View Poll Results: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

Voters
229. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.

    9 3.93%
  • No, they are free not to have children. They don't have to answer to anybody

    161 70.31%
  • Not if they have reproductive problems.

    2 0.87%
  • Yes, even if they have reproductive problems. They can adopt, you know.

    1 0.44%
  • They should get a medal for lowering world population.

    44 19.21%
  • Other

    10 4.37%
  • I don't know.

    2 0.87%
Page 22 of 53 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 522

Thread: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  1. #211
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,160

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    We're not talking individuals. We are talking aggregate; which can be broken down through averaging to the individual.
    In the big picture? It's completely neutral. It doesn't matter whether we're here or not to anyone but (most of) us.

    That is sadly uncorrect. At no time, for example, prior to the 20th Century did Japan go through an extended period (that I am aware of) where their fertility rate was below 1.8. Ditto for China, and Europe. Birthrates are not "snapping back to norm", they are "diving below replacement." The result of their failure to replace themselves is going to be a poorer, dirtier, more pain-filled world, not a better one.
    Culture can certainly affect things, and a country as culturally isolated as Japan definitely has their own thing going on. That's always been the case. Yet they never seem to be at risk of extinction.

    Europe is mid-transition. And China is not allowing natural population, so you can't use them at all.

    And me as well. I wouldn't want to raise 10 kids any more than I would want to subsistence farm for a living. But that alters the fact that our elderly are still dependent upon the productivity of the generations that follow them not a whit.
    Nope. But I tend to be against incentives that cause people suffering.

    So your argument is that agriculture was disastrous because it was the poorer option to genocide?

    But, again, the human populace exploded after agriculture. Agriculture gave us the security (and reduced our mortality rates) that hunting gathering did not, which is why we shifted to it. But, again, that's for another thread. G'night, smoke.
    I didn't say it was a poorer option. I said it was a no-win situation.

    It exploded after agriculture mostly because physiological conditioning changes allowed them to. A hunter gatherer woman couldn't spit out that many kids if she tried -- they basically have the bodies of endurance runners, and they remain infertile for far longer after their last birth. Women in agriculture lost that as the strength required for farm work became higher and social control needed to make agriculture work meant women were heavily oppressed and limited in their movements.

    'Night? I'm just getting started. The birds are singing...

  2. #212
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    The world will run out of minable phosphorous before it runs out of oil--phosphorous being an essential ingredient for fertilizer---fertilizer being an essential material that allows the 2% to feed the 98%. People having fewer kids would not be a horrible idea, especially third world folks, but that is only part of the problem. That said, I would rather people who couldn't afford to support their kids to not have them than people who can afford to support their kid.

  3. #213
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    I feel sorry for people who have so little going for them that they think their ability to reproduce makes them better than those who choose otherwise.

    I guess if that's all you got, then go for it, but I will continue to regard people according to more meaningful criteria.
    The love a person has for their parents, their spouse, or their pets pales in comparison to how one feels about their own offspring. Once I discovered this aspect of humanity, I feel it would be absurd to diminish it.

    Having kids doesn't make me better than those that donít have kids, it only makes my life better than theirs.

    I feel the same way about bacon, just to a much less degree. Some people will go a lifetime without eating it. I find that also to be a waste of a perfectly good life. My bacon-laden life is better.

  4. #214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    I must admit, prior to this thread I had never heard the the term "childfree". I find it somewhat insulting, as if turn it around, we get "free of children" and that doesn't sound good to me. But I'm not a native speaker, so I might be wrong.

  5. #215
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daedalus View Post
    No. Inferior according to whose standards?
    Compared to couples with children. Isn't it obvious?

  6. #216
    User Daedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    03-27-13 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    Compared to couples with children. Isn't it obvious?
    it just seems silly, personally.

  7. #217
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    In the big picture? It's completely neutral. It doesn't matter whether we're here or not to anyone but (most of) us.
    If that were the case, then we would not have been able to see productivity, consumption, and population all increase together as dramatically as they have over the last 100 years.

    Culture can certainly affect things, and a country as culturally isolated as Japan definitely has their own thing going on. That's always been the case. Yet they never seem to be at risk of extinction.
    Extinction? Not for a couple of centuries. But they are dying and they are about to go through major (and painful) crises over it. Their treasury minister actually came out a while back with your suggestion, calling for old people to just hurry up and die in order to make up for the fact that they failed to produce enough children to support them in their old age.

    Europe is mid-transition.
    Europe is not "mid-transition", to anything. There is no natural law that says that once you've had a below replacement level fertility rate long enough to reduce a certain portion of your populace that your fertility rate will return to replacement and hold steady there. Europe is in a crises due to their fertility rates. In Greece for example, every 100 grandparents is being supported by the labor of 42 grandkids. That's a math that you can't make work. Southern Europe has had the lowest fertility rates for decades and now they are the first ones into the inevitable fiscal crises. That's not exactly a coincidence.

    And China is not allowing natural population, so you can't use them at all.
    The math is the math regardless of the reason. And it's worth noting that their goal (reduction of the populace) is the same as yours.

    Nope. But I tend to be against incentives that cause people suffering.
    Then I am interested in why you would be so (what was your word) "clinical" about the need for mass-suffering among our elderly. You seem to be wholly in favor of causing people suffering so long as it allows us to reach your population control goals.

    I didn't say it was a poorer option. I said it was a no-win situation.

    It exploded after agriculture mostly because physiological conditioning changes allowed them to. A hunter gatherer woman couldn't spit out that many kids if she tried -- they basically have the bodies of endurance runners, and they remain infertile for far longer after their last birth. Women in agriculture lost that as the strength required for farm work became higher and social control needed to make agriculture work meant women were heavily oppressed and limited in their movements.
    You are arguing the same thing I am. Switching to agriculture allowed us to have more kids - which was a good thing.

    'Night? I'm just getting started. The birds are singing...
    I live in Japan. Remember how my world is so much smaller than yours?

  8. #218
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ....However, yes, society does require children, and requires them to meet minimum numbers, or else society shall face financial collapse (thanks to that socialization of old-age security) and slow death. A society with fewer children today will be a poorer less vibrant society tomorrow.

    Child-Rearing now has the incentive structure of a Tragedy of the Commons. A Public Good (citizens) that is paid for through Private Expenditure (parents) creates, like pollution, defense, security, incentives for everyone to seek to cheat their neighbor.
    If we define society as including all the people of the world (as we should IMO) then there are more than enough children being born to take care of future needs. At this time, it seems to me that any philosophy that encourages having more children is based on the superiority of one group of people over all others.

  9. #219
    Imposition of miscellany
    NoC_T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,193

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society?
    They should be flogged to the very threshold of death and dragged through the streets.

    Then made to eat ice cream sundaes until they puke.

    That'll teach 'em. Those no-child-having sonsabitches.

  10. #220
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,889

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    In a way, I guess you can view it that way if you wanted to and you wouldn't be wrong.

Page 22 of 53 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •