Do you want kids?

[Jon Miller]

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.

I think I might have a different deffinition of productive than you.

We aren´t. Ideas are productivitiy, just as much as grain and eggs.

We are.

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.

I know that we can support far more people in the world. Obviously I am in favor of population growth.

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?

I consider all of those productive things? I don't consider anything that a person does as being productive. Masturbating is pretty non-productive for example. Watching the same show over and over again, also. And a lot of the Celeb gossip/etc isn't either. I know, it does distract people from their own unhappiness/etc, but we could be creating some new art rather than just standard drek (so I am a bit elitist).

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.

Some people > a single person. Obviously humanity as a whole is made up of lots of people, and includes how they feel/etc. And I know that myself, I might drink (or read a book, or play a game) and make myself think I am a bit less unhappy. But really, I am the same level as unhappy as I was before. It is just that I have covered up those feelings for a bit. The root cause is still there, and often growing (Because I am not changing what made me unhappy). I think that I am not alone in feeling this way, and so I used myself (who I have experienced the most) as a model for he rest of soceity.

So yeah, I think that people don't always know how they feel.

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.

This is a problem of our own selfishness, and globalization, rather than a problem of there being too many first world types. Services are production to, and people can always use more services.

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.

Did you read about my value of diversity? That is why I argue to not adopt all of a nation, although adopting some is a good thing. Also, there was my biological point. I am all in favor of people doing more adoption though, and have said so in almost every post.

And employment rate has nothing to do with anything I am talking about. It is a side issue.

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).

We went through 100s of years in pain and suffering, and at the time did not have nations of more developed people exploiting us and keeping us down. They don't have that opportunity, the world can't afford the costs of them industrializing like we did, and they shouldn't have to put up with more pain and suffering beyond the exploitation brought about by our industrializing and globalization.

They didn't help us at all in the way that I am refering to, and you know this. We exploited them, pure and simple.

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

Advance your genetics/etc. Obviously, evolution wise we are going to be heavily oreinted towards this. Someone who isn't doing this is going against nature...

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.

We are once more going the wrong way on migration. But that is what happens when you have a big complicated democratic nation with many different ideas being held.

But despite that, we are better with immigration than most countries. And why are you adding Christianity into it here? I am not in favor of those who go around saying "I will feed you if you become a Christian".

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.

I never said that US migration has anything to do with charity. It has to do with the elite in our country better understanding how to make this country better/more wealthy than the elite in (most?) other developed countries. I agree that it has nothing to do with charity.

And I don't care at all about wealth/etc. But I would like to see a world where everyone has the materials they need to come out to leave long and successful lives, and the medicine/food/housing/health/etc to enjoy them.

In a world with a lot of excess productivity, this will happen. The Einstein's will be scientists (if they want), and sure, the poor will be servants of the wealthy. But they will have their physical needs provided for and their children will have the same advantages of health, education, mobility, etc that the wealthy do.

JM

[chequita guevara]

Actually, almost all developed nations (excluding the US) are suffering from birth rate deficits. Japan and Korea happen to have some of the worst problems with it, and thanks to their inherent xenophobia, it's why they're turning more to robotics rather than immigrants.

The U.S. is also suffering a birth rate deficit. Our increasing population is due to immigration (both kinds). Without it, our population would be falling.

[Unimatrix11]

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

There is so much 19th century speaking in points 2 and 3, its startling. For example: Personally, i a) dont give a damn if germans get extinct, and b) dont believe (despite what is still german law), that ´being german´ has anything to do with genes (aka ´the blood´). It gets a lot more rediculous when talking about americans, even within these rediculous categories, which are nothing but a mixed-breed out of pretty much everything human around the globe. To bring diversity up as a reason for propagating the own people instead of helping others is just another excellent example of ´double-think´. It was kind of pointless and off topic to bring up the global situation when discussing the private decissions of ´westerners´ wether they do want to have babies or not in the first place, since the former has just about zero to do with the later and is just used as a pseudo-thoughtful pretext and ´excuse´ by people who simply dont want kids (fair enough, no need to pull up such a BS reason) at best. And now we got the salad, as we say here... Forget Malthus! The problem is not the number of people, but their way of living. It´s rediculous of someone who has his meals supersized and produces like a ton of trash each week to announce ´i dont wanna have kids, cause the world is so bad and so full of humans anyways - it would be irresponsible!´ But it is as rediculous to claim to have babies primarily because one wants to save his people from extinction.

People want kids, because their hormons tell them to, and will have them, if they are reasonable, only if the(ir personal!) economic situation allows it.

[Jon Miller]

So you wouldn't mind if it African, Middle Eastern, and many parts of asian cultures go exinct?

We should go full bore culture assimilation?

Because Lorizael is right, that is the other solution for Africa/some asian countries/Middle East/South America's problems. Adopting the country... most people don't like this though. Not only do most peopel not like this, but even those who are old school liberal (like the neocons) would have a hard time stomaching the costs. It is hard enough to do with people who have been split for less than 100 years (see east germany).

Where did I say anything about american's being american by virtual of american blood? That notion is completely rediculous, we are a nation of immigrants.

