It's an is/ought gap

It is a desire for people to have children
However, you can't get to a premise like "You should have children"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

And if you bite the bullet on all desires then yeah.. you wind up biting the bullet on things like rape.
It is a desire for some % of people to rape others

That's about the whole point of this conversation... is that you can't get a "should" from a description

Or a prescription from a description

@sydtko why send me this?

I think you were asking a question about it...
I may have missed your exact wordage

Which is why I like text

It sounded like you were skeptical to something about the normalcy of having children or the morality of it

I was curious on the naturalistic fallacy

Oh yeah... the naturalistic fallacy and the is/ought gap are basically one and the same

You can't get from "It is good to live" to "You ought to live" through reason alone

sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States

anti-natalism gang <:PEPELAUGH:643817011117424708>

@muhahahahe you online?

mmh

what up?

@Scrambled Eggs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/10/06/bertrand-russell-oswald-mosley/

The death grip

Lol

Economy of scale

@Tbg1203 Unironically, it's cheaper more efficient to have homeless in places where it's easier to get goods to them

Urban areas

Yeah

I don't have the exact reasoning, but this is one possible reason

Communist boi has down stats on this

It's cheaper to have them closer to the services

What's the relevance of 125?

66 is the delorian

Or 68 mph

I don't even know where these memes went

Yeah, this is ... obvious / basic economics of comparative advantage

It is cheaper to live in certain locales
If you wanted to care for your homeless, it seems wisest to move them into one of the cheapest locales

However... this naturally leads to the counter argument that you're gentrifying

Which... has a bad history