Japan -- Geriatric Society

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


Since they're babies, I don't see how that fits in with your calculus. Physical problems are another matter.

I have heard many stories of people having problems when attempting to adopt children from foreign countries. I don't think the difficulties (currently) can be ignored.

JM
(not problems with the kids, problems getting the kid in the first place)

[DanS]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'd expect that well-educated people (the sorts of people Jon Miller is arguing we need more of) would be less likely to simply vote like mummy and daddy do. Instead, having been taught to think critically, their voting would be based on intelligent analysis of the issues, not inherited party loyalty.

I think you need to lighten up.

[Arrian]

Oh Christ. Or rather, oh no! Christ.

I would tax people without children as a form of positive discrimination for people with children, since those people have a harder time finding jobs, have less free time and have more expenses than people without children.

I'm honestly not familiar enough with the US tax code to say for sure, but I think people with kids do get to take more deductions (this is the functional equivalent of taxing childless people more). One can argue that it's not sufficient, and I might even agree.

-Arrian

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What soceity is missing the most, is kids of responsible parents where the parents have enough money to see the kid to a proper education.

If you had a whole highschool of productive and great teachers, but the parents were bad parents.. then the kids who went to that highschool would mostly be unproductive.

On the other hand, if the parents are responsible and hvae enough money, most of their kids will end up being successful.

I see a James Watson in the making. Watch your step

[Kuciwalker]

I'm pretty sure the deductions get phased out as income grows.

xpost

[Jon Miller]

Deductions just basically cease to matter. What does it matter to you if you save 300$ or 600$ when you are paying thousands?

Really the current tax structure benefits poor parents the most. And honestly, I am in favor of benefitting poor parents, but just think that the rich (who are responseble) shuold be parents as well.

But you know, even the poor in the US are wealthy compared to people in many other countries (especially because of public support of education). Therefore I really think that a large portion of the US (and european countries/etc) are in the set that owes it to society to have children.

BTW, one of the limited ways I could see making up for not having kids would be to be a fabulous teacher. The type who goes into a school of screw ups and changes many many lives. I have a hard time imagining any other job that could fulfill the debt.

JM

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You have a harder time establishing that you've given more resources than you've consumed, though.

Not really. Establishing the worth of your offspring is far more difficult than establishing the worth of your upbringing and contributions.

For example... If your sole offspring ends up murdering 10 kids in a classroom for instance, you've basically gone -9 on headcount. What's the actual value of those 10 kids, your kid though? What about if your grandkids ends up being that one to takes out 10? What if one of your great grandkid ends up being the one who pushes the button and wipes out most of humanity? Those evaluations have to wait until the child actually makes the contribution, and to some extent will never be known.

And those are the easiest outcomes to judge, since they are so extreme. What about someone who's on welfare much oof their life and themselves doesn't procreate? Or who does procreate but their children don't, or are financial drains themselves? What have you added by birthing that person?

Judging the value of your specific offspring is at best a wildly speculative endeavor. Much moreso than judging a persons individual impact in other areas (especially economically).

In any case it is possible, and my statement was perfectly accurate.

There are relatively quick and painless ways of taking that back, if you don't want it.

Actually there aren't. (At least for those without a severe psychological detachment. I am not one of those, so in my specific case there isn't. And you were addressing me.) If you'd ever tried you'd understand that. It takes a great deal of pain to come to the point where you can actually do it.

And I've personally tried 2 times ("brought back" once, another botched due to unexpected reactions with the medication) before "consenting" to an agreement with my parents to be released from the hospital. (Yes, I am "indebted" to my word and will keep it.)

You can't pull that **** on me.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian
One can argue that it's not sufficient, and I might even agree.

I would argue it is and would think a kidless tax would be a good way to go.


Sure it might be just cruel to the people that are sterile, but we have plenty of such "cruel" situations already.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Doesn't change the fact that someone can still be productive without having kids.

You have a harder time establishing that you've given more resources than you've consumed, though.

Not really. Most people, especially in the West, are far, far more productive than consumptive. We consume a lot, but we produce a lot too. All of which takes a massive toll on the environment. If everyone on Earth lived like us, we'd need multiple Earths.

[DanS]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not really. Most people, especially in the West, are far, far more productive than consumptive. We consume a lot, but we produce a lot too. All of which takes a massive toll on the environment. If everyone on Earth lived like us, we'd need multiple Earths.

Check. We've got damn near unlimited space.

[Arrian]

But you know, even the poor in the US are wealthy compared to people in many other countries (especially because of public support of education). Therefore I really think that a large portion of the US (and european countries/etc) are in the set that owes it to society to have children.

Woohoo for the white rich man's burden!

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Not really. Establishing the worth of your offspring is far more difficult than establishing the worth of your upbringing and contributions.

...examples...

Since it's virtually impossible to quantify the value of your upbringing, it's easy to say that [in general] everyone pays it back by providing an equivalent amount of upgringing to someone else. In the average, the equation balances. By not raising kids you bring down the average.

Actually there aren't. (At least for those without a severe psychological detachment. I am not one of those, so in my specific case there isn't. And you were addressing me.) If you'd ever tried you'd understand that. It takes a great deal of pain to come to the point where you can actually do it.

Oh, I was thinking of ways that could be administered by someone else.

[chequita guevara]

There's a high energy cost associated with using that space. There's a new explanation for the Fermi Paradox which posits that the reason we haven't run across evidence of intelligent life is that they run out of cheap, plentiful energy before they can begin to colonize space.

[DanS]

Fun stat of the day... Saudi Arabia's fertility rate is 3.89 children per woman.

[Arrian]

Check. We've got damn near unlimited space.

But not unlimited resources.

-Arrian