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 23 of 53 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 522

Thread: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  1. #221
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    Society is feeding them? I thought it was the parents that were working their butts off to raise children and pay taxes along the way (consumption tax, VAT, etc)
    Where do you think parents in lower social classes get the money they use to feed their children? Food stamps, welfare, unemployment. Who feeds wards of state? The children of drug addicts and unfit parents who are incapable of giving care to their children through incompetence or criminal behavior? We do.

    My problem is not for those who plan for, and can afford their decision to raise a family, but those who cannot, and force society to pay for their mistake. They irresponsibly plant the seed, and stick everyone else with the bill. It's not a benefit to society at all.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  2. #222
    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 American View Post
    If a couple choses not raise children, then they have chosen to not support the future tax base which funds government and social programs. Maybe they should receive less benefits than those couples that choose to raise children. When people pay taxes for social programs, they are merely paying the bill for current beneficiaries (namely their parents). If they choose to break the chain maybe their own benefits should be reduced.

    Parenting is a definite hardship financially.
    People without children pay for other people's children with their taxes. They pay for pre-schools, schools, police time spent on juvenile problems, traffic improvements for child safety and many other services for parents. Yet they pay more in income tax.

    To maintain population levels to cover social security etc it would be most cost effective to increase the number of adult immigrants with job skills.

  3. #223
    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 Hard Truth View Post
    People without children pay for other people's children with their taxes. They pay for pre-schools, schools, police time spent on juvenile problems, traffic improvements for child safety and many other services for parents.
    Sort of. People without children pay the property taxes that typically fund schools - although they are less likely to do so as a portion than parents (who are more likely to purchase homes to - surprise - raise children in). But parents take on those burdens as well, leaving the childless relatively not picking up their portion of the cost for raising the generation that they expect to support them in their old age.

    Yet they pay more in income tax
    This is simply not accurate - as has already been demonstrated. The childless make up a disproportionate portion of the lowest income quintiles.

    To maintain population levels to cover social security etc it would be most cost effective to increase the number of adult immigrants with job skills.
    Who then (because that is what immigrant populaces tend to do) have and raise successful children who themselves develop technical skills
    Last edited by cpwill; 03-19-13 at 10:33 PM.

  4. #224
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,160

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.
    You're missing the point. The point is that it does not matter in the grand scheme of things whether or not humans exist.

    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.
    Didn't you just say the Japanese have been here before? And isn't Tokyo a mega-city?

    Oh, by the way, if you want to know one of the biggest reasons why Japan's birth rate is plummeting, it's because women are still treated like chattel in domestic roles, but not in professional roles. Who would give up their career that they enjoy to be treated like a maid for the rest of their lives?

    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.
    There are many examples of "elderly bulges" stabilizing. Most of Europe hasn't been going through this for long enough for us to know if they will. You need at least a century to be able to tell.

    Some of the better-off countries also have very low fertility rates. An elderly bulge isn't the only factor in play, clearly. Those eastern countries also have decades of extreme economic and social mismanagement.

    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.
    I don't have a "goal." Since I'm basically "not playing" the reproduction game, it is neither here nor there to me what the rest of humanity decides to do about it. My job is to be a positive influence while I'm here. They're the ones who have kids and grandkids to worry about. I don't.

    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.
    Again, I have no "goal." But in my opinion of what ultimately results in the best quality of life for the most people in the long run, I'm weighing the short term discomforts against the long term viability of the population. People will suffer either way. It's only a question of how many, and how long.

    You are arguing the same thing I am. Switching to agriculture allowed us to have more kids - which was a good thing.
    No, it clearly isn't, or we would have stuck with our earlier agricultural models. It's a model under which everyone but the most powerful suffer extremely.

    I live in Japan. Remember how my world is so much smaller than yours?
    Your physical location doesn't change your internal world view. You think short-term, single-factorially, and parochially. I don't.

  5. #225
    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
    You're missing the point. The point is that it does not matter in the grand scheme of things whether or not humans exist.
    We are going to have to have an a priori disagreement there.

