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.
Successful intelligent couples often decide not to procreate because there is pain in the world or because we are overcrowded. In their hearts these couples believe they are doing the right thing for humanity.
Meanwhile, China has discovered that curtailing reproduction has backfired and they will soon have an aging population with not enough young people in the pool. The one child per couple is a disaster, but at least there is one kid in the picture. However, it seems one kid is not enough! Most of the couples I talk about have ZERO children even though they are well educated and from a higher socioeconomic level.
Why do you think European countries freely admit so many Muslim migrants. They know quite well that without young folks the future is bleak.
What will happen in 100 years if all educated economically successful couples do not have children? What if ALL the kids of the next generations come from a low socioeconomic background?
I'm a successful intelligent adult that is childless by choice. You're reading WAY too much into most people's choices. I just didn't want kids. It's that simple.
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.
You have a belief system that assumes that anecdotes are good enough to prove your point.
Some folks jump from the 5th floor and live to tell others about it------------------- that does not mean it is the norm to survive such jump.
Quote:
There is growing discussion in many low fertility countries about the negative consequences of having fewer young persons, and the prospects, already a reality in Germany, Japan, Russia, and a few other countries with low immigration levels, of declining populations. In richer countries, retirement incomes and medical care of the elderly are largely financed by taxes on the younger working population
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.
I saw a study once related to outlawing tobacco in the USA. Yes medical costs would fall for smoking related illness.
But the massive loss of jobs, loss of taxes from tobacco farms, manufacturers and retailers as well as the property taxes and taxes smokers pay on top of increased longevity of smokers was much larger.
Then add in a small handful of states and some cities are heavily depending on tobacco as well as tons of muni bonds issued that pay out on tobacco related sales the govt just cant afford to make it illegal. It is a cash cow. .
Great post! But, as many other posters you miss the point.
OP, you are missing the most important points.
(1) The only thing that suffers from a declining birth rate is economics. Economics is only a social construct that can and should be changed. Promoting a high birth rate for the sake of protecting a flimsy social construct while the realities of the world (nature, environment, food supply, clean air and water, etc) suffer due to excess people is foolhardy at best. Any social construct that is dependent on an ever growing population is complete garbage. Full stop.
(2) You, I and the rest of the posters in this thread will not be around in 400 years nor will any children and grandchildren. Caring about this topic is pointless.
Successful intelligent couples often decide not to procreate because there is pain in the world or because we are overcrowded. In their hearts these couples believe they are doing the right thing for humanity.
Meanwhile, China has discovered that curtailing reproduction has backfired and they will soon have an aging population with not enough young people in the pool. The one child per couple is a disaster, but at least there is one kid in the picture. However, it seems one kid is not enough! Most of the couples I talk about have ZERO children even though they are well educated and from a higher socioeconomic level.
Why do you think European countries freely admit so many Muslim migrants. They know quite well that without young folks the future is bleak.
What will happen in 100 years if all educated economically successful couples do not have children? What if ALL the kids of the next generations come from a low socioeconomic background?
Here are some solutions for the problem of low fertility rate:
BTW, the Hitler comparison is a low blow. Educated people come from ALL ethnic groups!
I didn't mention Hitler, you did. Many dictators have oppressed the poor and uneducated while the elite have survived. Hitler BTW, tried to annihilate many ethnic groups including those of lower economic status who you are now saying can contribute to Society with the proper help. So it isn't just the intelligent, educated factions of Society who already have the ways and means at their disposal to do so who will create the future. Those who are poor can contribute too with the right help. That's what most here have been saying all along.
I'm one of those who don't plan to have children. I am highly educated and live a good life. Most people who are childless by choice do so because of economic and lifestyle choices. The overpopulation thing is just an add-on, not the main reason.
On a personal level, it might make sense, if you have money. For a society, enough new born are definitely important. The Europeans know that for their welfare state to sustain themselves, they need more young people. Japan will be the first country to demonstrate what it means when half of your population is older than 60. China is smart too. They know that they need more people if they want to build a prosperous society. The thing is, most retirement systems and economic systems are built with the expectation that the pouplation continues to grow. This is essentially a consideration behind immigration policies in north america and europe.
Speaking of the U.S., it is indeed true that more kids of the next generations come from a low socioeconomic background. The problem isn't low birth rate, but the stratification. Rich people, educated people, socially liberal people have a lower birth rate. Religious people, conservatives, immigrants, and people of color have a higher birth rate. Those who are financially independent tend to marry within their class and enjoy their wealth. Those who are dependent have more children who are dependent.
In the future, many young people will have too little to be independent. They also tend to come from backgrounds and cultures that value education much less. Single parenthood, several children, dependence on public assistance, and no future. You will see more protests like those in Mizzou and Yale, probably worse than they are today. The class gap is going to be so big that those at the bottom simply give up on it and expect populist politics to supply oxygen. The society is also going to be cognitively stratified. The poor become less cognitively capable, which limits their employment opportunities and upward mobility. Some of the best jobs in America will hire from a global pool of candidates, leaving behind America's own poor to welfare and campus yelling. And as long as the global talent continues to satisfy corporations' appetite, businesses have little need to support america's own education system and help its own poor. Corporations' diversity today goes heavily toward foreign citizens, than American minorities. While immigrants worked hard to better themselves, america's own spent time protesting and demanding.
Across the top, the rich class will be multinational and multicultural, further alienating the underclass. it's already happening. that's america's future.
^^ Well said. A decision I made very early in life is was to never depend on anyone financially. When I was younger I didn't think I made enough to support kids and give them a reasonably good life, another reason I opted not to. As I became older, it became a lifestyle choice. Now as I look around at everyone struggling, a lot of them because they didn't consider the financial obligation of having children, the worries, people who will never be able to retire I am glad I didn't.
I'm not dependent on government (other people's money) to support my family, nor did I bring children into a life of poverty. So yes, it was right thing for humanity. To populate or not populate was not even a consideration.
Julian, I guess what I'm concerned with is your attitude about who should be having the children. First, you claim that our birthrate is too low, then you say that the "underclass" are having too many kids. To me, this is a little uncomfortable. Are you saying that only people who make a certain amount of money or reach a certain level of education should have children?
When my great-grandparents emigrated to this country, they were considered underclass then. But my dad was a professional pilot, my one brother works in nuclear engineering, my other brother is an aircraft mechanic and owns several planes of his own. I'm not sure you could call them underclass now. Me maybe, not them. That's OK, because I'm not having kids anyway.
But you can see where our family ancestors went from being undesirables just a little over 100 years ago to being solid, supporting citizens of this country. Isn't it a bit of exaggeration to say that no one from the "underclass" today isn't going to do the same thing within the next century?
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.
