What proponents of population control don’t realize because they often seem not to understand the difference between money and production, is that 1 child has to take care of two parents. The Confucian system of the past where the children took care of the parents had a much more distributed system of care for those adults. The problem here is that even if they tried to get caregivers for their elderly parents they are still relying on a population of fewer younger people to care for older people. So a family that cares for its parents can be a couple with four parents to care for. Imagine if you and your spouse had to provide for all of the care of all four parents. You can say that you’d hire people to help you, but the reality is that all the people who might help you are in a similar predicament. Maybe you’re wealthy enough to hire someone still, but that person might be caring for your parents in order to care for their own parents.
I’ll try to catch up with this thread this evening, but after a quick review it seems that mswas is very eloquently arguing from the same position I hold.
Two quick points…
Yes, having children is a selfish decision. In a world with free will, nearly every decision can be cast as a selfish decision. I believe that it is a selfish decision that is socially responsible and beneficial. (Having children and then abandoning the responsibility associated with them is not responsible or beneficial. I do not believe that this is as common as people seem to think.)
This nicely illustrates one of my points regarding retirement. Saving for retirement is an excellent, noble thing. But, as a strategy, it is based on the assumption that society will continue much as it has been. This assumption strongly depends on people reproducing near the replacement rate. A significant decline in the number of births will eventually translate into massive price inflation for the services needed by the retired (be it golf-course maintenance, RV service and repair, or nursing care).
Right, the people who are thinking in terms of money are not thinking about how the market for home-care for the elderly might change. Those who don’t have kids might want to visit an old folks home and realize that at 85 they will have no one coming to vist them in one of those homes. They should also visit different ones across the various monetary levels and note that if there is an over-abundance of old people and not enough young workers they will become even more expensive and be constantly under threat due to a shortage of qualified workers. If they end up at the lower end of the class scale in one of those homes then they will be at one that cannot afford the best caregivers. So they will spend the last days of their lives with bedsores among the smell of piss and vomit, with people who don’t really care about working there, as the motivated individuals will be working in the homes that can afford better workers. Of course, right to die laws will probably come into fashion as a necessity, and this will likely alleviate some of the burden.
It’s all well and good to responsibly save for one’s own retirement, but if there are not enough productive workers in 60 years, one’s IRA might not go as far as people think it should. Social Security might break down. Those of us who have children may very well have children that just are not around to take care of business either and might end up in the same predicament.
I don’t tend to think this will be true, at least not in our lifetimes. There are tons of unemployed people out there so it appears that we could retire quite a few old people before we started to run out of workers. And, I don’t know what it is like elsewhere, but California has workers flowing across our southern border every day. If you run out where you are, we have plenty!
Apparently, if you have had kids, you get to claim their jobs as yours. Setting aside the idea that means you had kids to sort of sell them into slavery to support your retirement, it still doesn’t make any more sense than claiming that having a child divides the parents’ carbon footprint into three instead of two.
You haven’t noticed that even in good times, we still have quite a few unemployed people here? You do not need to have three children to make up for my lack of them since we already have more workers than we have jobs. Particularly since you most likely will not live as many years in retirement as your children will live as workers. So, rather than you needing to make up for some contribution to the work force you think I should have made, if you have more than 1 child you are probably having more than your “allotment”.
It is not necessary for everyone, or even most everyone to have children in order to be sure that the species will continue. Actually, given examples of what happens in animals that are overcrowded, if the human population keeps growing we may end up killing ourselves off either on purpose or because disease/famine wipes us out. For example, even if you don’t care about all of the other species on the planet, if we keep using cropland to build houses on, eventually we aren’t going to have enough land to grow food on.
Saying that having children is selfish and self centered is utterly repulsive?
I’m not sure what you are talking about here since this was right after telling me that my views on children and parenthood are repulsive, but this seems to be more about your opinion on overpopulation.
If it’s true that the population worldwide is going down (I don’t know) that is a good thing, but the population where you and I live, here in the US, is going up, by a lot. And this is where we live. Partially this is because those who want children feel they have the right to have them, as many as they want; and partially because of immigration. However, again, this isn’t likely to be an issue for me as a serious lack of resources probably won’t happen in my lifetime, and I don’t have any children to worry about what sort of world I’m leaving them.
That old chestnut. You do realize that there are people who had multiple children who die alone without visitors in old age homes? Actually, it seems like most of the people that end up there do so because noone wanted to have them in their homes when they got old and could no longer take care of themselves, by themselves. So having children doesn’t mean that you will not die alone and forgotten in a rest home.
OTOH, if the population keeps growing, they are going to need more houses, more schools, more playgrounds, more businesses - where are you going to put those rest homes?
Those who have not had children will probably end up having more money to spend on a good rest home…
Well, the children never act up like Western children do because they never get the chance to. Kids throw tantrums when they don’t get their way. Chinese children, in my experience, always get their way.
