4 ms·

You've got a valid point that available resources should factor into the decision making process for having a child. That said, if that's the only measure then

You've got a valid point that available resources should factor into the decision making process for having a child. That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children so clearly there has to be more to this. What if instead, a CEO is only allowed to take time off equal to or less than the average of every other employee.

aianus 11y ago
> That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children You say this like it's a bad thing. If only rich people had children we could nearly eliminate human suffering within a generation.
- datashovel 11y ago
  Sorry, but this is probably the most ignorant comment I've ever read on HN.
  - aianus 11y ago
    Why don't you enlighten us with a rebuttal, then?
    - plonh 11y ago
      Rich people need pooor laborers to create the wealth they get 50% as capitalists and consumers.
    - datashovel 11y ago
      If we're looking to figure out who should and should not be allowed to reproduce, I would start with the people who actually believe they're superior, and should be privileged by law in some way, just because they might have more money in their bank account. Those are the kinds of traits (whether genetic or not) that we should be trying to expunge from the population.
      - aianus 11y ago
        That's not a rebuttal, it's a strawman combined with a personal attack. I said nothing about disallowing anyone to reproduce. I just said if only rich people reproduced we could eliminate most human suffering. Learn to read.
        datashovel 11y ago
        Let's try this another way. Even though we apparently are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum here I'm going to go into this with an open mind and assume at the end of this short conversation I'm going to come out the other end learning something new. I'll lay out what I'm thinking here, and please explain to me where I've misunderstood and please clarify so we can get to the root of what you're talking about. First, I can't see how this is a strawman. Logically, in academia, perhaps you could argue this is a strawman because you technically didn't say the word "prevent", but in the "real world" I can't see how 50% of the entire world's population (or whatever percentage we're talking about here) would just agree with your hypothesis and say: "You know what, he's probably right. We, the poor people of the world are a burden on society and shouldn't be having children of our own. From this day forward we vow not to have children because we think this guy may be right, that it would truly end human suffering when it's all said and done". No. The only way this experiment would proceed is through a large-scale state-sponsored effort to prevent poor people from having children. Against their will. And not only this, but I'm almost positive that if this large-scale effort proceeded it would more than likely erupt into a civil (world?) war. Far from the original goal to "eliminate human suffering". Second, I can't see how this is a personal attack. That is unless you do believe a person's self worth is measured by the size of their bank account. And if you do believe a person's self-worth is measured by the size of their bank account, it's no more a personal attack than the attack you've made on poor people by insinuating that they are the root cause of human suffering on this planet, simply because they have the audacity to have children of their own.
        datashovel 11y ago
        EDIT: s/self[ -]worth/self-worth and intrinsic worth/
- striking 11y ago
  And the entire workforce that powers the rich. You seem to forget that capitalism only works when you have a captive group. In order for your life to be good, other people's lives have to be comparatively worse.
  - aianus 11y ago
    Who said anything about capitalism? With that small of an educated population we could sit back, automate everything, and hardly have to compete for resources at all (especially not necessities like food and rent).
    - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
      Or people would find new ways to make a new class to be abused/used.
    - edc117 11y ago
      You sound very ignorant. I don't mean this in a cruel or insulting way; you just sound like someone who has no idea what that kind of automation entails, the hard work and sweat and physical and mental labor that has gotten us to the point where that automation is viable for a (comparatively) small number of things. The working class quite literally feed you, clothe you, and keep you safe at night. Get out into the world, learn more about how things are created and whose shoulders you're standing on when you're seeing this golden future of yours.
      - aianus 11y ago
        There are plenty of things that we already know how to automate but don't do so purely because it's cheaper to pay someone desperate $8 an hour (or a fraction of that overseas) to do it manually instead. Not to mention the per-capita increases in efficiency we would see if the population was small enough that we could get by farming only the most fertile ground, burning only the easiest-to-extract oil, etc. > The working class quite literally feed you, clothe you, and keep you safe at night. Yes, and I'm saying it's cruel of them (us? I'm rich by world standards but not American ones.) to continue to have children that are condemned to a life of the same sort of servitude (or worse, famine and disease).
- ta0o0o0 11y ago
  If only rich people had children we could eliminate the human race with in a (few) generation(s).
- abalashov 11y ago
  Well, sure. At the cost of effectively exterminating people who weren't privileged enough to afford to continue their bloodline.

