• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should childless couples be considered inferior?

Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  • Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.

    Votes: 4 2.8%
  • No, they are free not to have children. They don't have to answer to anybody

    Votes: 105 74.5%
  • Not if they have reproductive problems.

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Yes, even if they have reproductive problems. They can adopt, you know.

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • They should get a medal for lowering world population.

    Votes: 20 14.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 6.4%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Total voters
    141
With the level of consumption we have, a smaller population would be a much better thing for everyone.

:) and you deny Malthus. So your solution is that you should just have the decency to die off once you get older?

But regardless, I am still really confused about why this creates some kind of obligation for anyone to breed.

I'm not saying you, smoke, are personally obligated to breed. I am saying that the incentives for child-rearing have changed and created a tragedy of the commons where public goods are provided at private expense to societal detriment.
 
:) and you deny Malthus. So your solution is that you should just have the decency to die off once you get older?

There is a difference between saying something is bad and saying something is the end of the entire world, you know.

My decision to be childfree isn't dominantly about society. It's dominantly about my own goals and wishes, like any parent, whether they'll admit it or not.

It just happens to also match up well with my opinions on other things.

I'm not saying you, smoke, are personally obligated to breed. I am saying that the incentives for child-rearing have changed and created a tragedy of the commons where public goods are provided at private expense to societal detriment.

Child-rearing has never been more incentivized than it is now. The reason people are breeding less is because they have the option to, and at the end of the day, there aren't too many people who have half a football team of kids because they want to.
 
There is a difference between saying something is bad and saying something is the end of the entire world, you know.

Malthus never argued the end of the world. Neither even did Ehrlich. But both did hinge their arguments on the notion that individuals represented a net drain on the system rather than a net plus.

My decision to be childfree isn't dominantly about society. It's dominantly about my own goals and wishes, like any parent, whether they'll admit it or not.

No one has stated or tried to argue otherwise.

Child-rearing has never been more incentivized than it is now.

That is not correct. Children historically were your labor for your most productive years, and your security in your old age. Children (and plenty of them) were part of survival. Now Children are a net cost for parents rather than a net benefit / survival technique. The state has attempted to step in at some points to mitigate this problem (which is, I think, what you are referring to), but even then it is not true to say that even today's state incentivizes children more than ever.

The reason people are breeding less is because they have the option to, and at the end of the day, there aren't too many people who have half a football team of kids because they want to.

On the contrary, fertility was much desired back when it was advantageous.
 
Malthus never argued the end of the world. Neither even did Ehrlich. But both did hinge their arguments on the notion that individuals represented a net drain on the system rather than a net plus.

Which is not my notion either.

That is not correct. Children historically were your labor for your most productive years, and your security in your old age. Children (and plenty of them) were part of survival. Now Children are a net cost for parents rather than a net benefit / survival technique. The state has attempted to step in at some points to mitigate this problem (which is, I think, what you are referring to), but even then it is not true to say that even today's state incentivizes children more than ever.

Yes, because people worked horrendously underpaid gigs in horrendous conditions, and children could be used as slave or near-slave labor. Gee, I sure miss those days. Don't you?

But ultimately, children were still a pretty heavy cost (explained below). It was just that they had no other options, really.

On the contrary, fertility was much desired back when it was advantageous.

High fertility was never very desirable to humans until agriculture, at which point it became a necessity due to the reason above. Agriculture really screwed us quite badly for a very long time. The only reason we kept at it was because the natural output the land couldn't sustain us any longer.

Naturally, relatively lower fertility was desired due to the high risk and high time requirement of making a functional human being. Women typically had children 5-7 years apart (made possible by women being incredibly fit and having relatively low body fat). Since they also started puberty much later than we do now with all the hormones we eat, this meant most women weren't pregnant more than 3 or 4 times in their entire lives, and typically of those pregnancies, 2 or 3 resulted in surviving children.

What we had for most of post-agricultural history was a radical departure from natural human reproduction rates, which resulted in a lot of women and children dying (and men for other reasons, but also related to the down sides of agriculture, of which there are many). It's only now beginning to level out.

It is not at all natural or desirable for humans to have high fertility rates, then or now.
 
Which is not my notion either.

Then do you recognize people as a net gain, or a net loss?

Yes, because people worked horrendously underpaid gigs in horrendous conditions, and children could be used as slave or near-slave labor. Gee, I sure miss those days. Don't you?

Nope. I'm happy that we live in the modern world. But it does come with unintended consequences that do have to be managed. Such as, for example, the flipping of traditional incentives regarding child-rearing.

But ultimately, children were still a pretty heavy cost (explained below). It was just that they had no other options, really.

If you have no other option but to produce children in order to ensure survival that makes having children pretty strongly incentivized.

High fertility was never very desirable to humans until agriculture, at which point it became a necessity due to the reason above. Agriculture really screwed us quite badly for a very long time. The only reason we kept at it was because the natural output the land couldn't sustain us any longer.

Naturally, relatively lower fertility was desired due to the high risk and high time requirement of making a functional human being. Women typically had children 5-7 years apart (made possible by women being incredibly fit and having relatively low body fat). Since they also started puberty much later than we do now with all the hormones we eat, this meant most women weren't pregnant more than 3 or 4 times in their entire lives, and typically of those pregnancies, 2 or 3 resulted in surviving children.

