Do you want kids?

[Jon Miller]

You are wrong, we produce too little. Or to put it better, we have a lot of people who don't produce much at all. There is no excuse with our level of advancement for not everyone to be materially wealthy.

If we produce too much, why are so many people starving? Why are so many people poor? Why is our environment in shambles? Why don't we succeed as much as we could? How are we ever going to fix our problems when we are short productive people? Things don't fix themselves. And first world people are part of the problem, but are also the only solution (I mean, the only other solution I can think of is robots keeping the world at some hunter/gatherer level. Even agriculture societies and any society left to it's own devices to grow plays havoc with the environment).

And this discussion of solving problems doesn't even begin to look at the issues of needing productive people to produce art, to love and enjoy themselves, to increase knowledge and understanding.

The whole is greater than the parts, humanity is more important than any individual.

It is true, we waste tons of ability and production. But doing so seems to make some people less unhappy, or to think they are less unhappy for a time, or something.

And it is true that first worlders produce far more than the poorer nations. We should be feeding them, educating them, healing them, and helping them to produce, be happy, and be free from pain. But instead we focus on our own selfish pleasure and spend hardly any efforts into solving our fellow human's problems. As long as we can enjoy ourselves, everything is fine according to us. And this even ignores future humanities problems, who we completely screw over when we don't have children ourselves. So instead of wealthy, educated people trying to solve the problems of the world (which we have given them, in part), it will be the children of the poor, with no education and little resources, who will be left to solve these problems.

And poorer nations always ave lots of kids. They always reproduce rapidly. This is because for them, it increases individual wealth, rather than decreasing it. And a lot of those societies appear a lot less selfish because they think on the tribe and family level while we mostly just think on the individual level.

And it isn't about brainwashing or thinking just like me. Obviously most people who go through our education system don't think just like me. Or we would have a lot less capitalists and a lot more Christians. But it is true that you need knowledge, education, skills, and resources to be more productive. There could be potentially millions of Einsteins struggling to feed their families in Africa. And it doesn't matter that they would make brilliant physicists, because they don't have the resources, knowledge, education, and skills to make use of them.

The poor nations struggle to feed themselves. They can't heal themselves or take care of their environment. We were in the same boat in the past, we struggled through and made it to the point where every person we have has the opportunity to produce over a 1000 times more than some subsistence farmer. And we don't help out those who are struggling now. And yeah, someone in Africa having 10 kids does nothing to help the situation overall (of the tribe/etc), but you having 2 kids will do a lot more.

Please note that (except for biological issues) adoption is great, even better than having a kid of your own.

Now personally from a religious perspective, I hope that God comes and solves all our problems. But while I have faith that this will occur, I also recognize that we need to work at it ourselves (as humanity). And looking out just for ourselves will never get us there. In fact, that is what is ruining people's lives and the earth in the first place.

And I probably should have put this in Word and made something coherrent, maybe I will later.

The US is the only first world nation doing OK for 2 reasons. One, we take in a lot more immegrants than other nations. Two, we are more religious than most (all?) other first world nations (more religions, from a pure practical/utilitarrian/logical perspective encourage child raising as it is far more likely to raise a new member than to convert someone raised as a non-member).

JM

[Alinestra Covelia]

You do realize that you have just made an excellent argument for never having sex right?

Taken alone, yes.

Taken in the backdrop of gains and consequences, I'd say the penalties for safe sex are far lesser than the penalties for having a kid.

(Actually I made several of those same arguments in the incest thread, where you and I were in general agreement.)

[Alinestra Covelia]

If you happen to agree with your DNA, then having children to indulge your hormones could certainly be viewed as beneficial.

My DNA also tells me that foods high in fat and cholesterol are very important to my survival. While this might have been correct three million years ago, my diet has moved on since then and much of my teenage years were spent unlearning what my DNA was telling me and learning a new set of eating habits.

(To continue the analogy to an extreme point, my brother was diagnosed with a very serious cholesterol condition that by rights should have killed him before he turned 10. He was 12 when they discovered it, and one of the main reasons he survived is that he was eating a Chinese diet of noodles and vegetables. He loved fried food and candies just as much as any other kid, but living in China he couldn't get access to them as much. Yet another case of DNA/hormonal preferences not quite holding up to modern day scrutiny.)

This doesn't invalidate your point, of course. And I agree that the controlling factor is whether your current day goals match your evolutionary ones. Personally, mine do not. Your mileage may vary, but I categorically reject the argument that blindly following my hormones and DNA will result in the greatest personal gain for me, the individual. It requires some careful thought and planning and the results will be different for everybody.

