Japan -- Geriatric Society

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS


No, the resources are damn near unlimited as well.

How do you figure?

edit: I assume you've factored in the negative externalities involved in using said resources? Even if we're talking about mining asteroids, unless/until we have a method of getting stuff into orbit that doesn't require rockets, the environmental impact of using resources (even if they are infinite) is a valid concern.

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by chegitz 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.

Fusion is a no start by this theory?


I find it unlikley the energy needed to start off a society on another planet is not that large, you can use ion engines to get to other solar systems, slowly but efficiently.


Getting off the planetary surface efficently is another matter, but at least a few planets with life must have low enough G's for a proper space elevator.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
If the you factor in the surplus the children provide the "slightly parasitic Joe" I spoke about has in fact been a productive member of society since if he did not have children their surplus would not exist.

You are assuming positive output from the children. Yet the "child" who grew up not to have children is a "negative" in your book. So until the children have children you can't decide on the value.

Then we have to extend this to the next generation. And so on and so forth.

Ok, not wanting to waste too much time I will try a different angle that might be easier for some people to understand.

Try to make it not stupid this time.

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.

Much better rationalization of why you are doing it. Still stupid though.

What's your plan for dealing with impotent/barren people? Is this discriminatory taxation based on genes and/or disability?

What about people who only have one kid? Do they get taxed more than those with 2? What about with 3? 4? If you are only judging based on procreation, then the more the merrier, and the fewer the more taxes! Should you pay a tax for any and all women in existence you don't currently have pregnant)? Should there be a fine for having just one baby at a time instead of sextuplets?

What about raping 13yo girls and getting them pregnant? Should it be considered a tax break? Is this a good thing in your eyes? I mean, you're just procreating, which as you say is adding value to society. In fact, you're not allowing that young girl to be a burden on society. Maybe you should get a medal!

[Jon Miller]

Kids cost a whole lot though. And at a time when the parents aren't at their maximum income often also.

To modify that:
1. Keep the support of kids, but maybe support 'tubes being tied/etc' for low income households that are taking up lots of government financial aid.

2. Continue to pay for public education, but allow school vouchers (this will mostly please the middle class... the rich would already do so if the schools were unacceptable, and the very poor can't afford it no matter what).

3. Increase taxes greater for the wealthy, make the child deduction drop you down by a % isntead of a set small amount (cap the number though, it is a % but can't be above 20k or something similar). Basically, make it make more financial sense for the middle class and wealthy to have kids.

JM
(Before people get upset at 1. my family has offered to pay my older sister to get her tubes tied.)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Even keeping ourselves to this solar system, the resources are limited mostly by our imagination in how to utilize the tools at hand.

Earth's gravity well is a serious hurdle to exploiting the rest of the solar system and peak oil will make that rather expensive to overcome.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
He knocked up Mary, didn't he?

I doubt JM thinks so, and as said, it was specifically for JM or Christians with that sort of belief.

It's possible JM thinks so, but Christians in general don't hold the belief that Jesus sired children.

Like I said, if you want a more mundane example, I can provide one for you. Just ask.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Fusion is a no start by this theory?

I'm not sure fusion will ever be a viable form of energy. I'm rather pessimistic about fusion, faster than light travel, even extra-solar colonization.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
I doubt JM thinks so, and as said, it was specifically for JM or Christians with that sort of belief.

It's possible JM thinks so, but Christians in general don't hold the belief that Jesus sired children.

I was talking about Mary mother of Jesus, being knocked up by God (= Jesus).

[chequita guevara]

There is an alternative to having children . . . indefinite life spans. Abolish old age, then we don't need to retire.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Earth's gravity well is a serious hurdle to exploiting the rest of the solar system and peak oil will make that rather expensive to overcome.

A hint: Every time you use the word "Earth" you unknowingly refute your argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm not sure fusion will ever be a viable form of energy. I'm rather pessimistic about fusion, faster than light travel, even extra-solar colonization.

One of these is not like the other...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
A hint: Every time you use the word "Earth" you unknowingly refute your argument.

Do we live someplace else?

[DanS]

Originally posted by Arrian
How do you figure?

edit: I assume you've factored in the negative externalities involved in using said resources? Even if we're talking about mining asteroids, unless/until we have a method of getting stuff into orbit that doesn't require rockets, the environmental impact of using resources (even if they are infinite) is a valid concern.

-Arrian

Rockets are plenty sufficient technology. The math just isn't very daunting.

But even keeping ourselves to just Earth's resources, there's an amazing amount.

[Kuciwalker]

Your standard hypothetical Fermi paradox civilization does.

xpost

[Jon Miller]

While the US has pulled funding, a prototype fusion plant is in the planning stages now (funded by europe and japan). The protype will be very expensive to construct, but will provide more power than it uses (according to what I have heard, I am not an expert at this).

If it follows the general cycle of these things, within 50 years we will have fusion power taking over for fission as our nuclear energy source.

Jon Miller