U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-26-2007, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,148,300 times
Reputation: 24606

Advertisements

Most countries faced with a declining population unable to feed the Ponzi scheme called an unlimited growth based system simply import children from some place else. Creating an economic system around a steady or declining population that still allows for increases in personal income and elder care appears to be a very difficult problem.

I wonder what a sort of global economy would survive a worldwide catastrophe (say a plague) that killed 80% of the human population without destroying any of the physical infrastructure? How would the remaining humans rearrange an economy that would provide food and fuel to the survivors? Would they put a premium on rapid population growth or would they settle for the lower population density and set up systems to keep it that way? Where would the survivors choose to live? Would this depopulated world be a heaven or a hell?

These are all questions for an SF writer with more talent than I...

 
Old 11-26-2007, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,731,930 times
Reputation: 11317
Greg, I think they're great questions.
 
Old 11-26-2007, 08:17 AM
 
8,632 posts, read 9,140,391 times
Reputation: 2403
not to worry I am doing my part. we had 3 one for mom one for dad and one for the country!! all males I might add, you know to selfishly carry on the name.
 
Old 11-26-2007, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,731,930 times
Reputation: 11317
Until there's a war.
 
Old 11-26-2007, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
19,489 posts, read 20,808,627 times
Reputation: 13746
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Most countries faced with a declining population unable to feed the Ponzi scheme called an unlimited growth based system simply import children from some place else. Creating an economic system around a steady or declining population that still allows for increases in personal income and elder care appears to be a very difficult problem.

I wonder what a sort of global economy would survive a worldwide catastrophe (say a plague) that killed 80% of the human population without destroying any of the physical infrastructure? How would the remaining humans rearrange an economy that would provide food and fuel to the survivors? Would they put a premium on rapid population growth or would they settle for the lower population density and set up systems to keep it that way? Where would the survivors choose to live? Would this depopulated world be a heaven or a hell?

These are all questions for an SF writer with more talent than I...
Actually, you might consider a career in SF. Many of your posts display a vivid, if dark, imagination.
 
Old 11-26-2007, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
788 posts, read 1,896,485 times
Reputation: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
Art, I'm a vegetarian who hasn't stepped foot in a fast food restaurant in decades; and I chose not to breed. Maybe I'm the trifecta!

I did, however, get a bad rep for my post 106 where I spoke of why I, personally, don't breed. Go figure.
Boycotting fast food restaurants is one thing, but let's be honest; that's not going to reduce their damage to the environment, unless you can convince many others to boycott them as well. I was a vegetarian for 6 years, mainly taking personal responsibility for animal cruelty. It's a noble cause, but it doesn't change the world.

Case in point: the article referenced has not made anyone in this thread say "aha! I didn't think about that. Let me jump on the bandwagon." Everyone who seems to have embraced a similar ideology already had that ideology in the first place.

All I'm saying is that at this point in the world, mass change needs to happen to actually reduce the human footprint. Ecologically minded people are still in the minority, and I don't think that one person making a personal decision to control their own lifestyle for ecological reasons is going to do much good unless an attempt is made to change the way others live as well. The fact is that the earth is being destroyed faster than the ecological minority can change it in their own lives alone.
 
Old 11-26-2007, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,424,430 times
Reputation: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
Why should I have a child that I will most likely neglect to meet your needs?
Why would I make myself miserable and the child even moreso?
Why would I have a child to sell into slavery for your future?

Why would I want to use up even more resources than I already do?
I have no doubt that when I become a burden on society that I will, most likely, take my own life. What's the big deal?

Why don't you go and have those children, or adopt if you're so hellbent on taking care of the future?

I'm not going to do it.
I am doing that, We are planing to have two children. Just enough to replace ourselves. Think about your above statements before I hear you tell people that would like to have kids that they are selfish. your attitude in the above post is what I read "I am all that matters" (would not let me add the three words I had in the quotations.)
 
Old 11-27-2007, 03:13 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,731,930 times
Reputation: 11317
I see it as the opposite of your interpretation.
I know myself, I am the only person that I can control. I do what I can to limit my negative effect on the earth.

I am well aware of my strengths and limitations as a human being. Breeding would have been a horrible mistake for me, and for any offspring. Hence my sterilization at the age of 23. I am responsible.

As I stated earlier, the people I find to be "selfish" are the ones who breed to have someone to take care of them when they get old, and the ones who look at kids as the new accessory. Neither services the offspring.

And, as stated earlier, I am one of the rare people who believes that most people should not breed.
 
Old 11-27-2007, 04:40 AM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
788 posts, read 1,896,485 times
Reputation: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
I see it as the opposite of your interpretation.
I know myself, I am the only person that I can control. I do what I can to limit my negative effect on the earth.

I am well aware of my strengths and limitations as a human being. Breeding would have been a horrible mistake for me, and for any offspring. Hence my sterilization at the age of 23. I am responsible.

As I stated earlier, the people I find to be "selfish" are the ones who breed to have someone to take care of them when they get old, and the ones who look at kids as the new accessory. Neither services the offspring.

And, as stated earlier, I am one of the rare people who believes that most people should not breed.
Do you think that most people have kids for those reasons? I know that some people do, but I question whether most do. Speaking from personal experience, it would have been a lot cheaper and less time consuming to save money to buy someone's services when I'm old, and when you pay someone to do it, it's guaranteed. With kids, there's never any guarantee of anything. But I can only speak for myself that I definitely did not have a baby to have someone to take care of me many years down the road, or as a fashion statement. If that's all I cared about, I would have put all the money I spend on my son's daycare, clothes and food, etc, in a 401K, and I still would have had money left over to buy a bunch of toys for myself.

It's definitely not an easy thing to have a kid, unless you hire people to take care of him for you and never have to worry about where the money to pay for things is going to come from. But I agree with the previous poster who said that it's a life changing event. Someone who isn't mature has to grow up really fast.

Also, I disagree with those who say that people who are not financially secure shouldn't have kids. I'm not in the best financial shape because I found out I was pregnant as I was about to graduate college. Both are expensive, so it's been rough, but my son is well fed, has a roof over his head, is comfortable and very much loved and cared for. So, what's really important, that he has a college fund immediately (he will have one eventually), or that we're taking care of him right now? Just saying this because I believe that living happily in the present is more important than making sure plans are mapped out, flawless, and well executed (at the expense of time spent with others), because plans don't always work anyway, or I could die tomorrow.

I just wanted to say that because it seems as though many people who don't have kids trivialize children and speak of them like objects. I'm not saying you should have kids, but I think it's a bit much to say that most people shouldn't breed.
 
Old 11-27-2007, 05:43 AM
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
3,589 posts, read 3,144,343 times
Reputation: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
I see it as the opposite of your interpretation.
I know myself, I am the only person that I can control. I do what I can to limit my negative effect on the earth.

I am well aware of my strengths and limitations as a human being. Breeding would have been a horrible mistake for me, and for any offspring. Hence my sterilization at the age of 23. I am responsible.

As I stated earlier, the people I find to be "selfish" are the ones who breed to have someone to take care of them when they get old, and the ones who look at kids as the new accessory. Neither services the offspring.

And, as stated earlier, I am one of the rare people who believes that most people should not breed.
If you don't want to have kids, that's up to you; and people who don't want kids definitely shouldn't have them. I don't care if some people choose not to breed. That's their choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top