Some people will be emotionally and financially ready for kids, and that's fine. Some people never will, and that's fine too. It's the assumption that it's right for everybody and it's somehow a duty to self, family, and society that I find objectionable.

"My uterus is my business. Your nose doesn't belong there."*


(* An actual sentence from a discussion I've had with my dad. You can probably guess where the pressure comes from. )

[Heraclitus]

[QUOTE=Unimatrix11;5533632] These peoples actually used to live a happy live, before the dogma of a ´productive life´ came ´down´ on them. And only after that were they forced to reproduce faster than they could accumulate debt (which is our wealth). QUOTE]

Bul****!

Think about what you have just wrote for a minute. Read what I have written below and then google the facts up if you think I'm just hot air.

Noble savage has been debunked.

No one forced them to have more kids, they did not start reproducing faster.
Modern medicine made in the west is what happened. People started dying less but they still had as many kids as when 6 of 9 where expected to die before adulthood.

[Lorizael]

****, Jon Miller, the answer is staring you right in the face and you don't see it. You even state the counter to your argument and you don't see it.

The problem is...

...we have a lot of people who don't produce much at all.

And you think the solution is to have more of them?

How about instead of putting resources into producing more of our own children we put more resources into...

...feeding them, educating them, healing them, and helping them to produce, be happy, and be free from pain.

them being poor, starving third-worlders, of course.

There could be potentially millions of Einsteins struggling to feed their families in Africa. And it doesn't matter that they would make brilliant physicists, because they don't have the resources, knowledge, education, and skills to make use of them.

The Einsteins already exist. There, in those poor countries. We don't need to have more children in the hopes that we create some more when they already exist. It's a better use of our resources to better those that are poor then to serve those that are rich.

You say adopting is better than actually having children. Well take it one step further. We shouldn't be adopting individual children; we should be adopting whole nations. Our vast resources should be spent on healing whole countries. And we can get back to having children later when we have resources to spare.

[Heraclitus]

[QUOTE=Alinestra Covelia;5533659]Taken alone, yes.

Taken in the backdrop of gains and consequences, I'd say the penalties for safe sex are far lesser than the penalties for having a kid.
[QUOTE]

Depends on where in the world you are living. In most of the developing world having kids will create more benefits than the sexual act itself (that if you don't do it the acceptable way or do it out of wedlock can even get you in trouble in some traditional societies). Children take care of you when you grow old. You can exploit them as free labour. ect.

But in the developed world with low STD rates you are probably right. Though I would say it really depends on whether the social state continues to function. If it stops I would prefer to exploit my kids sense of guilt to survive than to just die.

But I must admit that my view may be compromised by emotional factors. I don't really find sex that rewarding considering the effort, since I have trouble climaxing and the two hour grind today while fun has left me spent. Sure there is some altrusitic satisfaction from helping somone else acheive an orgasm, but can't altrusitic fun be gained from helping a small crature grow and learn (I mean why do people keep pets? pets are by default in our subconscius kids light).

(Actually I made several of those same arguments in the incest thread, where you and I were in general agreement.)

I never said your arguments where poor, I just consider them to decrease the survival & replication value of those who hold them. Intellectually you are quite sound. But brains don't always win when the game is evolution...

[Lorizael]

But I must admit that my view may be compromised by emotional factors. I don't really find sex that rewarding considering the effort, since I have trouble climaxing and the two hour grind today while fun has left me spent.

Fascinating!

[Heraclitus]

Fascinating!

Oh come on, you know that the only reason you read poly is to have an insight into my sex life.


Althoug I was serious. Ever since I was a teen and lost my virginity I've considered sex waaaaaaaaaaaay overrated .

[Jon Miller]

****, Jon Miller, the answer is staring you right in the face and you don't see it. You even state the counter to your argument and you don't see it.

The problem is...

And you think the solution is to have more of them?

How about instead of putting resources into producing more of our own children we put more resources into...

them being poor, starving third-worlders, of course.

The Einsteins already exist. There, in those poor countries. We don't need to have more children in the hopes that we create some more when they already exist. It's a better use of our resources to better those that are poor then to serve those that are rich.

You say adopting is better than actually having children. Well take it one step further. We shouldn't be adopting individual children; we should be adopting whole nations. Our vast resources should be spent on healing whole countries. And we can get back to having children later when we have resources to spare.

I have already considered this. My points against it are as follows:

1. It is hard enough to get us to care about others outside of ourselves. We have a hard time forming family, and resist doing more so. Yet you expect us to adopt nations? As I posted, I am all in favor of doing more to help.

