7 ms·

Immigration is not required, what is required is for Americans to have more children. I did my part, I had three, now the rest of y'all need to quit paying for

Immigration is not required, what is required is for Americans to have more children. I did my part, I had three, now the rest of y'all need to quit paying for toys for yourselves and start paying for the future.

pedrocr 9y ago
We actually need the exact opposite. Developed countries should keep having less children as each person in a developed country consumes much more of the planet's limited resources. Our best bet at having a livable planet in a hundred years is probably controlling population. Everything else gets driven by consumption demand.
- zanethomas 9y ago
  Sounds like you would be comfortable with China's Once Child Policy.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- vetinari 9y ago
  By your argument we should also stop immigration to developed countries, because once the immigrants arrive, they will consume the same amount of resources as the natives. You are claiming, that we cannot have that.
  - pedrocr 9y ago
    It will depend on what the remaining population of developing countries does. Developed countries have less children so if the immigrants send back money to develop their home country and also have less children like their host countries do it would be a large gain. Don't know if this has been studied but there should already be plenty of data points to choose from.
rainbowmverse 9y ago
I can't breed with most of the people I'm attracted to until science figures a few things out.
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  Same. And even if I wanted to have a kid with them it's not going to be for some ludicrous reason like maintaining the population of whites in the US.
freeflight 9y ago
Down the line, overpopulation is gonna affect all of us, as in "humanity as a whole". It's not like US American children are in any way less wasteful than other children, quite the opposite actually. Our problem isn't a lack of people, we actually have too many of them, the problem being how they are distributed. Fixing that problem by further overpopulating certain regions seems like a rather odd fix and mostly motivated by some kind of "genetic egoism" along the lines of "My genes are so great, can't have future humanity live without them!".
- zanethomas 9y ago
  My genes are so great you won't have a future humanity without them. You're welcome to save the future by not passing yours on.
  - jameskegel 9y ago
    Can you stop responding with asinine remarks to everything?
    - zanethomas 9y ago
      by following your example?
      - dang 9y ago
        We ban accounts that post like this. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > You're welcome to save the future by not passing yours on. It is weird how you make it sound so bad and insulting. Do you want to suggest that we humans live for no other reason than to procreate? Don't you think we, as a species, should be able to think a bit further ahead, instead of basing all our behavior and goals on procreating, like we are some kind of mindless virus? Rabbits might not be sentient or "smart" enough to realize when they are overpopulating a region and having a negative impact on the environment. But we humans most certainly are "smart" enough to realize it, yet we still act like rabbits to it.
phkahler 9y ago
>> what is required is for Americans to have more children. Wow, just wow. But I'll assume you're talking about the bigger picture of - if the country is to survive long term we'll need to have a higher birth rate, what could be done to encourage that. I'd say the first thing we have to do is get people off the economic treadmill. Stop encouraging people to pile on debt. When everyone is too busy trying to pay the rent there's a disincentive to have children.
- zanethomas 9y ago
  you assume correctly
lotsofpulp 9y ago
The future of who? With a widening wealth and income gap, and inability to provide for quality education/healthcare/life for one's children, what incentive do people who are struggling have?

pedrocr 9y ago

We actually need the exact opposite. Developed countries should keep having less children as each person in a developed country consumes much more of the planet's limited resources. Our best bet at having a livable planet in a hundred years is probably controlling population. Everything else gets driven by consumption demand.

zanethomas 9y ago
Sounds like you would be comfortable with China's Once Child Policy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
vetinari 9y ago
By your argument we should also stop immigration to developed countries, because once the immigrants arrive, they will consume the same amount of resources as the natives. You are claiming, that we cannot have that.
- pedrocr 9y ago
  It will depend on what the remaining population of developing countries does. Developed countries have less children so if the immigrants send back money to develop their home country and also have less children like their host countries do it would be a large gain. Don't know if this has been studied but there should already be plenty of data points to choose from.

rainbowmverse 9y ago

I can't breed with most of the people I'm attracted to until science figures a few things out.

jschwartzi 9y ago
Same. And even if I wanted to have a kid with them it's not going to be for some ludicrous reason like maintaining the population of whites in the US.

freeflight 9y ago

Down the line, overpopulation is gonna affect all of us, as in "humanity as a whole". It's not like US American children are in any way less wasteful than other children, quite the opposite actually. Our problem isn't a lack of people, we actually have too many of them, the problem being how they are distributed. Fixing that problem by further overpopulating certain regions seems like a rather odd fix and mostly motivated by some kind of "genetic egoism" along the lines of "My genes are so great, can't have future humanity live without them!".

zanethomas 9y ago
My genes are so great you won't have a future humanity without them. You're welcome to save the future by not passing yours on.
- jameskegel 9y ago
  Can you stop responding with asinine remarks to everything?
  - zanethomas 9y ago
    by following your example?
    - dang 9y ago
      We ban accounts that post like this. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- freeflight 9y ago
  > You're welcome to save the future by not passing yours on. It is weird how you make it sound so bad and insulting. Do you want to suggest that we humans live for no other reason than to procreate? Don't you think we, as a species, should be able to think a bit further ahead, instead of basing all our behavior and goals on procreating, like we are some kind of mindless virus? Rabbits might not be sentient or "smart" enough to realize when they are overpopulating a region and having a negative impact on the environment. But we humans most certainly are "smart" enough to realize it, yet we still act like rabbits to it.

phkahler 9y ago

>> what is required is for Americans to have more children. Wow, just wow. But I'll assume you're talking about the bigger picture of - if the country is to survive long term we'll need to have a higher birth rate, what could be done to encourage that. I'd say the first thing we have to do is get people off the economic treadmill. Stop encouraging people to pile on debt. When everyone is too busy trying to pay the rent there's a disincentive to have children.

zanethomas 9y ago
you assume correctly

lotsofpulp 9y ago

The future of who? With a widening wealth and income gap, and inability to provide for quality education/healthcare/life for one's children, what incentive do people who are struggling have?