than us.
Most western nations have a declining population so there’s no need for that. When needed you can implement a 1-2 kid limit and that’d be fairly ethical, no? You can control human populations without killing, not sure why the comparison was necessary.
With our current lifestyles, 7 billion humans aren’t sustainable for earth, which results in a lot of habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and so on. That’s what my analogy to deer overpopulation was getting at. Even if we had a global 1 child limit, it would take a few generations until an actually sustainable population is reached.
If we have a right to live even though we cause so much destruction, it’s inconsistent to kill deer for causing way, way less damage than us.