But there is a big difference between helping and adopting. To give an example, I might help the person I find on the street, give them food/etc. Or perhaps a better, I might hear that my neighbor needs food, and bring him some. But if it is adoption, it is much more than that. I bring the person into my family, and make him one of my own. I discipline him as my son, take care of all his needs, and train him up like my son. No nation or group has anywhere supported this.

Note change all male to female pronouns/etc as the situation warrants.

Going into the nation and building roads, railroads, hospitals, schools, phone grids, power grids, power stations, etc/ would just be the beginning. We have several issues here, one of which I will relate in the next point.

These aren't the main issues though, the main issue is the expensive and the fact that people who have a hard time caring for their own will have an even harder time putting so much money into others. Even myself would have a hard tim giving more than 20% or so.

2. Cultures which don't propagate themselves die. So our culture needs to have children to propagate instelf to. I agree, we can 'convert' people of other cultures, and do (that is why many people of other countries dislike us). But this isn't entirely satisfactorily for many reasons. One is the reason of diversity, it is useful to have very different perspectives/etc on things. Yeah, if peoples are interacting there will be exchange of ideas, this is good and important. But then there will be a spectrum, from one culture to the other (and with more than two cutlures, the dimensions of the space goes up, as does the possibility for interesting interactions).

So yeah, this is an argument to help rather than adopt fellow nations. But if we help, and not adopt, things will go a lot slower. This isn't the most important thing, I think that there are lot sof crappy things about ourculture and so would prefer other possilibities.

3. Biology. Yeah, I said it. I do think that we owe our genetics to try to maintain them. It is true that genetics is huge. Now, as far as a group, I don't think that they are that big (logically, it would only matter for a group of they married themselves and kept their culture for 1000s of years, then biologically favoring the group would possibly provide a biological advantage) of deal. But for the individual it is important.

And yeah, that means that someone could call it biolgically selfish.

In any case though, if you don't want to have kids yourself, and are not dangerous to them at the 1 sigma level, adopt!

JM

[Heraclitus]

I believe the stats show this to be in either the minority case, or barely a majority.

My parents planned me. But I don't know if I turned out well...

[Heraclitus]

@JM

I agree that cultures mostly conserve themselves through individual production and less through conversion. I am a big fan of cultural diversity and preserving it (one of the reasons I'm a natalist).

Again this may be due to emotinal bias, I come from a small nation (a little over 2 million) and as such it is "convenient" that I have such views.

[Unimatrix11]

You are wrong, we produce too little. Or to put it better, we have a lot of people who don't produce much at all. There is no excuse with our level of advancement for not everyone to be materially wealthy.

If we produce too much, why are so many people starving? Why are so many people poor? Why is our environment in shambles? Why don't we succeed as much as we could?

Well, find out yourself. You wont believe me if i told you. But it certainly is not because we have to few productive people. It´s got actually a lot more to do with having too many people who would ´like´ to be productive (under the ´given´ circumstances), but only few are needed. Keyword: 3rd industrial revolution.

How are we ever going to fix our problems when we are short productive people?

We aren´t.

Things don't fix themselves. And first world people are part of the problem, but are also the only solution (I mean, the only other solution I can think of is robots keeping the world at some hunter/gatherer level. Even agriculture societies and any society left to it's own devices to grow plays havoc with the environment).

The way the west lives is the ONLY problem when it comes to the environment. I know, Mr. Malthus wants to tell us, there are simply too many people in the world, but fact is, even today, theoretically feeding everyone is no problem at all. And that would be even more sustainable than coping with the systemic shortages and its consequences.

And this discussion of solving problems doesn't even begin to look at the issues of needing productive people to produce art, to love and enjoy themselves, to increase knowledge and understanding.

Well, i think that any person has a value. Even if all it does is contemplating (vulgo: does nothing). But i do appreciate your wider defintion of ´productive´ and need to say, that i didnt take it that way from you until now, for which i maybe should apologize. It´s only that the word ´productive´ usually is not used in this fashion AFAIK. ´Fullfilled´ might be more fitting, dont you agree?

The whole is greater than the parts, humanity is more important than any individual.

It is true, we waste tons of ability and production. But doing so seems to make some people less unhappy, or to think they are less unhappy for a time, or something.

I find it hard to bring these two into some sort of coherancy. If humanity is more important than the individual, then waste can hardly be justified by some people thinking they feel (i would argue people know best how they feel, anyways - it´s pretty arrogant to assume anything else) less unhappy for a time.

