Couples that do not want children. Are they doing the right thing? (illegal, radical)
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.
It matters a lot! IF you are a German and decide not to have children because of overpopulation that makes no sense. Because the fertility rate is already quite low in Germany. As I said they are looking for more, no less. If you are from a country that is overpopulated then it makes sense.
Quote:
There is a big difference in fertility and desire to have children.
How do YOU know I am "not fertile"? I've never been tested!
The convention term to describe the number of children per couple is called the fertility rate. Whether the woman is fertile or sterile is not the point.
Quote:
I Don't have, nor do I want children, and you can't make me procreate!
This thread is not about making someone have or not have children. That is your personal choice and only YOU can determine that. The theme of the thread is about the consequences to future generations. As a group our actions have a big impact on the planet.
In other words, I think it's better people think about it and do what's right for THEM, not what they think "society" would want 50 or 100 years from now - and even so, what is it? We can't always know. It's just OP's opinion that a certain "class" of people need to out-populate other "types" of people in the world or there's going to be "consequences".
I agree with your post, but let's play devil's advocate:
Person A likes to pollute the planet by using excessive amounts of fossil fuel. He never exercises, smokes, drinks, and will soon be disabled. He will become a burden for future generations, however, he is doing what he thinks is best for him
Person B likes to walk or ride a bike and is a health conscious person.
The actions of these two different people have an effect on society and future generation.
Our individual actions when added up with others that think similarly have repercussions on the future.
I agree with your post, but let's play devil's advocate:
Person A likes to pollute the planet by using excessive amounts of fossil fuel. He never exercises, smokes, drinks, and will soon be disabled. He will become a burden for future generations, however, he is doing what he thinks is best for him
Person B likes to walk or ride a bike and is a health conscious person.
The actions of these two different people have an effect on society and future generation.
Our individual actions when added up with others that think similarly have repercussions on the future.
Hasn't history shown repeatedly that the majority of humans prefer the path of least resistance.
I agree with your post, but let's play devil's advocate:
Person A likes to pollute the planet by using excessive amounts of fossil fuel. He never exercises, smokes, drinks, and will soon be disabled. He will become a burden for future generations, however, he is doing what he thinks is best for him
Person B likes to walk or ride a bike and is a health conscious person.
The actions of these two different people have an effect on society and future generation.
Our individual actions when added up with others that think similarly have repercussions on the future.
Several issues in this post:
First and foremost is the notion that society is more important than any or all of the individuals that comprise said society. Individuals formed societies for the mutual benefit of themselves as individuals and families.
The second is an offshoot of the first: the tendency to assume that people are (or should be) assimilated into a homogenized society. In the quoted post, this manifested itself as the notion that someone can determine what constitutes an excess amount of fossil fuels for someone else. What one may consider excessive may be sufficient, or insufficient, for the needs of another. For example, the millenial who lives and works in downtown San Diego, and walks or rides his bicycle to work in an office, may need to buy less than 20 gallons of gasoline per month. But the family operating a dairy farm in the Central Valley will need hundreds (if not thousands) of gallons of diesel per month in order to raise their crops and keep their livestock healthy.
Third is obvious bias on the part of the poster: "Person A likes to pollute the planet by using excessive amounts of fossil fuel. He never exercises, smokes, drinks, and will soon be disabled. He will become a burden for future generations, however, he is doing what he thinks is best for him." As if anyone enjoys causing pollution...
It gave me enormous satisfaction to have children and a large family. But, that was my personal choice and all the money I invested I do not regret.
I sent five kids to Catholic School from grade 1-12 as well as college. As you can imagine my retirement funds took a hit, but the joy of a family has no price.
But, all of this is personal. For the guy next door being free of children may be priceless and that is OK too. Maybe he values other things that I don't.
But, the issue is not about what we personally decide to do or not to do. The issue is the impact on future generations.
Someone said that if the fertility rate goes down we will have 1-2 generations of treacherous times with an excess of OLD people and few young persons to pay taxes, but once all the OLD die the proportion of YOUNG and OLD will be OK.
And what will happen to all the empty homes in the towns and cities? Ha. ha!
I am saying folks do have the right 100% not to have children. However, would you be happy if all five kids walked into your house and said we never plan on having kids ever, or getting married.
Would your parents or their grandparents be happy?
Everyone has their right of personal choice, but they do not have the right to force people to agree with their choice.
I agree with your post, but let's play devil's advocate:
Person A likes to pollute the planet by using excessive amounts of fossil fuel. He never exercises, smokes, drinks, and will soon be disabled. He will become a burden for future generations, however, he is doing what he thinks is best for him
Person B likes to walk or ride a bike and is a health conscious person.