What we had for most of post-agricultural history was a radical departure from natural human reproduction rates, which resulted in a lot of women and children dying (and men for other reasons, but also related to the down sides of agriculture, of which there are many). It's only now beginning to level out.

It is not at all natural or desirable for humans to have high fertility rates, then or now.

Ah, one of those. No, as I understand it, you are confusing higher child survival rates with higher fertility rates. People continued to raise as many children as they could manage to support (which agreeably wasn't always as many in hunter-gatherer societies as in agricultural ones - starvation tends to take care of the little ones pretty quickly).

The net result of agriculture, however, was nowhere near the disaster you are portraying it. Though that is a debate for the history forums :).
 
Malthus never argued the end of the world. Neither even did Ehrlich. But both did hinge their arguments on the notion that individuals represented a net drain on the system rather than a net plus.



.

Actually, their arguments were predicated on a notion akin to "the tragedy of the commons" wherein individual decisions can make perfectly rational sense from one's own limited perspective, but the accumulated weight of such decisions across a wide spectrum can have negative consequences. It isn't that each individual represents a drain to the system so much as it is that the carrying capacity of the system is limited, therefore a tipping point is reached at some point where the additional burdon placed upon it by all the additional people acts to reduce the amount each individual can derive from it.
 
No. Inferior according to whose standards?
 
Actually, their arguments were predicated on a notion akin to "the tragedy of the commons" wherein individual decisions can make perfectly rational sense from one's own limited perspective, but the accumulated weight of such decisions across a wide spectrum can have negative consequences. It isn't that each individual represents a drain to the system so much as it is that the carrying capacity of the system is limited, therefore a tipping point is reached at some point where the additional burdon placed upon it by all the additional people acts to reduce the amount each individual can derive from it.

I'm aware of the arguments. Both men argued we had reached that tipping point, and each new individual now consumed more than they added to production, making them a net drain.
 
Then do you recognize people as a net gain, or a net loss?

I don't naturally think that clinically about human beings. But if I were to try, it would depend on the person and the larger situation.

Nope. I'm happy that we live in the modern world. But it does come with unintended consequences that do have to be managed. Such as, for example, the flipping of traditional incentives regarding child-rearing.

Human reproduction rates are having a snap-back after centuries of that extremely unnatural system which resulted in too much crowding. They will -- and are -- leveling out. Various areas will go through this at different rates in accordance to the quality of life the people in that area have.

If you have no other option but to produce children in order to ensure survival that makes having children pretty strongly incentivized.

Yes, however bad the impact on your life will be. It's kill yourself slowly by over-producing (and other things) or kill yourself quickly without. I am glad humans in the developed world no longer have to choose between evils like that.

Ah, one of those. No, as I understand it, you are confusing higher child survival rates with higher fertility rates. People continued to raise as many children as they could manage to support (which agreeably wasn't always as many in hunter-gatherer societies as in agricultural ones - starvation tends to take care of the little ones pretty quickly).

The net result of agriculture, however, was nowhere near the disaster you are portraying it. Though that is a debate for the history forums :).

No, I'm not confusing the two. I am pretty sure I actually mentioned the high mortality rate, and hunter gatherer's comparatively lower ones, overall. But women living in less advanced agricultural systems can get pregnant more than a dozen times. Most of her later children will die because the female body just isn't built to take that kind of abuse, but she will probably still have more that survive than most hunter gatherers.

Hunter gatherers don't produce less due to starvation. They actually ate much better than agriculturalists did, for most of history. They were able to naturally space children due to their lifestyle and fitness.

I'd say it was pretty disastrous up until quite recently. 50% cut in life expectancy, the birth of true warfare, more starvation, more poverty... yeah, it was pretty nasty. Still is, in some places.

But once your population gets high enough that the area can't support it, you either have to kill people or start farming.
 
Last edited:
I don't naturally think that clinically about human beings. But if I were to try, it would depend on the person and the larger situation.

We're not talking individuals. We are talking aggregate; which can be broken down through averaging to the individual.

Human reproduction rates are having a snap-back after centuries of that extremely unnatural system which resulted in too much crowding. They will -- and are -- leveling out. Various areas will go through this at different rates in accordance to the quality of life the people in that area have.

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.

Yes, however bad the impact on your life will be. It's kill yourself slowly by over-producing (and other things) or kill yourself quickly without. I am glad humans in the developed world no longer have to choose between evils like that.

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.

No, I'm not confusing the two. I am pretty sure I actually mentioned the high mortality rate, and hunter gatherer's comparatively lower ones, overall.

Hunter gatherers don't produce less due to starvation. They actually ate much better than agriculturalists did, for most of history. They were able to naturally space children due to their lifestyle and fitness.

I'd say it was pretty disasterous. 50% cut in life expectancy, the birth of true warefare, more starvation, more poverty... yeah, it was pretty nasty. Still is, in some places.

But once your population gets high enough that the area can't support it, you either have to kill people or start farming.

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

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.
 
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? :confused:

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...
 
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.
 
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 don’t 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.
 
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. :)
 
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? ;)
 
....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.
 
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society? :confused:
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.
 
In a way, I guess you can view it that way if you wanted to and you wouldn't be wrong.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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. :lol: 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. :roll:

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:
Back
Top Bottom