You do realize that if a landlord cannot increase rent to match inflation, then the landlord will be unable to fix anything wrong with the residence right?

[deleted]

While you, and antinatalism, argue that bringing a child into the world is inherently harmful and should be avoided for unpredictable risks, there are good reasons to believe that some people are more suited to parenthood than others. For instance, if a person is biologically healthy and intelligent, they may be more likely to provide a nurturing environment for their child and raise them to be healthy and successful adults.

Yes they should and could adopt, but they should also be inclined to have at least one kid. If two people have only one child and do not have any additional children, they are technically contributing to a decrease in population growth. While this may seem counterintuitive at first, it is important to understand that population growth is not just about the total number of people in the world, but also about the rate of change in that number. When 2 people have only 1 child, they are replacing themselves in the population. However, they are not contributing to any additional population growth beyond replacement level.

Also, from an evolutionary perspective, reproduction is a fundamental biological drive that has helped ensure the survival of our species for millennia. While it is true that overpopulation and other social and environmental factors can make it more difficult to raise a child in some circumstances, that does not mean that procreation is always wrong. In fact, it may be argued that individuals who are best equipped to raise children should have them, in order to ensure the continued success and well-being of our species.

While it is true that having a child involves a certain degree of risk and uncertainty, this is true of all human endeavors. Life is inherently unpredictable, and there are no guarantees that any action we take will lead to a positive outcome. However, by living our lives with intention and purpose, and by taking reasonable steps to minimize risk, we can increase our chances of success and happiness.

Antinatalism may have some valid points, but it is not a philosophy that is suited to everyone. For individuals who are biologically healthy and intelligent, having a child can be a meaningful and rewarding experience which also contributes to the well-being of our species as a whole. I'm all for adopting children too. I'm not biologically healthy and hope that biologically healthy people will continue to have kids for the sake of humanity. I personally plan on adopting.

If you don't like humanity, that's a personal problem.

There is a neighborhood in a large Northern California city I am very familiar with. It was developed in the 1920’s and was working class white; mostly Catholic immigrants, until the 1940’s when Black shipyard workers began moving in. By 1960 it was mostly Black but it was mostly owner occupants and considered a good neighborhood. Between 1960 and 2000, a few Black families from the neighborhood began to buy up houses and the majority of the residents were Black renters with Black landlords. The housing stock may have declined a bit but it was still considered a good neighborhood. Beginning in 2000, white and Asian families began buying houses and moving in. This usually involved Black landlords evicting Black tenants who were generally unable to find rental housing they could afford in that neighborhood and had to move to less desirable neighborhoods. The white and Asians moving in were hardly rich. They were generally politically liberal and saw the diversity in the neighborhood as desirable. They were the marginal middle class who were buying in the only neighborhood they could afford. There is still a significant Black presence but they tend to be the more affluent homeowners. It is assumed that it will continue to become more white and Asian and more affluent. While one can view this as gentrification/colonialism it can also be seen as organic urban progression. Neighborhoods change in responses to multiple changes in the greater society. As can be expected, there will be winners and losers. The big losers now appear to be the Black renters who were forced out but the big winners were Black property owners.

> No way would anyone reasonably agree to be enslaved, sacrificed, or raped...whereas the death penalty (given certain evidence) may be morally excused.

You see the contradiction there, right? No way would anyone reasonably agree to be executed. For that matter, if we hadn't been raised in a society where involuntary taxation was the norm, I doubt many reasonable people would agree to it. That is, just because I wouldn't reasonably agree to have X happen to me doesn't mean society might not morally do X to me anyway under certain circumstances.

And I don't see the point of your argument anyway. Let's say there is some set of moral norms that we all agree to be true. That doesn't help us. What we need is a guide for when we have moral disagreements between reasonable people. At best, you'll end up stating something glaringly obvious (since we all apparently agree with it anyway). At worst, and this seems far more likely, you'll have people using your idea as way to simply dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as both unreasonable and immoral, which is the opposite of the mindset any thoughtful person, and especially a philosopher, ought to have.

Take a snoop at this. https://youtu.be/_Y8HgmOoLCM

[removed]

[deleted]

[deleted]

The case for gentrification is usually something in terms of economic development. The notion that we shouldn't halt development, halt progress, just because some people lose out. Other people gain from that same progress, and it advances both the neighborhood and society as a whole.

Some people also make property rights arguments in favor of gentrification, I mentioned this is another comment. Basically: our system rewards those who have the most money, and gentrification is simply one example of that. And this is good, because our system is good. Or at least better than all other options. (people who make this kind of argument never actually examine all other options)

Sorry, you lost me.

They use rent control in lots of places to avoid mass evictions genius, it is in fact a big deal.

In the longer term, I don’t think that humanity’s needs will ultimately be met by capitalism. But in the shorter term, while it’s still with us, isn’t it true that new developments provide funding to older neighborhoods? Higher property values lead to higher taxes, new developments pay development impact fees (paying their own share of public services, which older developments frequently don’t do), they create new businesses, etc.

Should we just leave poor neighborhoods poor until post-scarcity is upon us? What’s the end game here?

> No one should have to depend on another’s arbitrary benevolence for the basic good of home and community

That’s fair, but taken to the extreme, doesn’t this also mean that poorer neighborhoods shouldn’t have to depend on the largesse of the tax money from other parts of the city?

How are they supposed to get “less poor”? How are they supposed to get more investment?

[deleted]

Within plank definition

[removed]

[deleted]

> There's quite a few things that can be done, most prominently rent control.

How vague and simultaneously useless. Good job thinking of "ideas".

People want equality and equity while ignoring the fact that everyone isn't the same. And no matter how hard you try, you'll never get equal results. If you give people freedom, they'll segregate themselves into different castes over time.

[deleted]

Are you saying this in a celebratory or a condemning way? Because it's partially true, capitalism doesn't stop because of ethics, but I personally condemn this as I believe the well-being of all of us should prevail over the unnecessary luxuries of a few.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

How would that happen?

[deleted]