Japan -- Geriatric Society

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Such kids will be those who support society in the future (for the most part). I really don't understand some of the positions put forward in this thread.

JM

I agree with you, some people seem to be either unusually naive with regards to this subject.



Your proposed solution is ok. But I think I would take another route to solve the problem. Tax people who do not have children, but are rich enough to support them (anything over upper lower class, meaning the middle and upper class). It dosen't force people to have kids, but it compensates the society for the burden such people place on it.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Having children is an inherently selfish act.

It is but most people are too preocupied with short term profit and to caught up in consumer culture to see the evoultionary big picture. In the short run having kids is a bad idea, in the long run its a good one, since everyone will die eventually.

[Kontiki]

So humanity is just useless and destructive until and unless we create more humanity?

[Aeson]

Not having kids doesn't burden society.

Taking more than you give back burdens society.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kontiki
So humanity is just useless and destructive until and unless we create more humanity?

You are intentionally dense aren’t you? God, I hope you are.

We are talking about what is good and what is bad for society, we are not talking about whether society (and the humanity that created it) is good. If you think humans deserve extinction go start a thread about it and stop spaming this one.

[DanS]

While all y'all are finding excuses for not having kids, my family will be taking over, thank you very much.

(And the family tree is reasonably well constructed. )

[Aeson]

Only problem with your plan Dan... is you'll be dead before it takes over much. Won't do you much good.

[Jon Miller]

No, a person who has society provide so much for them is uses resources and producing resources. Later in life though, they are just using resources. Additionally, soceity has payed and supported them to the point where they are using and producing resources (enjoying life....) . If they don't make it so that there will be people afterwards to produce resources, then no one else will be able to use resources.

This is a bit extreme, but imagine a soceity where all the scientists stopped training new scientists. Suddenly, when they die or get old... all science stops. This is the same idea as the well off and responsible not having kids. Similarly, if scientists just trained 1 scientist for every two scientists in existence... pretty soon a lot less science would be being done.

The world has brought you and others up with so much. You owe it to the world to bring up others so that future generations can have medicine/sanitation/food/entertainment/etc.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
Not having kids doesn't burden society.

Taking more than you give back burdens society.

You were given over a decade of intensive care by two adults.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson
Not having kids doesn't burden society.

Taking more than you give back burdens society.

People who are responsible and can afford them not having kids is taking more then you give back.

JM

[Kontiki]

That's funny, it looks to me like JM is saying that people that don't have kids are a burden to society, and then likened it to things that are actually destructive to the environment.

Good douchebaggery, though

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Aeson
Not having kids doesn't burden society.

Taking more than you give back burdens society.

Dude stop that. What you are saying makes no sense. Not having kids burdens society, period. Unless you live in a society without any form of social security where you let the elderly die of exposure or starvation.
Sure you can do without having kids and give more to society than you have taken, but I argue this is harder to do. I would say if someone takes more than he gives and makes three kids in the process he has in fact given more than he has taken, since it is probable his kids will give more to society than they take (all of the kids taken together, one may be parasitic but all three would be a feat of bad parenting).

It is not a question of giving more than you have taken, it is a question of who gives the least to society. And a childless person is by definition a part of that group. Even if he is a brilliant scientist or a great writer him not having kids costs society more than a bum not having kids.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You were given over a decade of intensive care by two adults.

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

(Also, those two adults "giving me" that care chose the whole shebang... You can't just go create a "problem" and then start to "take care of it", then demand payment for it even though you never got consent.)

[Kontiki]

Man, massive cross-posting.

[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.

(Also, those two adults "giving me" that care chose the whole shebang... You can't just go do something for someone and demand payment for it even though you never got their consent.)

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