    Didn't you just say the Japanese have been here before? And isn't Tokyo a mega-city?
    No. I said that the Japanese have never seen fertility rates dip this low. That is why the nation with the mega-city of Tokyo now buys more adult-diapers than baby-diapers. No civilization has survived having a fertility rate that low; but instead have been reduced and absorbed into others. That is Japans' future.

    Oh, by the way, if you want to know one of the biggest reasons why Japan's birth rate is plummeting, it's because women are still treated like chattel in domestic roles, but not in professional roles. Who would give up their career that they enjoy to be treated like a maid for the rest of their lives?
    That's funny. I live in Japan and that's not what I see at all. Methinks you are rather exagerating the agreably more traditional roles they have over here. But, for example, our neighbor has three kids, and she works, and is just as happy and in control of her own house as my wife, who doesn't (although she is more stressed because hey, she's working and a mom, that's a harder juggle than one or the other. Sweet lady though, we trade Japanese for American dishes all the time).

    There are many examples of "elderly bulges" stabilizing.
    No, there aren't. Not least for the simple enough reason that this is mathematically impossible. You cannot have an "elderly bulge" stabilize because 40 million 45 year olds cannot become 50 million 55 year olds ten years later.

    Most of Europe hasn't been going through this for long enough for us to know if they will.
    No, most of Europe has been approaching this for many years, just as we have been approaching the insolvency of our own entitlement systems when the Baby Boomers retire. That's most of the reason why southern Europe (which has had the lowest fertility rates) is currently facing insolvency.

    Some of the better-off countries also have very low fertility rates. An elderly bulge isn't the only factor in play, clearly. Those eastern countries also have decades of extreme economic and social mismanagement.
    Some of the countries who are currently better off are approaching an elderly bulge and have low fertility rates.

    I don't have a "goal." Since I'm basically "not playing" the reproduction game, it is neither here nor there to me what the rest of humanity decides to do about it. My job is to be a positive influence while I'm here. They're the ones who have kids and grandkids to worry about. I don't.
    Why in the world would you want to have a positive influence? And how can you say you have no goal or that the human population is irrelevant and argue in the next breath how it would be a good thing if there were fewer of us? Both of these things cannot be true. Either we are irrelevant and it does not matter if there are 6 or 60 billion of us, or we are not, and these things do matter.

    But in my opinion of what ultimately results in the best quality of life for the most people in the long run, I'm weighing the short term discomforts against the long term viability of the population. People will suffer either way. It's only a question of how many, and how long.
    So humans are not irrelevant. Well that's good to know. It's also good to know that the Malthusian argument (which you are putting forth) has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false - production has increased faster than the population. A world in which our fertility rates drop below replacement and we expend increasing portions of our productivity into consumption for the elderly is the poorer, longer, more painful one. Take a good hard look at Greece and take a good look at Japan. That's the future in the model you are proposing. Hard, painful crashes followed by long periods of intensely slow, flat, or negative growth.

    No, it clearly isn't, or we would have stuck with our earlier agricultural models. It's a model under which everyone but the most powerful suffer extremely.
    On the contrary, it was a superior model than hunting-gathering which is why we adopted it. Then we industrialized, which in turn was a superior model and so we adopted that.

    Your physical location doesn't change your internal world view. You think short-term, single-factorially, and parochially. I don't.
    Gosh you like that word. Oh parents are so parochial, and you know, they're like, parochialistic, with all their parochialism, and stuff. Me and my friends sitting down at the coffee shop talking about how, like, there's like, poverty and stuff, in like, Africa and stuff are like, so much more, like broad, you know? 'Cause, we, like, write for small-distribution magazines, and stuff, which, like, raises awareness, you know, and really discusses the issues.

    What utter banality. Smoke, you are a smarter person than that tripe.

    You and your fellow CF'ers are out there talking about the future of the human race while parents are out there producing and shaping the future of the human race. You are the Monday-morning quarterback to their game.
    Last edited by cpwill; 03-20-13 at 03:35 AM.

  6. #226
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,160

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No. I said that the Japanese have never seen fertility rates dip this low. That is why the nation with the mega-city of Tokyo now buys more adult-diapers than baby-diapers. No civilization has survived having a fertility rate that low; but instead have been reduced and absorbed into others. That is Japans' future.