And it is true that first worlders produce far more than the poorer nations. We should be feeding them, educating them, healing them, and helping them to produce, be happy, and be free from pain. But instead we focus on our own selfish pleasure and spend hardly any efforts into solving our fellow human's problems. As long as we can enjoy ourselves, everything is fine according to us. And this even ignores future humanities problems, who we completely screw over when we don't have children ourselves. So instead of wealthy, educated people trying to solve the problems of the world (which we have given them, in part), it will be the children of the poor, with no education and little resources, who will be left to solve these problems.

The problem for the so called 3rd world is exactly THAT we produce so much. We are far more productive (in this is the way this word is usually used), per person, than they are due to a higher capital accumulation. Thats why even starting any business down there doesnt make much sense, cause it will be out-competed in no time. Hence my criticism about the axiom of the need of more producitve ´hands´. Here, production has actually reached such a level, that it is hard to find any rentable investment for your money in the ´real´sector. Thats why everybody went into what i call the ´virtual´ sector of financial derivates, which have close to no base in the real world. This system simply cannot handle any more production, because the productivity has risen to such an extreme, that hardly anyone can by employed with production anymore (and employment is neccessary to make the money make more money), due to automatisation.

The logical conclusion of your way of arguments btw, if it was to stay ´humane´ upto its last consequence, wouldnt be to reproduce lots of westerners while teaching the africans not to, but mass-emigration. Adopt afircan kids and grant them the opportunities that you solely see given in your local environment. Now that would be un-selfish. Anything else, i regard as a poorly contructed pseudo-legitimation. You dont really believe, that the employment rate of the US has much to do with the well-being of nigeria, now do you? Well it does, but not in the way you imagine.

And poorer nations always ave lots of kids. They always reproduce rapidly. This is because for them, it increases individual wealth, rather than decreasing it. And a lot of those societies appear a lot less selfish because they think on the tribe and family level while we mostly just think on the individual level.

And it isn't about brainwashing or thinking just like me. Obviously most people who go through our education system don't think just like me. Or we would have a lot less capitalists and a lot more Christians. But it is true that you need knowledge, education, skills, and resources to be more productive. There could be potentially millions of Einsteins struggling to feed their families in Africa. And it doesn't matter that they would make brilliant physicists, because they don't have the resources, knowledge, education, and skills to make use of them.

The poor nations struggle to feed themselves. They can't heal themselves or take care of their environment. We were in the same boat in the past, we struggled through and made it to the point where every person we have has the opportunity to produce over a 1000 times more than some subsistence farmer. And we don't help out those who are struggling now. And yeah, someone in Africa having 10 kids does nothing to help the situation overall (of the tribe/etc), but you having 2 kids will do a lot more.

First you say they can´t heal themselves (true) and then you say ´but we did´. Who helped ´us´ when we made it through - surprise: they did. We stand on their shoulders, peeking over the wall (barely) and now you come and say: we need to help them so they can peek over the wall as well. Well, dont, if you arent prepared to fall hard. What would help the situation most, btw, is what china does: Have a little less children overall, or, alternatively: reduce consumption (that implies: reduce production as well - undoable in capitalism).

Please note that (except for biological issues) adoption is great, even better than having a kid of your own.

Just to make sure, i´d like to hear more about these biological issues, but otherwise agree, of course.

Now personally from a religious perspective, I hope that God comes and solves all our problems. But while I have faith that this will occur, I also recognize that we need to work at it ourselves (as humanity). And looking out just for ourselves will never get us there. In fact, that is what is ruining people's lives and the earth in the first place.

Totally agree on the second part.

And I probably should have put this in Word and made something coherrent, maybe I will later.

The US is the only first world nation doing OK for 2 reasons. One, we take in a lot more immegrants than other nations. Two, we are more religious than most (all?) other first world nations (more religions, from a pure practical/utilitarrian/logical perspective encourage child raising as it is far more likely to raise a new member than to convert someone raised as a non-member).

JM

When you take in immigrants, you always make sure, they are ´productive´ first though. You do know, that green cards are distributed via a lottery for which you have to apply, pretty much, right? You pay a good deal for the application, but chances of getting admission are about 1/10. The US actually makes money with this. ´Wetbacks´ on the other hand get turned around right away at the border (which is becoming more and more like a 1,500 mile-long berlin wall - only more high-tech). This has nothing to do with charity, but again is a selection process. I dont remember Jesus saying: Become a christ if you are worthy (rich enough). And of course it is much easier to feed believes (as well as values) into someone who never developed his/her own. If a belief needs to rely on that to gain members though, the quality if it must certainly be questionable.