The actions of these two different people have an effect on society and future generation.
Our individual actions when added up with others that think similarly have repercussions on the future.
Person A is much better for Society than Person B.
Person B is much better for Person B.
Person A, spent a boatload on taxes for his gasoline, tobacco and alcohol that supported tons and tons of govt programs and lowered income taxes and real estate taxes for folks who dont' drive, drink or smoke. Person A contributed massive amounts to Social Security and Medicare taxes in his lifetime, but since he will most likely will drop dead of a heart attack at 62 will never collect. Person A kept tons of folks from manufacturing to local retail stores employed in the Tobacco, Alcohol, Gas, Restaurant and Car industries. Folks who paid taxes, mortgages and send kids to college all off his funds.
Person B, paid hardly any taxes, local restaurants, bars, car dealerships all suffered and Person B will live a very long time maybe to 100 soaking the govt for tons of Social Security and Medicare payments long after he was a non functioning member of society after retirement.
Sadly we need more Persons A as a society and less Persons B. If we were all Persons B, the world would enter another Great Depression and Social Security and Medicare would collapse.
First and foremost is the notion that society is more important than any or all of the individuals that comprise said society. Individuals formed societies for the mutual benefit of themselves as individuals and families.
The second is an offshoot of the first: the tendency to assume that people are (or should be) assimilated into a homogenized society. In the quoted post, this manifested itself as the notion that someone can determine what constitutes an excess amount of fossil fuels for someone else. What one may consider excessive may be sufficient, or insufficient, for the needs of another. For example, the millenial who lives and works in downtown San Diego, and walks or rides his bicycle to work in an office, may need to buy less than 20 gallons of gasoline per month. But the family operating a dairy farm in the Central Valley will need hundreds (if not thousands) of gallons of diesel per month in order to raise their crops and keep their livestock healthy.
Third is obvious bias on the part of the poster: "Person A likes to pollute the planet by using excessive amounts of fossil fuel. He never exercises, smokes, drinks, and will soon be disabled. He will become a burden for future generations, however, he is doing what he thinks is best for him." As if anyone enjoys causing pollution...
Great post! But, as many other posters you miss the point.
I could care less whether someone uses a zillion gallons of gas a year or whether someone else rides a bicycle all the time. I would never try to change these habits.
The discussion is purely philosophical with no agenda to promote one view or the other. It can easily be summarized as follows: Quite often educated high income earners have a low fertility rate and the non-educated have a high fertility rate. Over the long run these activities must have some effect on future generations.
Person A is much better for Society than Person B.
Person B is much better for Person B.
Person A, spent a boatload on taxes for his gasoline, tobacco and alcohol that supported tons and tons of govt programs and lowered income taxes and real estate taxes for folks who dont' drive, drink or smoke. Person A contributed massive amounts to Social Security and Medicare taxes in his lifetime, but since he will most likely will drop dead of a heart attack at 62 will never collect. Person A kept tons of folks from manufacturing to local retail stores employed in the Tobacco, Alcohol, Gas, Restaurant and Car industries. Folks who paid taxes, mortgages and send kids to college all off his funds.
Person B, paid hardly any taxes, local restaurants, bars, car dealerships all suffered and Person B will live a very long time maybe to 100 soaking the govt for tons of Social Security and Medicare payments long after he was a non functioning member of society after retirement.
Sadly we need more Persons A as a society and less Persons B. If we were all Persons B, the world would enter another Great Depression and Social Security and Medicare would collapse.
You make good points!
But, quite often those with self-inflicted illness are on welfare and were never contributors to society.
You also assume that to take care of the self inflicted illness of diabetes, hypertension, emphysema, stroke, etc will cost less than the taxes this person paid in his lifetime. Quite often that is not the case.
Great post! But, as many other posters you miss the point.
I could care less whether someone uses a zillion gallons of gas a year or whether someone else rides a bicycle all the time. I would never try to change these habits.
The discussion is purely philosophical with no agenda to promote one view or the other. It can easily be summarized as follows: Quite often educated high income earners have a low fertility rate and the non-educated have a high fertility rate. Over the long run these activities must have some effect on future generations.
You keep saying people are "missing the point" when they aren't agreeing with what you are saying. Over and over again.
I think we do get it but are trying to show your premise is flawed. You have not shown proof that low income the fertility of earners would have a negative effect on future generation. As has been stated many times over intelligent, productive and useful members of Society have come from low income earners as well as high income earners. Just because a segment of a population might be producing less children does not mean the quality of life is being diminished. Certain dictators believed that and we all know what happened there.
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.
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.