For example, I lived with a host family with an eleven year old boy. One sunny weekend we went out to a large public park, intending to picnic. It took some effort to get there- it was on the other side of the city and we had to change buses. We stepped into the park, bought some snacks and drinks, and set out to find a shady spot. Then, there was a bit of whispering and suddenly everyone threw their snacks away and we rushed to the exit. I asked what happened. I was told the child decided he’d rather spend the day watching TV. So, without one word we all went home and they spent their Saturday bringing the kid snacks while he sat on the couch watching TV. This was SOP for family events.
Little Emperor Syndrome is real, though most suspect it’s being overhyped for some agenda. The worst effects of it don’t show up until early adulthood. I teach college students, and maturity-wise it’s like teaching middle school students. I could go on, but needless to say it is a pretty big cultural challenge. The sense of obligation is also pretty intense. Young adults are not allowed to forget for even a second that they need to pay back ten fold all that childhood pampering.
FWIW, around here beating is common. I was surprised when my students started sharing “the day my dad beat me” stories. I was shocked when they laughing recounted bloody backs and broken bones. Child obesity is on the rise. You NEVER see a chubby older person. You rarely see a chubby teen. But fat kids are pretty common. On the other hand, anorexia is entrenched in female culture, and it’s a status symbol for girls to faint in class.
You really need to pay attention. America is not in the process of demographic decline, though MOST developed nations are. Replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. There is no such thing as an ‘allotment’ for children. And America has pretty low unemployment perennially. Right now we are in a pretty hard recession, but when we’re not we have pretty low unemployment.
Right, some of us find the health of the species and not its mere survival to be important.
No. That’s simply true. Saying that it is a bad thing to have more than one child is utterly repulsive. Just because something is selfish or self-centered doesn’t make it wrong.
I’d like to point out with all your going on the offensive to defend your way of life, you are actually the ONLY person in this thread attacking the way of life of others.
Right, overpopulation is essentially an emotional canard that some people simply accept as truth. It’s dogmatic and ignores a whole host of demographic criteria.
The world population isn’t going down. The rate of population growth is going down rapidly. IE, it ballooned in the 20th century but is tapering off now. The US Population growth is going up due to immigration, not breeding. If we didn’t have immigration our population would remain stable.
Yes, it’s something I acknlowledged in the post you are responding to here.
Nope it doesn’t, it just means it’s more likely. My wife’s Grandmother is in a pretty nice home, and it makes all the difference that her daughter, my mother-in-law comes to see her regularly and make sure they are taking good care of her. The thing is, it’s not even that these old people get that way because no one likes them, sometimes they just outlive everyone they know.
Heh, well right now we have a surplus of homes, overproduction in the 90s and 00s has resulted in hundreds of thousands of vacant properties nationwide. So I find it to be of little concern.
No, it doesn’t work like that. Money =/= Production. Your money has to purchase productivity. Hopefully you’ll save up, and hopefully you’ll make a friend who wants to be a patient advocate for you when you get old and feeble.
Apparently, you are not good at understanding why a carbon footprint is monitored. Maybe you should find out.
Well, setting aside the fact that I didn’t say anything about “dishonorable”, producing children when you have good reason to believe that the world is going to hell in a handbasket doesn’t seem like a good idea if nothing else.
Where in the world are you getting your ideas? It rather looks like you are quoting a Wiki article here - did you read the rest of it? You know, the part about “the U.S. growth rate is projected to surpass that of the world at large: the Census Bureau projects a population of 439 million in 2050, which is a 46% gain from 2007”?
That replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman? For one thing, it is that low due to more and more women chosing to not have children. For another, 2.1 is over the replacement rate particularly when you realize that most women are not going to die before their children start having children. So, if each woman has 2.1 children and each of their children has 2.1 children, by the time the original woman dies at about 75 there are at least 6.3 people around to replace her, and even more if everyone has children young.
And, this is spread over the whole country, some parts of which are essentially unihabitable and other parts should be left for growing food. It isn’t like those 439 million people are going to be evenly spread out.
Whatever your definition of pretty low unemployment rate might be, the number I found for 2007 was an estimate of 4.6%. That Wiki article says that as of last month, there are 306 million people in the US, so 4.6% of that is over 14,000 people unemployed. Of course, the 306 million includes children who do not work, but it also includes teenagers who haven’t worked (and so don’t show up as unemployed), retirees who would like to get a job to suppliment their crappy Social Security and of course the bazillion illegals we have running around in this state alone. We aren’t going to run out of workers in the near future.
Current unemployment appears to be 8.5%, so we apparently have 25,000 people not working more or less. But the country moves on with barely a ripple because we have quite a few people doing jobs that aren’t all that necessary, like handing coffee across a counter at Starbucks. You really don’t need to keep popping out more workers for us - really.
