Well I can’t really tell what YOU are talking about except to insult my choice to become a parent.
However, people on farms starve for many reasons, and many of the people who are starving, in fact a great number of them live in rural situations. There are many reasons for this, war, draught and disease can be the causes of famines.
There are many reasons that people die, but to claim this is due to overpopulation is an unsupported assertion.
Reduced rates is waaaay better than nothing. My chiropractor offeres extremely reduced rates to people who can’t afford insurance, and if he didn’t I’d never be able to afford it.
Nobody is obligated to offer any free service to their community. Assuming they pay their taxes, that’s all they are obligated to do. My position is that people who don’t contribute a child–as in, a set of hands, a worker to replace them when they retire–aren’t less valuable to the community because they can contribute in other ways. Teacing a free yoga class for middle aged or senior people was my own example of a way in which I, a childless person, could contribute. **mswas **wasn’t insinuating that everyone should offer their services for free.
starwarsfreek42 In America we have a rather ideal situation, we hover right at replacement rate, which is good. The population grows mainly due to immigration, an unfortunate byproduct of that is brain drain in other countries. Yes people without children can be and are productive members of society. But my stake in this argument is that they should recognize and value the children that will one day be the producers whose work maintains the society that supports he childless when they reach retirement. Maybe some population reduction is good, but it should take several generations, otherwise it can be catastrophic.
It appears that you were doing some snarking there, that what that poster was already doing wasn’t good enough because there were no free yoga classes.
You didn’t/won’t get a bigger vehicle and/or house due to having had children? You didn’t go to the doctor, get an ultrasound, give birth in a hospital, eat more, buy clothes you will only use when pregnant? Which of course ignores the idea that somehow that child is responsible and able to alter it’s own footprint from birth, which of course it can’t. Saying that you aren’t responsible for your child’s carbon footprint is the same thing is my trying to claim I’m not responsible for my dogs’.
The thing is? I don’t care what your plans are and your care for your child is not my concern. The issue is that because you have had a child, you seem to think that you have a right to tell the childfree how to live, right down to us somehow being selfish for not choosing the same lifestyle you did. And you cannot see how self centered that is - you made a choice about what you wanted to do and no matter how you dress it up, we didn’t need your child. Therefore, you are not entitled in any way to dictate how anyone else lives.
I’m not sure how nice starwarsfreek thought it was - my impression was that she was being very polite.
Froth? Hardly, and it seems your viewing it as such says quite a bit about how solid you actually feel about having a child in this day and age.
Where did I do that?
War, drought and disease tend to create farms that are not working farms, which is what I said in the prior post. If the farm is working and if the parents had multiple children because they needed workers, then it is highly unlikely that any of those children are going to be starving. However, if overpopulation has created overfarming resulting in a dust bowl; if overpopulation has forced farmers to areas that are not likely to produce a good crop every year; if overpopulation is taking water needed for crops to fill swimming pools; if overpopulation causes the need to go to war to get farmland from a neighboring country; if overpopulation results in overcrowding so disease spreads far easier - how can you say overpopulation isn’t an issue?
I suggest you do some Googling on the subject. There are plenty of studies out there showing how overpopulation creates those many reasons why people die. I really don’t understand how people cannot grasp the simple concept that resources are finite.
I can’t speak for everyone obviously, but as a childless person I recognize the value of the *potential *of the children who will grow to support the economy when I am past working age. I steer clear of them, I don’t like listening to them scream at the supermarket, but I fully recognize that they are the future of the country. I pay my taxes gladly, knowing that education will help the nation progress further and that I benefitted from a public education myself. Contrary to what people assumed of me in that other thread, I don’t have a problem with people having kids. I just don’t want to have any part in dealing with said kids. That doesn’t mean I’m not a productive member of society, it just means that I contribute in other areas.
I’d also like to clarify that I didn’t mean to imply, if anyone took it that way, that I think having people working till they are 80 is a good idea. I do think that unless severe medical problems exist, there’s nothing stopping a 67 year old from working in their own profession or part time as a store clerk. Those who are retired could be put to use, as I said earlier, in child care or community gardens or other projects so that they wouldn’t count only as consumers. Folks in nursing homes or assisted living could knit or crochet blankets, or make pottery to sell or donate. I’m not talking slave labor, but the elderly should be encouraged to participate in a healthy community.
I don’t understand the focus on the one thing you aren’t doing! You had a whole list in there and **mswas ** came back with “why aren’t you giving free yoga classes”. What was wrong with all that other stuff?
In other words, we can never retire? I’m not getting this idea that I should work until I die to support other people’s lifestyle choices.
He didn’t criticize all that other stuff, did he? Admittedly, I read it first as slight snark, but figured it was carryover from the pit thread. And written text is different than verbal text. So I just took it as an honest question and answered it. No big deal, really. I elaborated because the obstacles involved in developing a healthy community of able workers are relevant to the subject of the thread. Plus, since I’m usually a lurker, it’s interesting (to me) to see how people react to my opinion, since I rarely give it. I don’t want to come off all defensive and stuff.
I said could. That implies a choice. Those who don’t want to participate shouldn’t be forced, but let’s face it–nursing homes aren’t the most entertaining places. I have a pet theory that the problems Alzheimer’s patients have are exacerbated by inactivity and lack of mental stimulation. Having more and varied activities for them to participate in wouldn’t hurt anything. They could get together and use their sewing or pottery or whatever skills to raise money, and then use that money to buy themselves a bigger tv for the sitting room, or a pool table, or to give to charity. Whatever they decided to do.
She brought it up.
We do not have a car at all, we moved into a smaller house. Of course I am responsible for her footprint but she is still a person, and therefore did not increase the footprint of two people, because the footprint is now divided by three. Should we consider you an appendage of your parents carbon footprint or are you a person with a footprint of your own?
