[Opinion] A theory about having babies

[konfab]

Do you dispute that the number of childless people has increased?

Oh definitely

Japan is in the situation it is in for the very reason that an increasing number of people are not having kids.

it isn't that much of a problem so long as you don't adopt a nihilistic mindset and bring in the entire third world into your country to re-populate it. Japan for example has really high property prices in its cities. As the population decreases, property prices will become much more affordable. When property becomes affordable, people will have more financial stability, thus they will have more children. The people who do want children's genes and memes(the Dawkins idea, not the images) will be passed on, whilst the ideas and genes of people who don't, will simply die with them.

 

[Ancalagon]

Oh definitely


it isn't that much of a problem so long as you don't adopt a nihilistic mindset and bring in the entire third world into your country to re-populate it. Japan for example has really high property prices in its cities. As the population decreases, property prices will become much more affordable. When property becomes affordable, people will have more financial stability, thus they will have more children. The people who do want children's genes and memes(the Dawkins idea, not the images) will be passed on, whilst the ideas and genes of people who don't, will simply die with them.

There are some economic concerns with the reduction in the number of people. I don't think most economic models used for a country's finances take into account the possibility of the population shrinking.

You have a small youth population economically active and paying taxes, vs a larger older population. Normally, the young are taxed more heavily and the old less heavily, with the idea being that it all balances out in the end.

 

[Nanfeishen]

Led to believe by millions of years of evolution as a sexually reproducing species.

Codswollop !
Prior to Religion it was about whether or not the tribe survived.
Then religion appeared on the scene, and the main con artists realized that to hold on to power, and increase their flock, it would be a good idea if they made it sinful not to have rugrats. Not to mention that a child raised in a religious household is not likely to leave the religion they are raised in, and if they do lets ensure they are condemned or excommunicated from the group.
Its only really since the beginning of the 20th century that people began to realise that they dont need to be told by some mythical sky monkey that procreation is for the better, and people have the freedom to choose, and even halt the process.
Of course in todays age that doesnt bode well for politicians and the overall economic models and projections of growth, as it ultimately means population decline which in the long term becomes a decline in revenue because less people, less spending, less tax payers, less consumers.
So we are fed bulldust about survival of the species, or some convenient Darwinian nonsense about hard wiring to breed and procreate, while being inundate with mass media romanticised propoganda about family this and family that all just to ensure that money keeps flowing and ultimately governments dont need to pay out and have to care about rising elderly populations.
The notion that its imprtant to have children is nothing more than a social construct, just one of many.

 

[rambo919]

Well they weren't wrong. There's a lot more starving people in the world these days. Just look at Africa.

That's not a population problem, it's a mindset problem.

 

[thestaggy]

Own goal right there. Weren't you just arguing how family wasn't needed?

But why be selective?

Do you ask family or friends to pop in twice a day to check on your house while you are away?

As for my house? No it can look after itself very well. It is, after all an inanimate object. Just like my car, I have insurance on it such that I am covered if anything happens to it. Which is why I don't like car guards either.

Each to their own. Our neighbours/friends across the road spent a week in Mauritius recently. They asked us to check on their house and cat while they were away. They do the same for us. We had issues with our gate motor and in the past they have phoned us while we were out to tell us that our main gate was open.

We are also insured and have armed response but we still like to have someone come past and have a look.

Probably the grandparents so that they can be spoiled. But then again, I am not making the argument that people shouldn't have children. Nevertheless, I don't see why people have children and pets if they are going to palm them off to someone else to look after when they become inconvenient. My wife's dog has serious attachment issues and thus wouldn't be able to stay with anyone other than family, heck the dumb animal barely manages to stay sane when we go to work.

Cut it anyway you like, asking someone to feed your cat for 7-days while you are away is far easier than asking someone to watch your child(ren).

It is far more difficult to do it. Most places that you rent are not pet friendly.

Can't be that bad if a friend renting a garden cottage is allowed to have two cats. Big fuss.

 

[konfab]

Well they weren't wrong. There's a lot more starving people in the world these days. Just look at Africa.

You are wrong, and they are wrong.


https://humanprogress.org/dwline?p=114&r0=24&r1=82&yf=1992&yl=2016&high=0&reg=3&reg1=0

And the reason why there is starvation isn't because the world isn't producing enough food. It is because people still live totalitarian, socialist $hyteholes.