It is like you keep expecting me to say something, and put that it to my posts even though I don't put it there. I specifically said that I don't think that biology thinking is true for groups (as it would require the same culture, and intermarriage, for 1000s of years). It is like you are saying the opposite of what I wrote.

JM

[chequita guevara]

There's nothing wrong with cultures going extinct, as long as the people in them aren't forced to give up their culture or are physically exterminated. It may be a little sad, but it's sad when children grow up too.

[Unimatrix11]

Well, i just try to bring this to everybodies attention: We need to stop thinking in these categories. When all the other parts of the world seem to be doing bad, why do we assume its their fault in the first place? It has been said, we need to fix their problems. We need to realize, their problems originate here. That´s why it´s a problem there and not here (sounds paradox, i know). The standard ´western´ person sees the world in general is not faring all too well, at least not compared to his immediate environment. What does he conclude? Well, everybody else must do something wrong. Fact is: We are doing something wrong. In fact so fundamentally wrong, that all of the solutions we tend to come up with are usally either self-defeating or can easily be refuted with an equally (un)sound solution. That is, because we think within the categories of an absurd system: capitalism.

JM, it seems that way, because you display a good deal of double-think (if you are a nation of immigrants, why do you need to propregate your people via reproduction - and isnt that exactly how you ´justify´ own kids over adoption in point 2?). You also get quite some priorities odd IMHO. Your culture doesnt need anything. You need your culture. You know, what i am saying? If you dont want to have kids, then you shouldnt have them anyways just because you think your culture needs something to propregate into - that is so 19th century at least to me... On the topic of people´s being genetically defined, you did in fact say, that it wouldnt be a big deal for groups. But on the other hand, cultures (=ca. peoples) have to assimlilate people either by way of migration or by reporuction of themselves - wasnt that what you were saying? Well then, having kids is one way to strenghten your culture (or ´Volksgemeinsschaft /-körper´). I am certainly no individualist, but wether i want to have children or not, i do not decide upon my cultures need for carriers, because i simply would not regard that as the function for my kids. It´s the other way around, that makes it a shoe: If the culture i live in means fullfillment to me, i can hope that the same culture could also provide that quality of living for my kids, and thus i find it having them desirable. The culture gets ´fed´ to the kids, not vice versa. And then of course i would hope that i would have provided my kid with enough sense of socialibilty to actively participate in said culture should it indeed happen to flourish in it.

I think with this i am out of this thread, since this has become massive thread-jack (not least done by me).

[Alinestra Covelia]

What's the opposite concept to a pedophile? As in: somebody who is really really freaked out and scared of children?

Pedophobe? Misopedist?

I asked my roommate this question and he said "a normal person". I think he was thinking of somebody who's sexually attracted to adult people, which was not my original intended question.

[Darius871]

As many may have seen, I've been showing interest in having kids lately. Not sure why this sudden turn of life philosophy. Sometimes I think having kids (yourself) is a bit selfish, better to adopt. But having your own will always be the better option. Because people tend to think of themselves as pretty good people, and they are likely to produce pretty good kids. But when you get someone else's kid, you're not sure what kind of problems you're getting. then again, the kid could turn out to be better than anything you could produce. . Anyways I'm rambling here.

If kids happen they happen, but in my experience most people who are truly dead-set on having kids (even if the relationship that'd create them hasn't started yet) are lonely fools desperate for unconditional love and they think kids are the easiest way to achieve that. If that's your primary motivation, just get a ****ing puppy and don't subject an innocent child to the misery of this world.

[Jon Miller]

How is a puppy anything like having a family?

And yaeh, I know that families often have a lot of disfuction, mine did. That didn't mean that I didn't sometimes like it and don't think that it is in general a great thing.

JM

[Darius871]

How is a puppy anything like having a family?

And yaeh, I know that families often have a lot of disfuction, mine did. That didn't mean that I didn't sometimes like it and don't think that it is in general a great thing.

JM

I didn't say get a puppy instead of a family, I said get a puppy instead of a family if your primary motivation (subconscious or otherwise) for creating children is to guarantee yourself unconditional love on a daily basis for its own sake, which is unfortunately all too common. OTOH, if you're genuinely committed to pouring your blood, sweat, and tears into sculpting a happy and productive member of society, then by all means have a dozen kids for all I care.

I guess my basic point is look inside yourself and make 100% sure the motivation isn't self-centered.

[Gatekeeper]

So, has anyone conceived a child since this thread began?

[ricketyclik]

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the species should reproduce itself (although we could do with a bit of downsizing at the moment). This doesn't mean that everyone must reproduce, simply that across the species there must be enough reproduction for self-perpetuation.

(This idea that because the world may be able to sustain more people it should is flawed - extraordinarily anthropocentric. Surely we should let other species have a go as well, and allow some buffer should some our life support systems fail or fluctuate.)

Given human diversity, our propensity for specialisation and our relatively assured success rate at reproduction, it seems to me that it's natural and just as well that there are some people who don't want to or can't reproduce.

[Jon Miller]

The issue is that those who don't want to reproduce are disapportionately the ones who can provide education, health, and other resources to their children.

JM

[ricketyclik]

The issue is that those who don't want to reproduce are disapportionately the ones who can provide education, health, and other resources to their children.

JM

Ironic, isn't it? The solution is, of course, obvious.

[Lorizael]

Genocide?