----

Overall, it seems be first post was maybe too aggressive, but i didnt intent to attack your values per se, but your faulty world view. As in: Charity is good, but the US-migraion politics have nothing to do with it. Problems need to be acively engaged and it does take engaging members of society to adress them, but productivity is the wrong word and should not be mistaken with it, because it has a economic conotation under which more of it does not solve a single problem discussed here - au contraire! These differences may seem miniscule, but in the end, correct understanding of them makes all the difference between the world how it should be and how it is.

[Unimatrix11]

[QUOTE=Heraclitus;5533661]

These peoples actually used to live a happy live, before the dogma of a ´productive life´ came ´down´ on them. And only after that were they forced to reproduce faster than they could accumulate debt (which is our wealth). QUOTE]

Bul****!

Think about what you have just wrote for a minute. Read what I have written below and then google the facts up if you think I'm just hot air.

Noble savage has been debunked.

No one forced them to have more kids, they did not start reproducing faster.
Modern medicine made in the west is what happened. People started dying less but they still had as many kids as when 6 of 9 where expected to die before adulthood.

That is correct. In fact the demographic change started with a longer life-span and also less child-mortality. The essence remains, that the population growth was induced from outside and did not correspond with an equal rise of productivity, which, as a result, made those countries poor: They simply could not compete with ´western standards´. Because of that, unlike in the centrums of capitalistic world, the birth-rates in its periphery never dropped. Parents in so called third world countries today often depend on many offsprings because only their combined production can ensure their income at age.

Now the obvious solution to the simple mind is to raise their production levels to ours, so that they become rich as well. Here lies the fly in the ointment, because it is not the overall productivity that makes a country wealthy, but the comparative producitvity (some might know the term ´comparative competition advantage´). If they would be as productive as we are, then we wont be rich anymore (same goes for corporations). That was always true during the last couple of centuries. The new thing is, that today we hardly know what to do with the production capacities we already have. We are already struggling hard to find new products that we can produce, that somebody will actually pay for (that criterium is essential to the system, unfortunately). There is actually who whole myriad of reasons why the suggestion of enhancing productivity doesnt make much sense at all under the current system, when it comes to solving the problems of mankind.

But, yeah, i unintentionally scewed this one, despite better (prior) knowledge - thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct.

[Heraclitus]

[QUOTE=Unimatrix11;5533719]

That is correct. In fact the demographic change started with a longer life-span and also less child-mortality. The essence remains, that the population growth was induced from outside and did not correspond with an equal rise of productivity, which, as a result, made those countries poor: They simply could not compete with ´western standards´. Because of that, unlike in the centrums of capitalistic world, the birth-rates in its periphery never dropped. Parents in so called third world countries today often depend on many offsprings because only their combined production can ensure their income at age.

Now the obvious solution to the simple mind is to raise their production levels to ours, so that they become rich as well. Here lies the fly in the ointment, because it is not the overall productivity that makes a country wealthy, but the comparative producitvity (some might know the term ´comparative competition advantage´). If they would be as productive as we are, then we wont be rich anymore (same goes for corporations). That was always true during the last couple of centuries. The new thing is, that today we hardly know what to do with the production capacities we already have. We are already struggling hard to find new products that we can produce, that somebody will actually pay for (that criterium is essential to the system, unfortunately). There is actually who whole myriad of reasons why the suggestion of enhancing productivity doesnt make much sense at all under the current system, when it comes to solving the problems of mankind.

But, yeah, i unintentionally scewed this one, despite better (prior) knowledge - thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct.

Ok that cleard up you point.


But I have one adttional minor comment to make. Some of those places where overpopulated before the West introudced new societal patterns and technologies.

[Unimatrix11]

****, Jon Miller, the answer is staring you right in the face and you don't see it. You even state the counter to your argument and you don't see it.

The problem is...



And you think the solution is to have more of them?

How about instead of putting resources into producing more of our own children we put more resources into...



them being poor, starving third-worlders, of course.



The Einsteins already exist. There, in those poor countries. We don't need to have more children in the hopes that we create some more when they already exist. It's a better use of our resources to better those that are poor then to serve those that are rich.

You say adopting is better than actually having children. Well take it one step further. We shouldn't be adopting individual children; we should be adopting whole nations. Our vast resources should be spent on healing whole countries. And we can get back to having children later when we have resources to spare.

Good one. But then again, maybe we should heal our nations first? Not in a material way, but rather in the very way we produce things? Maybe then any of this would actually be as possible as it is diserable. EDIT: Maybe we should even stop thinking in categories like ´nations´. But that can wait and eventually the absurdity of the concept and where it came from will dawn on people once they started to take a course of action as described above and it will fall apart on on its own.
EDIT II: Though i dont want to get agressive again, i just want to point out, that Lorizael dismantled a good deal of ´double-think´ here IMHO.