 

[thestaggy]

Oh definitely


it isn't that much of a problem so long as you don't adopt a nihilistic mindset and bring in the entire third world into your country to re-populate it. Japan for example has really high property prices in its cities. As the population decreases, property prices will become much more affordable. When property becomes affordable, people will have more financial stability, thus they will have more children. The people who do want children's genes and memes(the Dawkins idea, not the images) will be passed on, whilst the ideas and genes of people who don't, will simply die with them.

Mindset change at play as has been mentioned in this thread.

Japan has a new generation of career-focused women that don't want kids. Then there are the young men. Vice done a documentary on this. Young men are increasingly focused on their virtual worlds while young women are increasingly focused on climbing the corporate ladder. They are not meeting in the middle.

 

[konfab]

Cut it anyway you like, asking someone to feed your cat for 7-days while you are away is far easier than asking someone to watch your child(ren).

You can take your children with you and enjoy the holiday with them.

I was more thinking along the lines of palming the kids off for a few hours for undisturbed sexytime.

Can't be that bad if a friend renting a garden cottage is allowed to have two cats. Big fuss.

 

[Mila]

Or even six from one. I'd be poor too if I had that many children.

I do think there are a variety of reasons why poor people have more children than would seem sensible.


Sure some people regret having children. I'd expect it to be primarily those who have them young.


No, it's the same reason someone cannot change their genetic sex.

Imagine 6... just.. i can not even imagine sending one to uni. Do you let the forst one go and tell him to pay for the next one

i think its one of the last few free pleasures left. Not the kids the sex.
Thats why everyone should have a contraceptive implant. To start with.
Shag your lungs out until 30.
( this is said jokingly cause I know money doesn’t make good parents)

the men having babies thing.
I mean.
We talk on smart phones
Have a robot on mars
Clone animals.
If men reeeeeaaaaalllllyy wanted to have babies they would have figured out a way to have them by now

 

[Mila]

I disagree with the last bit. The only reason we can't carry babies is because our bodies aren't made for it.

Read my reply on that above

 

[Mila]

I think the will to breed in people manifests as wanting to care for something, presumably something that they view as vulnerable. Most just find substitute children. Examples of which being the following:
1) Pets/animals (especially rescue animals)
2) Other people's children (So they become involved with education, both school and university)
3) Other people (paternalistic, usually leftist politicians/activists are guilty of this. )
4) Dolls (creepy alert).
5) The earth. (environmentalists)

There are people who don't want children who don't do any of these things I provided. But they are usually not the caring type.

Not really.
I do animal rescue because humans are cunts not because I like to care for something.
I would love not to worry about pets and things and have a lock up and go.
Best part about helping in rescue is giving them away to someone else.
I have no need to nurture anything.
I do not feel motherly when I bottle feed baby animals. Its a pain in the ass.
They do not shyt for them selves either

You still believe something society has made you believe.
We are made to nurture and mother things.

nope.
i plant things to eat.
I do not litter because i like to live in a clean environment.
Dolls are creepy
People can gfts.
I can not care for human rescue.
Please there is enough.
Euthanize the ugly useless spineless unwanted homeless terrorists
animals, i do because humans are shyty. If humans were less shyty i could have had a clean house with no rescue animals.
The state of mind is. Lets sterilize everything. If there is nothing left I have nothing to rescue. That would be perfect.
No rhinos
Tigers
Lions
Pandas
Who the f cares really.
My life isn’t lacking because the DOdo is missing

You will be surprised to learn most people a

 

[SaiyanZ]

You are wrong, and they are wrong.
View attachment 718866

https://humanprogress.org/dwline?p=114&r0=24&r1=82&yf=1992&yl=2016&high=0&reg=3&reg1=0

And the reason why there is starvation isn't because the world isn't producing enough food. It is because people still live totalitarian, socialist $hyteholes.

This is exactly what the rest of my post which you didn't quote was about:

Yeah the world may be able to support more people but the real question is whether your country/continent can support more. When the "have nots" outbreed the "haves", the only result is poverty. You can't breed a country into success unless the individuals having the kids are already self-sufficient and prosperous. i.e. not just surviving day to day and also not dependent/leeching on others.

Look at it another way. Your 2 kids will have to support not only themselves in 20 years, but the other 6 kids born into poverty from a not so well off family.

