Climate ‘apocalypse’ fears stopping people having children – study

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by bus man

I beg your pardon. I am drawing what I believe is a reasonable inference from what you wrote. You said:



I take this to mean that you feel that too many parents are unfit for their role and are doing a bad job of raising their kids.

And then you said:



I take this to mean that you feel that those who choose to remain child-free are being sensible and responsible by not adding to the burden upon the environment.

If I have misinterpreted your words, kindly tell me in what way I am in error.

I can only speak for myself, so I could be wrong about Zoisite. But I take Zoisite to mean "irresponsible" is completely independent of income and race.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Zoisite

I don't get it. Please explain how it would change the economic state of all new land owners? What would each person in America be supposed or expected to do with their 2 acres that would result in changing their economic state? Would it be expected to change for the better or for the worse for each individual?

Well, for one thing, one would could be a home owner / land owner, instead of a vagrant / homeless / transient. The basis of all prosperity is land ownership. If you're not on land that you own, you're enriching the one that does own that land... paying rents, etc.
That's what TJ was referring to when he said we had the endowed right to "pursue happiness."
Only upon our own land can we "pursue happiness" without permission or paying a rent to the landlord.

[bus man]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

I can only speak for myself, so I could be wrong about Zoisite. But I take Zoisite to mean "irresponsible" is completely independent of income and race.

Income and race did not enter into my thoughts when I was responding to Zoisite. I certainly agree that irresponsibility is not limited to any one race or income class.

[CatTX]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Well, for one thing, one would could be a home owner / land owner, instead of a vagrant / homeless / transient. The basis of all prosperity is land ownership. If you're not on land that you own, you're enriching the one that does own that land... paying rents, etc.
That's what TJ was referring to when he said we had the endowed right to "pursue happiness."
Only upon our own land can we "pursue happiness" without permission or paying a rent to the landlord.

“Improved” land incurs property taxes and school taxes. If one can”t pay those, the property is foreclosed on and auctioned off. How are vagrants/homeless, who often have addiction problems or mental illness and are not qualified for well-paid jobs, supposed to pay taxes? Not to mention the cost of property/house upkeep and other expenses?.

[Milky Way Resident]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

You may be correct.

However, is it a coincidence that non-socialist countries have higher birthrates?
And is it a coincidence that socialist countries have a lower or declining birthrate?
And is it a coincidence that non-socialist countries are exporting their "surplus" population to "socialist paradises"?
. . . .
SOCIALIST GENOCIDE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing_of_Europe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...---lord-sacks/

BioWar 101
IF NOTHING CHANGES - - -
The future is populated by descendants. Any people who fail to keep pace with their neighbors is often overrun by their neighbor’s excess population. All through history, successful population explosions inevitably imposed themselves upon unwelcome neighbors. (Asians invaded Europe - repeatedly, Europeans invaded Africa, Americas, Australia and Asia via “colonies,” - several “world wars” were instigated by the need for “living room” - Lebensraum.)

Any society which reduces birthrate unilaterally, becomes marginalized, dispossessed and subjugated by the BioWar “winners.”

The socialist nations, "free" or "communist," are all ripe for collapse, and / or war.


[ When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the population of Russia was recorded at 148,538,000. (current estimate : 142,572,794) Once populations decline, it is very difficult to reverse the trend.]

I fail to see the connection between socialism and low birth rates. The low birth rate you attribute to ‘socialist’ countries has little to do with the political system in place and everything to do with the type of society in place. That is to say, that wealthy countries have lower birth rates then developing ones. It’s a nearly ubiquitous trend as it can be observed across the globe. There are also certain social customs that can lead to a higher birth rate, such as religion playing a role.

Russia’s population was on the decline during the 90’s, but its been bouncing back over the past few years, albeit at a very small pace.

[Rachel NewYork]

Moderator's warning:

Various people have different reasons for their decision to have or not to have children. I believe that the subject of this debate is whether or not concern about global climate change might affect a person's decision to have children, and whether society has fallen into a pessimistic view of the future. This topic is not about how "selfish" one may judge others to be based on their reproductive choices.

No doubt we have members of this forum who have made a decision not to have children, or perhaps they have family members or friends who have made such a decision. Calling them "selfish" for this very personal choice (which might actually have been made for entirely selfless reasons) will not only be regarded as topic hijacking, but may also be viewed as a personal attack. Nor are we to assume that people who do choose to have children do so for "selfish" reasons.

Edited to add: Topic closed for moderator review.