Ah, right

To make bugs less traceable, I guess.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way around it. Fediverse is small, and while we should always encourage people’s migration, it will probably remain small for the time being.

And freedom to express everything combined with people learning their behavior on algorithmic content will be an issue until a strong Fediverse culture is established. The times of pioneers are over, the times of “truly a place for everyone” are not yet there, and in between, we have a very weird mixture, sometimes bringing out the worst of many people.

I hope Fediverse will survive through this phase, and if yes, bright times will be ahead. But it will take a lot of work. Many non-political communities have already started blocking political content, and for the time being, I believe that’s for the better. People need a place to chill and have a corner of their own, not face what they ran away from in the first place.

So, it turns on automatically when you close it? Should be a switch somewhere as well

Those are unrelated, unfortunately.

An orphan, economically speaking, is still a productive member of society.

Of course, from the position of empathy, it is extremely sad people don’t commonly adopt children, and I would welcome everyone to do so - along with having their own. Adoption is important to give everyone a family and save them from the horrors of orphan life. New births are important to keep human population stable and the world continuously running.

As much as I want to only come from the empathetic “adopt first” (and I consider doing so myself in a not-so-distant future), we have to have other considerations as well if we don’t want to live in a dying world where everyone - from kids to seniors - faces insane, never-before-seen economic crisis, destroying life for everyone. It already gets worse, and we only dropped fertility a little. There are objective economic factors to this, not only capitalist greed (which, however, is also present).

Demographics is mostly booming in underdeveloped countries, with some exceptions. It is likely many of them will follow the same path going forward, and UN predictions expect just that, as far as I remember. For developed countries, the fertility rate typically sits somewhere around 1,5-1,7, significantly below 2,1 required to have a stable population. I could of course cite something like South Korea with 0,8, but that’s an obvious outlier. It’s bad enough as it is.

As the world remains divided, this will likely exacerbate the issue for particular countries with lower birth rate. Immigration is one answer, but it doesn’t always cover the population loss, and immigrants are likely to send a lot of their income back home anyway (again, this is absolutely not a case against immigrants, I for one welcome them).

Evening out population growth over time would go a long way to maintain a healthy future.

In this case, it is simply a joke

I never took my question seriously, and I would certainly pick the same. In the original dilemma, I would pull the lever.

One issue (and hear me out, I do support abortions, birth control and bodily autonomy!) is that, once given a choice when and how to reproduce, people don’t do it as much.

Having pleasure of sex without consequences is screwing the natural incentives for reproduction.

Whether we like it or not, there should be something to support fertility if we don’t want to end up in a population crisis, with a few young folks supporting the ever growing army of the elderly.

Now, this should NOT be laws prohibiting abortions, or banning any sort of contraception, but there should be some incentives for people to go, and, well, make babies. This part Republicans got right (wow), they screwed with the suggested methods.

Fixing the financial clusterfuck and letting people live in a bright and predictable world where they know their tomorrow will be good is certainly one way, but I’m afraid it’s not enough. What could be the other options? I’m interested in people’s opinions.

You fool.

Now you expanded the problem; is it moral to kill a person responsible for murder, to make a choice to end someone’s life?