    That's funny. I live in Japan and that's not what I see at all. Methinks you are rather exagerating the agreably more traditional roles they have over here. But, for example, our neighbor has three kids, and she works, and is just as happy and in control of her own house as my wife, who doesn't (although she is more stressed because hey, she's working and a mom, that's a harder juggle than one or the other. Sweet lady though, we trade Japanese for American dishes all the time).
    Funny. That's not what Japense women on the whole have to say.

    Project MUSE - <i>Women and Family in Contemporary Japan</i> (review)

    I don't even know why I bother posting evidence for you anymore, but there ya go.

    No, there aren't. Not least for the simple enough reason that this is mathematically impossible. You cannot have an "elderly bulge" stabilize because 40 million 45 year olds cannot become 50 million 55 year olds ten years later.
    You do know that downwards trends do not always lead to zero, just as upwards trends do not always carry on to infinity, right?

    Also, I'm pretty sure I just said that 10 years is far too short a window to make any judgement about where a society is headed.

    No, most of Europe has been approaching this for many years, just as we have been approaching the insolvency of our own entitlement systems when the Baby Boomers retire. That's most of the reason why southern Europe (which has had the lowest fertility rates) is currently facing insolvency.

    Some of the countries who are currently better off are approaching an elderly bulge and have low fertility rates.
    There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

    Given that I stopped debating *you* a long time ago, with it went willingness to do this at length, I will simply say that comparing our entitlement system to the death prisons a lot of the Eastern block sent people to is absolutely insane, and that one can clearly see that entitlement programs are not the main issue when comparing all the places that have them with radically different outcomes: most tellingly, America.

    Is there anything you see as bad in the entire world that you do not think is caused by people not breeding enough for your liking?

    Why in the world would you want to have a positive influence? And how can you say you have no goal or that the human population is irrelevant and argue in the next breath how it would be a good thing if there were fewer of us? Both of these things cannot be true. Either we are irrelevant and it does not matter if there are 6 or 60 billion of us, or we are not, and these things do matter.
    Because I'm a generally empathetic person.

    There is a difference between an opinion and a goal. I am off the opinion humanity would be better served by bringing their population down across the board. But I am not out to make that society's trajectory because I won't live to see it, and neither will anyone whose life I am responsible for. They can do what they see fit.

    So humans are not irrelevant.
    Not to me. But to the universe, yes, they are.

    On the contrary, it was a superior model than hunting-gathering which is why we adopted it. Then we industrialized, which in turn was a superior model and so we adopted that.
    Only if you judge on pure numbers, but that would be dishonest, since hunter-gathering relies on maintaining small numbers.

    Hunter gatherer societies still exist. They live well into their 60's and they work less than we do -- even now. Why fix what ain't broke?

    It wasn't a superior model, and it still isn't in the long run. It was the only model available to us unless we were just going to kill everyone.

    Gosh you like that word. Oh parents are so parochial, and you know, they're like, parochialistic, with all their parochialism, and stuff. Me and my friends sitting down at the coffee shop talking about how, like, there's like, poverty and stuff, in like, Africa and stuff are like, so much more, like broad, you know?
    It's the most accurate descriptor for your mindset.

    So when you run out of things to actually say, you just have a tantrum. How completely unsurprising.

    As for my parents, one of them is, and the other definitely isn't. Parenting, like location, does not necessarily dictate ones world view.

  7. #227
    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
    Funny. That's not what Japense women on the whole have to say.

    Project MUSE - <i>Women and Family in Contemporary Japan</i> (review)

    I don't even know why I bother posting evidence for you anymore, but there ya go.
    I don't know why you bother posting evidence that you do not read.

    Citing from your own source:

    ...

    Mothering is a hot topic in Japan. This has been the case for some time, but the topic has taken on even greater significance in an era when Japanese fertility has sunk to a historic low. With a total fertility rate hovering around 1.3, Japan is one of a handful of postindustrial countries with rates so low as to be dubbed a "lowest-low" fertility society by demographers. The low fertility rate is closely linked to an ever-rising age at marriage and increasing rates of nonmarriage, leading the Japanese and international media to ponder what it is that seemingly makes marriage‚€”and by implication, childbearing‚€”so unattractive to young Japanese. Among the list of hypothesized reasons is the continuing normative pressure on Japanese women to fulfill the requirements of being "good wives, wise mothers" (ryŇćsai kenbo).

    Susan Holloway's Women and Family in Contemporary Japan does not aim to broach this thesis head-on but instead strives to provide an intimate view of how Japanese mothers of young children experience their parental role. Holloway notes at the outset that comparative opinion surveys find Japanese women reporting less satisfaction with family life and childrearing than women in many other nations. Moreover, Japanese mothers also tend to report lower confidence in their childrearing abilities than mothers in a number of other countries. At face value, these tendencies are surprising, given the great importance placed on mothering by media, scholarship, and the government in Japan. Especially noteworthy is the consistent emphasis in the comparative cultural psychology literature on the particular strength of the mother-child bond in Japan, a bond for which Holloway finds precious little evidence in her study. Yet as Holloway's analysis skillfully reveals, the juxtaposition of a high cultural valuation of mothering with many mothers' deep feelings of inadequacy is not as ironic as may first appear. In fact, the deep-seated anxieties of many Japanese mothers may stem precisely from the combination of strong normative pressures to perform well and the notable dearth of social and emotional support from family members and others in a mother's immediate environment....
    Do you know what it says NOWHERE in your source? Do you know what it does not even SUGGEST in your source? Nowhere does it say or suggest that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoke
    if you want to know one of the biggest reasons why Japan's birth rate is plummeting, it's because women are still treated like chattel in domestic roles, but not in professional roles.
    Huh. Now that is interesting.

    You do know that downwards trends do not always lead to zero, just as upwards trends do not always carry on to infinity, right?
    I certainly do. I also know that your claim that an elderly bulge can stabilize was, is, and will remain mathematically impossible.

    Also, I'm pretty sure I just said that 10 years is far too short a window to make any judgement about where a society is headed.
    Not really, especially with demographics. It is, agreeably, usefull that time moves forwards. Today's 40 year olds will be our retirees in 30 years. So we know quite alot about our retirees of the 2040's - because we can already see them.

    There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

    Given that I stopped debating *you* a long time ago, with it went willingness to do this at length, I will simply say that comparing our entitlement system to the death prisons a lot of the Eastern block sent people to is absolutely insane
    Well you are certainly correct that you have stopped debating me, not least because I have never made such a comparison.

    and that one can clearly see that entitlement programs are not the main issue when comparing all the places that have them with radically different outcomes: most tellingly, America.
    America has a less developed system of financial transfer and a higher fertility rate, which is why Europe is in greater trouble than we are (currently). But we are both of us headed in the same direction - they're just further along and moving a bit faster at that. Social Security was designed with a fertility rate of between 3 and 4 as an assumption for sustainability. We no longer have that fertility rate, ergo, SS is no longer sustainable.

    Is there anything you see as bad in the entire world that you do not think is caused by people not breeding enough for your liking?
    (shrug) sure. Lots. For example, lots of poverty in Africa is fed by stupid western agricultural subsidies that put African exports at a disadvantage. Our urban poor have extremely high unemployment because we have hiked the tax and regulatory cost threshold for hiring an American citizen (but not an illegal! ) above the value of their hourly labor. Digital interconnectedness is increasing the destructive capacity of non-linear non-state actors. But fertility is the subject of the thread at hand, and it does touch on some of the fairly major problems that we face.

    Not to me. But to the universe, yes, they are.
    And how exactly did you gain the ability to speak on behalf of the Universe?

    Only if you judge on pure numbers, but that would be dishonest, since hunter-gathering relies on maintaining small numbers.
    On the contrary. Once you recognize that people are on average a net plus, numbers is a rational metric.

    Hunter gatherer societies still exist. They live well into their 60's and they work less than we do -- even now. Why fix what ain't broke?
    Unless, of course, they died in the constant low-level state of warfare (punctuated by occasional massacres) that marked those societies. Why fix large child mortality rates? Goodness, I wonder....

    It wasn't a superior model, and it still isn't in the long run. It was the only model available to us unless we were just going to kill everyone.
    which sort of makes it..... superior.

    but how very empathetic.

    It's the most accurate descriptor for your mindset.
    You are confusing "how you would like to look down on others in order to build yourself up by comparison" with "how others think". Not terribly empathetic at all.

    So when you run out of things to actually say, you just have a tantrum. How completely unsurprising.
    :you said something utterly banal, and I made some fun of it because you insisted on repeating that particular piece of narcissism.

    As for my parents, one of them is, and the other definitely isn't. Parenting, like location, does not necessarily dictate ones world view.
    What a fascinating claim. I would agree. I would also note that it doesn't match at all your earlier claim that parents do have parochial worldviews, whereas the worldviews of the CF are bigger, broader, etc.
    Last edited by cpwill; 03-20-13 at 04:56 AM.

  8. #228
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,160

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I don't know why you bother posting evidence that you do not read.

    Citing from your own source:

    Do you know what it says NOWHERE in your source? Do you know what it does not even SUGGEST in your source? Nowhere does it say or suggest that:

    Huh. Now that is interesting.
    Yeah, because people who get treated great have terrible self-esteem?

    Expectations of mothers, lack of satisfaction in the role, unique to their culture.

    I certainly do. I also know that your claim that an elderly bulge can stabilize was, is, and will remain mathematically impossible.
    So what you just said is that whatever population trend is happening at any given second continues on into infinity.

    Are you serious?

    America has a less developed system of financial transfer and a higher fertility rate, which is why Europe is in greater trouble than we are (currently). But we are both of us headed in the same direction - they're just further along and moving a bit faster at that. Social Security was designed with a fertility rate of between 3 and 4 as an assumption for sustainability. We no longer have that fertility rate, ergo, SS is no longer sustainable.
    I would not call what the Eastern block did "developed." It also doesn't explain why some places with even more social care than what we have continue to have better economies.

    This idea of yours is flawed any which way you'd like to look at it.

    And how exactly did you gain the ability to speak on behalf of the Universe?
    Until someone presents some evidence that it might, it's the logical default position.

    Do you go about your life assuming your computer has feelings and is run by magic unicorns?

    On the contrary. Once you recognize that people are on average a net plus, numbers is a rational metric.
    So a system that is more stable and longer-lasting than ours is a failure... because it relies on smaller numbers?

    Good thing you're not an engineer.

    Unless, of course, they died in the constant low-level state of warfare (punctuated by occasional massacres) that marked those societies. Why fix large child mortality rates? Goodness, I wonder....
    Hunter-gatherers have far less warfare than we do, even going by incidence. They're a lot more likely to trade with their neighbors than to kill them. If there's too much resource competition, they can just move.

    Child mortality rates amongst them are far lower than they are for most agricultural societies through most of history. They don't breed past the female body's ability to handle the damage the way agricultural societies tend to.

    which sort of makes it..... superior.

    but how very empathetic.
    I was comparing hunter-gatherer to agriculture, not agriculture to genocide.

    Or you could just not read. That's cool.

    You are confusing "how you would like to look down on others in order to build yourself up by comparison" with "how others think". Not terribly empathetic at all.
    Being empathetic doesn't mean I have to agree with you, or think you have good ideas. Nor does it mean I have any need to build myself up. I just think you're wrong. If anyone seems to be having ego issues, it isn't me.

    :you said something utterly banal, and I made some fun of it because you insisted on repeating that particular piece of narcissism.
    What does it have to do with me?

    What a fascinating claim. I would agree. I would also note that it doesn't match at all your earlier claim that parents do have parochial worldviews, whereas the worldviews of the CF are bigger, broader, etc.
    Parents have a parochial role. That does not necessarily mean it consumes their entire view of reality. Although an awful lot of them let it -- or simply walked into it already having that worldview.

    The being parochial is almost entirely incompatible with being CF. Not necessarily because of what it is (although that is one aspect for many people), but because of how you get there. Of course, that doesn't mean other things don't afflict the populace; but that just isn't one of them.

  9. #229
    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
    Yeah, because people who get treated great have terrible self-esteem?

    Expectations of mothers, lack of satisfaction in the role, unique to their culture.
    Not at all. Women in this country who are mothers get similar pressure (though perhaps not to the same level). However, the idea that people who get treated great are more likely to have high self-esteems is not:

    Quote Originally Posted by smoke
    if you want to know one of the biggest reasons why Japan's birth rate is plummeting, it's because women are still treated like chattel in domestic roles, but not in professional roles.
    If you now want to back off that claim, that's fine. If you want to demonstrate it, it's also fine. It doesn't match at all what I've observed, but I won't pretend to be an expert on mainland culture. But your source does not demonstrate your claim. It instead points out that Japanese culture puts high expectations on mothers. It also puts high expectations on students, with similar results (greater levels of stress).

    So what you just said is that whatever population trend is happening at any given second continues on into infinity.
    No. I did not say that. I said that an elderly bulge cannot stabilize. If your demographics look like this:

    Should childless couples be considered inferior?-italy-jpg

    Then that is not a shape that is mathematically possible to maintain. Eventually you WILL have to increase your fertility rate to replacement level or above or else you will decrease eventually to zero.

  10. #230
    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
    I would not call what the Eastern block did "developed." It also doesn't explain why some places with even more social care than what we have continue to have better economies.
    I never brought up Eastern Europe. I pointed to Southern Europe. I still don't know what you think you are talking about here. What I am pointing out is that if you build your old-age-safety-net on the notion that each generation will pay for their elders and then forget to produce sufficient children, then your model is broken. Which, approximately, is what is happening in Europe and happening in Japan.

    This idea of yours is flawed any which way you'd like to look at it.
    On the contrary, this idea is so basic that virtually everyone everwhere apparently with the exception of those who wish to defend the "child free position" understand it.

    Until someone presents some evidence that it might, it's the logical default position.
    Um, no. You have no idea or ability to have an idea what is or is not relevant to the "universe".

    So a system that is more stable and longer-lasting than ours is a failure... because it relies on smaller numbers?
    The system isn't more stable or better than ours simply because it lasted longer any more than slavery is better because it was present for a greater portion of our history than it's antithesis.

    Hunter-gatherers have far less warfare than we do, even going by incidence.
    That is incorrect, though I fear here I'm going to have to cite another book. Jared Diamonds' "The World Until Yesterday" when he spends time observing those groups similarly disproves that theory, though I haven't read it yet. The idea of the Noble Savage has always been grounded more in western pretensions than observation of reality.

    [quote]Child mortality rates amongst them are far lower than they are for most agricultural societies through most of history. They don't breed past the female body's ability to handle the damage the way agricultural societies tend to.

    I was comparing hunter-gatherer to agriculture, not agriculture to genocide.
    You compared agriculture to "just killing everyone". that's not "hunter gathering".

    Being empathetic doesn't mean I have to agree with you, or think you have good ideas.
    No. It means you understand the thought processes of others. You are demonstrating that you cannot understand the thought processes of others who are parents, but instead project your own biases onto them.

    Nor does it mean I have any need to build myself up. I just think you're wrong. If anyone seems to be having ego issues, it isn't me.
    yeah. tell me more about how you and your fellow CF live on a broader plane and have wider impact on more people

    Parents have a parochial role. That does not necessarily mean it consumes their entire view of reality. Although an awful lot of them let it -- or simply walked into it already having that worldview.
    and people who don't have children are more likely to have a constrained worldview in terms of time. they are, for example, more apt to not care about the future because they will not be in it and won't have any children in it, either. I wouldn't argue whether or not they have a constrained worldview in terms of space, but I would find it likely.

    The being parochial is almost entirely incompatible with being CF


    Not necessarily because of what it is (although that is one aspect for many people), but because of how you get there.
    By making the decision not to breed? That has literally nothing to do with relative breadth of worldview.

Page 23 of 53 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... 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
  •