This is not a valid response to anything I’ve said, so yes it certainly is froth. There is a pit thread for you.
I don’t know the pit thread so can’t say!
mswas seems to be hypersensitive to anything even remotely connected to the idea that having children is selfish and not a particularly good idea these days, and seemed to be trying to figure out a way to show you as not “doing enough” for society for daring to not reproduce. I got this impression from the fact that s/he ignored all of the things you actually do and the insistence that you should figure out some way to do those free yoga classes. If it didn’t bother you, I’m glad but it sure did look like the typical thing we get from parents, that the childfree should just keep giving! 
There is a whole big world for older people between working and being in a nursing home! That’s actually the motivation for working towards having a nice retirement, so one can enjoy travel, hobbies, whatever before one does get so old that we have to live in a nursing home.
She brought up quite a few things she was doing and you ignored them all in favor of the one thing she hasn’t been able to do. You can’t see how that makes you look like you feel she isn’t “contributing enough to society”? Would you expect someone with a child to do that much?
Oh, no, you cannot foist your footprint off on a two year old!
I have a footprint because I am old enough to do things that affect it, pro and con. Your two year old cannot make those changes.
It is a valid response - simply because you do not recognise it as such doesn’t mean it isn’t. Do you not remember posting this? —>
"I don’t think the argument is that you are not productive as much as it is you will be a net consumer of resources in retirement and that you’ll be screwed if there are not people to replace you in the work force.
Part of the problem I have with an argument like yours is there is an underlying sneering subtext that views raising people to be productive workers to help continue the species is somehow dishonorable. Like there is something wrong with creating more workers. Like it or not, your social security is going to be funded by my grandchildren’s work."
Um, the OP states that it was inspired by the “child haters” pit thread, where I offered myself as an example of someone who hates children and took a not-unexpected beating for it. mswas and I had some exchange in that thread, and I assumed that if he seemed a little snippity over here, it was merely carryover from that.
I think s/he was mostly trying to see how dedicated I actually was to trying to help my community–whether I was just saying that, or whether I meant it and had actually found it unfeasible. I don’t think the childfree should be obligated to do more than those who choose to reproduce. I would expect people who have children to buy houses and cars, and pay their taxes, and to participate in education. Tutoring students could be replaced by tutoring their own kids, but you get my drift. If I want to do something extra, that’s up to me. As we move into a phase where retirees outnumber the workforce, however, there becomes a problem. More people will need to have kids to balance it out. I don’t think those who can’t or won’t reproduce should work twice as hard as those who do, but it will be on the shoulders of everyone, seniors and childless included, to keep the society from crashing. In fairness, I don’t see how a childless person is any more a “net consumer” in retirement than someone who has kids is. The one with the kid is still retired, and is consuming as much as the one without.
Right, I understand the point of retirement I assume they will be spending money, so that’s good for the economy. However, when it comes down to a situation where retirees outnumber those who are currently in the workforce, those retirees will need to do their part to keep the country afloat. It’s not a matter of keeping them working right up to the nursing home, but a literal shortage of hands would mean we need them as long as they are able and/or willing. I live in a neighborhood full of elderly and middle-aged folks who sit at home all the time and do nothing. I know many of them would be glad to participate.
China seems to have a very workable system. Older people live with their adult children and play the role of primary caregiver to their grandchildren (as well as taking care of household chores). It frees up young adults to work, gives the older people a sense of purpose, and ensures that children are spoiled rotten.
Except that in all my time and travels in China I have found that children are not spoiled at all and are much more respectful of me than western children are. So it seems they have found the right combination of love and affection and teaching them respect and values.
But I agree on the premise. Since my first vists to China I was very favorably impressed by how well treated and loved children were. All the children I saw in the company of their family seemed to be much loved and well cared for. I have never seen anyone beating their child in China, something which I used to see routinely in the USA. Frustrated mothers in the checkout line beating their child for being a child.
You do see children begging in China, some even quite nicely dressed, but I have never seen a child being beaten. Yes, the grandparents spoil the children but they seem to teach them respect and restraint as well.
The problem with western society is that we are becoming more selfish and we do not want to put up with pretty much anybody. We don’t want to put up with old folks so we ship them off to old folks homes. We pretty much do not want to put up with spouses and so we have high divorce rates. All this is not good for the raising of children.
And we have certainly not found the balance between loving and spoiling the way the Chinese have. Chinese children have never bothered me the way many western children have.
This is probably the salient point, and hopefully my response here will respond to curlcoat’s resentment, but responding directly is showing to be futile.
I didn’t make the argument that anyone is more of a net consumer of resources than anyone else, merely that there has to be a proper balance of young workers to support the old. If you don’t have a kid then someone out there has to have three to ensure that the economic balance is maintained.
I responded to your yoga comment because I thought it was cool, and not for any other reason. Often if I don’t respond to something it’s because I don’t disagree with it, so I just let it stand.
curlcoat One thing I will respond to. I don’t believe that overpopulation is the problem you think it is. I already agreed that having children is a selfish choice, but I disagree with your idea that it is irresponsible to have children. The continuation of the species is what I care about and to continue we must have children. And yes I find the way you characterize children and parenthood to be utterly repulsive. I don’t think that it’s equally valid, and I have not seen a good argument for it. It seems purely based off of emotion. Also, I at one time believed it too, but since I have learned more about demographics and how the history of first world nations I believe it less and less.
To both of you. Yes, population reduction IS ultimately a good thing, but population growth worldwide is abating, so I don’t see it as anything we have to make a huge push to promote.
Right, consumer spending =/= productivity.