You certainly don’t show it. Did you bother to consider any genetic illnesses you may be passing on? Do you have any concern about the environment your child is growing up in? When you child is in her 30’s or 40’s and the US population is at that 439 million, will you at all concerned about whether she will be able to find a job, a decent place to live? Are you going to be able to provide her an education and a good start on life? Did you think about any of this or did you just decide “I want a child so I’m going to have one”?
OK, that one you are going to have to explain. Saying that contributing to overpopulation thru selfishness and self-centeredness, having children you expect others to help you raise, saying those are bad things is repulsive? This must be only because the subject is children - your kid. Do you think it repulsive when people say that Octomom shouldn’t have had all those kids? How about all those folks that have a bunch of kids just because they want their religion to “win”?
Just me pushing back at all the entitlement.
Well, I think it is you that is ignoring quite a bit, but you go ahead and cite a few things that proves that overpopulation isn’t an issue for us, or won’t be for your kid.
I don’t care if the reason that there is so much less room and resources is because you had babies or people moved here from Chile, it still results in too many people. Which you decided to add to. No matter how you want to spin it, the world population has always gone up except for short periods of world war or widespread disease, and it will continue to go up as long as people think things like 2.1 children per woman is “replacement”.
Another indication of how little you know. As soon as the mortgage industry recovers, those houses will get filled. Particularly here, where we didn’t get hit near as hard.
You aren’t even making any sense. We have saved and one of the reasons I am sick of the entitlement attitude of so many parents is I am trying like the devil to hold onto our pensions and investments so we can retire without worries. With that, we will be able to live in our home unless/until we get infirm. As for using a friend as a patient advocate, I wouldn’t do that to a friend. If we should need one of those, that is what attorneys are for.
I am deeply concerned about population issues myself, especially so since the United States is the one industrialized country that has high population growth, and at the same time the one least equipped to handle it. On the other hand, I certainly don’t think it’s selfish to have kids, or even a lot of them, because most people don’t these days. I don’t have kids and I’m not planning to, so go ahead, have two more on me! As long as the option of limiting family size is truly available, I don’t think the odd full house here and there is going to wreck us.
So you’re right I was a little on the high side when I said 2.1. You’re making a great argument for anti-immigration though!
Replacement rate has nothing to do with the number of women. You clearly do not understand the concept. 2.1 is replacement rate regardless of whether 25% of women are having 8 kids while 75% are having none. 2.1 is generally accepted as replacement rate. So if you want to argue with accepted standards that’s fine, I am not equipped to argue for or against the accepted standard.
No, the vast majority of them live in urban agglomerations and exurbs and whole cities these days are being overtaken by nature in certain parts of the country, like the midwest, where we grow most of our food. Also, urban gardening has become quite popular these days.
This argument is not even wrong. People die, they are replaced by people who are born. That you do not grok this concept is very…umm…strange.
It ‘appears’ to be 8.5% based on what? You should be adding three zeroes to your numbers btw. Jobs at Starbucks are not necessary huh? So the value of the lives of the children who serve as barristas is pretty much nil? They probably shouldn’t have been born then right?
Yes I do think about genetic illnesses I might pass on, I have one that I am going to get tested to see if I might have passed the marker on. I know personally, as in have slept in his home, the man who identified the marker. I certainly have a concern about the environment my child grows up in. So you are saying since the US population growth is actually slightly below replacement rate we should enact very tough immigration reforms to ensure that the population doesn’t grow to the projections of the census? Yes, I will be able to provide her a good education. I and my wife are both quite intelligent as is our daughter and we have a very strong social network that will allow us to provide much for our daughter.
I do not agree that the world is overpopulated. You just argue this as if it’s axiomatic and an accepted assumption. I generally find it distasteful when people say that human beings shouldn’t have been born, even the children of Octomom. I mean it’s a bit odd that she was given fertility treatment when she couldn’t support herself let alone a family, but if that were not the case it wouldn’t really bother me. All those people who have children because they want their religion to ‘win’ still are not pushing the US birthrate above replacement rate.
Uhh…yeah…right.
I fully support right to die initiatives for those who wish to take it upon themselves to have the courage of their convictions.
Ok, well then you’ve made a great argument against immigration. The world has ‘always’ and yet inexplicably during the period of greatest plenty in the lands of greatest plenty during the period of greatest peace in those times, the birthrate has declined and has declined across the board in almost the entire world. It just has, without us doing anything really, without us hating other people for giving birth to more people, population growth has slowed dramatically. In many countries from Germany, to Russia, to Japan, to Iran demographic decline is a serious issue that threatens the stability of their economies, so much so that many of these nations have started offering breeding incentives. Imagine that.
