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.
(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.
Yes, it is all about economics. You have written the best post of the series! But, at some level one would expect the young to be able to support the aging population. But, who knows this can be done by robots and at one point currency and the concept of wealth can be eliminated. I cannot state anymore how clever your post is.
Quote:
(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.
Yes, but tell that to the environmentalists.
Last edited by Julian658; 11-18-2015 at 10:14 PM..
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?
That is the mantra of the educated elite class that decides to commit genetic suicide. And they may be correct, but they are not the ones that are supposed to avoid children.
Truthfully, anyone should be able to reproduce as long as they can take care of the offspring.
Quote:
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.
The so-called underclass of the OLD days were simply folks that did not belong to the aristocratic class. But, life in this day and age is different. Most of us have grandparents with no college education because that was the norm in those days.
Quote:
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?
See above!
The biological father of Steve Jobs was a Syrian. But, he was a different kind of Syrian-------just as just ancestors were not truly underclass. You can say that about any ethnic group.
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.
Right, but I didn't think this thread was about pollution and environment.
I still don't get why you are putting this on ME. I've never once talked to you about being an environmentalist, or not.
I do my part to take care of the environment. And like I said, not having kids is one of the best things you can do, the end.
Me not having kids is hardly because I'm selfish and driving a big a SUV. I do NOT. I'm very environmental friendly. I have no clue why you are bringing this on me. You lost me. I'm done here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
You keep saying people are "missing the point" when they aren't agreeing with what you are saying. Over and over again.
THIS! This is exactly what is happening. I feel this thread is becoming pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan
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.
I like what you have to say here. Don't we have enough problems and obstacles in the world TODAY and in the immediate future, say next 10-50 years, without worrying about what the next 200-400 years is going to look like, and if enough college-educated people are having kids? We have no idea what the world will look like then. And even if all of us do have kids, how do we know that say, in 150 years those kids will be able to have kids, or those kids will even survive say cancer or an accident, etc? It seems like such a time-wasting, foolish thing to be spending SO MUCH TIME thinking about! GOOD GRIEF!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
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?
YES! This. I just didn't want to come out and say it... but we all know the OP is thinking that certain types of people shouldn't outnumber certain "other" types of people. The End.
Right, but I didn't think this thread was about pollution and environment.
I still don't get why you are putting this on ME. I've never once talked to you about being an environmentalist, or not.
I do my part to take care of the environment. And like I said, not having kids is one of the best things you can do, the end.
Me not having kids is hardly because I'm selfish and driving a big a SUV. I do NOT. I'm very environmental friendly. I have no clue why you are bringing this on me. You lost me. I'm done here.
It is just an example. If you are worried about the environment you should also be worried about a future generations where children are quite rare.
Quote:
I like what you have to say here. Don't we have enough problems and obstacles in the world TODAY and in the immediate future, say next 10-50 years, without worrying about what the next 200-400 years is going to look like, and if enough college-educated people are having kids? We have no idea what the world will look like then. And even if all of us do have kids, how do we know that say, in 150 years those kids will be able to have kids, or those kids will even survive say cancer or an accident, etc? It seems like such a time-wasting, foolish thing to be spending SO MUCH TIME thinking about! GOOD GRIEF!
Youb are doing the old "what if" argument. That is a classic fallacy in a debate and you should know better.
Quote:
YES! This. I just didn't want to come out and say it... but we all know the OP is thinking that certain types of people shouldn't outnumber certain "other" types of people. The End.
Children from homes where education is valued and promoted tend to do better than children where education is not encouraged. Are you prepared to argue this point?
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?
Rodentraiser makes a good point. These are often the arguments that are posited in favor of eugenics.
Of course, this whole thread was started as a stealth endorsement of population control, couched as a benefit to the environment and society.
..........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?
A and B
A: One of the sayings that I learned in childhood that I apply to life is "Not in my lifetime". Granted, it's from John Robinson in "Lost in Space" but it applies. Live your life as you can in your life span and there is little point about worrying about what happens afterwards.
Now, one might say, "But what about the future generations? What will happen to them?". Well, since I don't have another generation of me after me, do I actually have a horse in that race?
B: Some of us have probably figured out that one way or another, being a parent is a walk of life that is not meant for us.
Children from homes where education is valued and promoted tend to do better than children where education is not encouraged. Are you prepared to argue this point?
Right, but you are avoiding my point and you know it.
Of course this point is right, but that's not the point myself and the other poster was making, and you damn well know it. Not only that, but other people are trying to tell you that just because someone is from a lower economic background, doesn't mean they can't go on to get an education.
A: One of the sayings that I learned in childhood that I apply to life is "Not in my lifetime". Granted, it's from John Robinson in "Lost in Space" but it applies. Live your life as you can in your life span and there is little point about worrying about what happens afterwards.
Now, one might say, "But what about the future generations? What will happen to them?". Well, since I don't have another generation of me after me, do I actually have a horse in that race?
B: Some of us have probably figured out that one way or another, being a parent is a walk of life that is not meant for us.
I have to assume you do not care about the environment, national debt, extreme poverty, etc. These are issues that will have a massive impact on the next generation when you and I are gone.
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.
But, at some level one would expect the young to be able to support the aging population. But, who knows this can be done by robots and at one point currency and the concept of wealth can be eliminated. I cannot state anymore how clever your post is.
*
