3 ms·

You are hurting no one but yourself Easily debatable. Not that we should be providing government healthcare anyway. Also debatable, and if single-payer healt

You are hurting no one but yourself Easily debatable. Not that we should be providing government healthcare anyway. Also debatable, and if single-payer healthcare does exist it implicitly means that obesity has an effect on others. It's silly to take liberalism to an extreme. there is only so much land, so much sunlight Land used for agriculture has actually stayed the same or slightly declined since 1990. When there are good times, people multiply Evidence suggests that in developed economies, people do precisely the opposite. there are good times, people multiply. Poverty is inherent to nature -- some bears are born rich (big and strong), while others scrape by their entire lives, and may or may not reproduce. If they all had as much salmon as they wanted, their population would increase until there was poverty again. Humans are not bears. A large number of people have essentially unlimited access to food, and yet done reproduce en masse. I expect, though I haven't looked, that birth rates would actually inversely correlated with wealth. Only workaround is eugenics You have failed to demonstrate a problem to be worked around. I would rather have freedom to reproduce and poverty than totalitarianism and the "theoretical promise" of no poverty A preposterous non sequitur, given that it's quite possible to imagine ways to eliminate poverty without reverting to totalitarianism.

antisthenes 10y ago
> Humans are not bears. A large number of people have essentially unlimited access to food, and yet done reproduce en masse. I expect, though I haven't looked, that birth rates would actually inversely correlated with wealth. You should look, then. Wealth is positively correlated with fertility. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1692/20150153 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1692/2015... What's inversely correlated with fertility is education, but fertility declines with rising education only because parents realize it is advantageous to spend more resources per child. > Evidence suggests that in developed economies, people do precisely the opposite. That's because you're arguing from a false premise. Perceptively, then, maybe things are not as good as you would think (especially not as good as people in the SV developer bubble think), otherwise people would multiply at a much higher rate. I implore you to do some actual math to see how much one needs to earn to be able to have kids above the replacement rate (so, around 2.2), without receiving any government assistance (thus entering a poverty trap) and where that earning rate resides relative to the median household income in the US right now. The results may surprise you. > A preposterous non sequitur, given that it's quite possible to imagine ways to eliminate poverty without reverting to totalitarianism. One great way to eliminate poverty is to keep redefining the poverty line until there are no longer people in poverty! And it's completely totalitarianism-free.

antisthenes 10y ago

> Humans are not bears. A large number of people have essentially unlimited access to food, and yet done reproduce en masse. I expect, though I haven't looked, that birth rates would actually inversely correlated with wealth. You should look, then. Wealth is positively correlated with fertility. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1692/20150153 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1692/2015... What's inversely correlated with fertility is education, but fertility declines with rising education only because parents realize it is advantageous to spend more resources per child. > Evidence suggests that in developed economies, people do precisely the opposite. That's because you're arguing from a false premise. Perceptively, then, maybe things are not as good as you would think (especially not as good as people in the SV developer bubble think), otherwise people would multiply at a much higher rate. I implore you to do some actual math to see how much one needs to earn to be able to have kids above the replacement rate (so, around 2.2), without receiving any government assistance (thus entering a poverty trap) and where that earning rate resides relative to the median household income in the US right now. The results may surprise you. > A preposterous non sequitur, given that it's quite possible to imagine ways to eliminate poverty without reverting to totalitarianism. One great way to eliminate poverty is to keep redefining the poverty line until there are no longer people in poverty! And it's completely totalitarianism-free.