aianus 11y ago

> That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children You say this like it's a bad thing. If only rich people had children we could nearly eliminate human suffering within a generation.

datashovel 11y ago
Sorry, but this is probably the most ignorant comment I've ever read on HN.
- aianus 11y ago
  Why don't you enlighten us with a rebuttal, then?
  - plonh 11y ago
    Rich people need pooor laborers to create the wealth they get 50% as capitalists and consumers.
  - datashovel 11y ago
    If we're looking to figure out who should and should not be allowed to reproduce, I would start with the people who actually believe they're superior, and should be privileged by law in some way, just because they might have more money in their bank account. Those are the kinds of traits (whether genetic or not) that we should be trying to expunge from the population.
    - aianus 11y ago
      That's not a rebuttal, it's a strawman combined with a personal attack. I said nothing about disallowing anyone to reproduce. I just said if only rich people reproduced we could eliminate most human suffering. Learn to read.
      - datashovel 11y ago
        Let's try this another way. Even though we apparently are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum here I'm going to go into this with an open mind and assume at the end of this short conversation I'm going to come out the other end learning something new. I'll lay out what I'm thinking here, and please explain to me where I've misunderstood and please clarify so we can get to the root of what you're talking about. First, I can't see how this is a strawman. Logically, in academia, perhaps you could argue this is a strawman because you technically didn't say the word "prevent", but in the "real world" I can't see how 50% of the entire world's population (or whatever percentage we're talking about here) would just agree with your hypothesis and say: "You know what, he's probably right. We, the poor people of the world are a burden on society and shouldn't be having children of our own. From this day forward we vow not to have children because we think this guy may be right, that it would truly end human suffering when it's all said and done". No. The only way this experiment would proceed is through a large-scale state-sponsored effort to prevent poor people from having children. Against their will. And not only this, but I'm almost positive that if this large-scale effort proceeded it would more than likely erupt into a civil (world?) war. Far from the original goal to "eliminate human suffering". Second, I can't see how this is a personal attack. That is unless you do believe a person's self worth is measured by the size of their bank account. And if you do believe a person's self-worth is measured by the size of their bank account, it's no more a personal attack than the attack you've made on poor people by insinuating that they are the root cause of human suffering on this planet, simply because they have the audacity to have children of their own.
        datashovel 11y ago
        EDIT: s/self[ -]worth/self-worth and intrinsic worth/
striking 11y ago
And the entire workforce that powers the rich. You seem to forget that capitalism only works when you have a captive group. In order for your life to be good, other people's lives have to be comparatively worse.
- aianus 11y ago
  Who said anything about capitalism? With that small of an educated population we could sit back, automate everything, and hardly have to compete for resources at all (especially not necessities like food and rent).
  - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
    Or people would find new ways to make a new class to be abused/used.
  - edc117 11y ago
    You sound very ignorant. I don't mean this in a cruel or insulting way; you just sound like someone who has no idea what that kind of automation entails, the hard work and sweat and physical and mental labor that has gotten us to the point where that automation is viable for a (comparatively) small number of things. The working class quite literally feed you, clothe you, and keep you safe at night. Get out into the world, learn more about how things are created and whose shoulders you're standing on when you're seeing this golden future of yours.
    - aianus 11y ago
      There are plenty of things that we already know how to automate but don't do so purely because it's cheaper to pay someone desperate $8 an hour (or a fraction of that overseas) to do it manually instead. Not to mention the per-capita increases in efficiency we would see if the population was small enough that we could get by farming only the most fertile ground, burning only the easiest-to-extract oil, etc. > The working class quite literally feed you, clothe you, and keep you safe at night. Yes, and I'm saying it's cruel of them (us? I'm rich by world standards but not American ones.) to continue to have children that are condemned to a life of the same sort of servitude (or worse, famine and disease).
ta0o0o0 11y ago
If only rich people had children we could eliminate the human race with in a (few) generation(s).
abalashov 11y ago
Well, sure. At the cost of effectively exterminating people who weren't privileged enough to afford to continue their bloodline.