data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c4f9b/c4f9bb354cdeb9a570c810e5296640ee4624943b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/838ef/838ef7ed972424e529461779d9c6cfea02d426cb" alt=""
that’s an important (yet debatable) prediction. historically, in subsistence based economies where more farmhands=more food I think that’s been true. and holds true up to the point where costs of living don’t exceed net household wages (picture Dickens era chimney sweep kids laboring for a pittance).
what’s interesting is that it’s not true AT ALL for any other species in nature, only humans in the post ~1800s era have developed a seeming unlimited capability to secure more food for their young. wild deer populations naturally reduce themselves when food is scarce, but humans found a cheat code to growing forever.
hard to say. but it’s worth mentioning that although the doubling time for population has been contracting since 1800, it now appears to have flattened and is reversing direction.
maybe more accurate to compare say, fewer people choosing to have children vs fewer kids surviving to adulthood and what conditions contribute more to each
meh. you’re not a psycho.
compassion is a muscle. if you’ve never spent much time, dedication, or effort working on empathizing with other people you won’t be good at it (or even think about it).
we just so happen to live in society where those skills are not as rewarded compared to being self centered, independent, and ruthless. conditions maketh the man. hang out with someone who’s got a lot of compassion and concern for the feelings of others and you’ll quickly realize what you thought was your personality is actually a learned maladaptive response to living in a cruel and apathetic world.