Also remember that the world population has grown significantly in that time period of your graph. So you have a lot more people with a calorie shortfall even though the shortfall per person has reduced.

 

[konfab]

You say:

You still believe something society has made you believe.
We are made to nurture and mother things.

Yet:

Not really.
I do animal rescue because humans are cunts not because I like to care for something.
I would love not to worry about pets and things and have a lock up and go.
Best part about helping in rescue is giving them away to someone else.
I have no need to nurture anything.
I do not feel motherly when I bottle feed baby animals. Its a pain in the ass.
They do not shyt for them selves either

nope.
i plant things to eat.
I do not litter because i like to live in a clean environment.
Dolls are creepy
People can gfts.
I can not care for human rescue.
Please there is enough.

That is an awful lot of rationalising for someone who says they don't want to nurture and look after things. Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean you are not wired to do it anyway. I don't think any parent enjoys waking up at 2:00 to feed their baby, but curiously, they do it anyway. This is because the circuits in your brain are evolved for nurture, whether you deny it or not.

 

[konfab]

This is exactly what the rest of my post which you didn't quote was about:

The reason why Africa has shortages is because of dumb policies like socialism, not because of a lack of natural resources.

 

[Mila]

You say:


Yet:


That is an awful lot of rationalising for someone who says they don't want to nurture and look after things. Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean you are not wired to do it anyway. I don't think any parent enjoys waking up at 2:00 to feed their baby, but curiously, they do it anyway. This is because the circuits in your brain are evolved for nurture, whether you deny it or not.

The point is we can now say no.
I don’t want to do it.
Its not because we ( collectively men and woman) are less fertile we just have more choice.
And it is ok not to want or need to nurture anything.

 

[SaiyanZ]

The reason why Africa has shortages is because of dumb policies like socialism, not because of a lack of natural resources.

We live in one of those socialist states so you have to think about the future your kids are going to have when they have to support not only themselves, but a whole other bunch of leeches. With people who cannot afford to have kids, still having loads of kids, the leeching can only get worse in SA.

We also live in a global environment, so if you have to support a bunch of others as well as yourself, this will become unsustainable relative to the rest of the world. As in most of the 1st worst countries, everyone just has to look out for themselves. The average person in SA will get poorer and poorer relatively.

 

[konfab]

We live in one of those socialist states so you have to think about the future your kids are going to have when they have to support not only themselves, but a whole other bunch of leeches. With people who cannot afford to have kids, still having loads of kids, the leeching can only get worse in SA.

I am not a pack of communists determine how I should live my life. Resigning yourself to their authoritarianism is exactly how they win.

As in most of the 1st worst countries, everyone just has to look out for themselves.

Which is exactly what I am doing.

 

[Jabulani22]

It’s actually slowing down at same rates based on urbanization and woman’s rights being enforced in particular where women in the workforce happens.

ie if you take the rate of urbanization in countries in Africa vs where others were, you see the same if not worse “fertility” rates because the impact is compounded ie urbanization WITH women’s rights & working genial populous.

Of cause 1% of 200million is not the same as 1% of 5.6B? Billion (Africa/1.2B+ Asia/4.4B)

Yeah this is evidenced by the fact that africa's population hasnt exploded over the last 150 years.

 

[Jabulani22]

That's a definite reason in countries where parents have to pay for things out of their earnings. It will be much less significant in the social democracies that provide high levels of support.


The future is always uncertain. If that were a reason our ancestors would have had no children.

The rest are the reasons that more educated and affluent people tend to have children later.


Fertility rates are merely how many children people have, not indicative of any limit. Whatever oestrogen may be out there is not the thing keeping families small.


Or even six from one. I'd be poor too if I had that many children.

I do think there are a variety of reasons why poor people have more children than would seem sensible.


If they were truly god-fearing they'd have started at 18 (maybe even earlier), have one a year and hit a dozen by 30.


Well that explains religion.


Based on your own claim and the research cited in the article there would be more babies.

Sure some people regret having children. I'd expect it to be primarily those who have them young.


No, it's the same reason someone cannot change their genetic sex.

Lol , exogenous estrogen affecting male sperm count is not affecting birth rates ?
That is a completely ignorant statement.

 

[Jabulani22]

*Credible* Reference for this "fact"?

Go read up on the lengths men have to go to just to get TRT , the steroid community has long been advising people about how to get treatment as it is not afforded to men as easily since the lowering of the limit for low test.