3 ms·

> So those who benefit the most from resource depletion (i.e. those who can afford the hypothetical Baby Tax) would be free to have as many babies as they want,

by 2ion 9y ago

> So those who benefit the most from resource depletion (i.e. those who can afford the hypothetical Baby Tax) would be free to have as many babies as they want, while the poor, already impeded in most activities and burdened by the cost of livinng, would make a sacrifice. Yes. Because those population strata, not only in the US but across the world, produce the bulk of population with no education, high ecological impact, and scarred by social depravation. It doesn't advance humanity toward an 22nd century-appropriate standard of living to raise a vast population of people who are to become even more utterly worthless in the face of automation and extreme competition even among the elite of the 1st world. It is beyond me how humanists can support unlimited population growth/"self expression of the individual/right to give birth" when that populuation growth is going to drive countries and continents toward a demographic and social catastrophe. Then again, my personal opinion is we are already on track and about to arrive there on schedule, so what gives.

thriftwy 9y ago
You're barking at a wrong tree here. Absolute absolute majority of children in poverty and without access to education are born outside the USA. You solve nothing other than being explicitly mean to (I assume) your compatriots. See if it gets you anywhere in the long run. Let me repeat it for you: you've got two arguments and they're in major conflict. You can't use both and neither one holds water sole.
- 2ion 9y ago
  > Absolute absolute majority of children in poverty and without access to education are born outside the USA. That's a fact. Just that doesn't mean that the USA would do better now or in the future with more poor people giving birth to more disadvantaged children inside its own borders. Also, I wasn't explicitly limiting my argument to the United States on purpose. > You solve nothing other than being explicitly mean to (I assume) your compatriots. [I'm not American.] All I'm advocating is a realistic and pragmatic approach to demographic management. The goal should be to ameliorate life for any given compatriot in the long run. Though of course in the long run, the population of the present will be dead.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    > with more poor people giving birth to more disadvantaged children Maybe they wouldn't be poor if not for excessive charges in some areas? How is that for an idea? Many people who are considered "poor" in the USA, would be considered "totally ok, just in slightly disadvantaged line of work" in less polarizing locales. That after a safety net that won't put $10k worth of charges on you after hospital visit. There are poor and marginal, who should probably be incentivized to avoid children - and then there's working poor, who should have their condition fixed. That's all.
intopieces 9y ago
>a vast population of people who are to become even more utterly worthless in the face of automation "At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir." "Are there no prisons?" "Plenty of prisons..." "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "Both very busy, sir..." "Those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

by 2ion 9y ago

thriftwy 9y ago

You're barking at a wrong tree here. Absolute absolute majority of children in poverty and without access to education are born outside the USA. You solve nothing other than being explicitly mean to (I assume) your compatriots. See if it gets you anywhere in the long run. Let me repeat it for you: you've got two arguments and they're in major conflict. You can't use both and neither one holds water sole.

2ion 9y ago
> Absolute absolute majority of children in poverty and without access to education are born outside the USA. That's a fact. Just that doesn't mean that the USA would do better now or in the future with more poor people giving birth to more disadvantaged children inside its own borders. Also, I wasn't explicitly limiting my argument to the United States on purpose. > You solve nothing other than being explicitly mean to (I assume) your compatriots. [I'm not American.] All I'm advocating is a realistic and pragmatic approach to demographic management. The goal should be to ameliorate life for any given compatriot in the long run. Though of course in the long run, the population of the present will be dead.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  > with more poor people giving birth to more disadvantaged children Maybe they wouldn't be poor if not for excessive charges in some areas? How is that for an idea? Many people who are considered "poor" in the USA, would be considered "totally ok, just in slightly disadvantaged line of work" in less polarizing locales. That after a safety net that won't put $10k worth of charges on you after hospital visit. There are poor and marginal, who should probably be incentivized to avoid children - and then there's working poor, who should have their condition fixed. That's all.

intopieces 9y ago

>a vast population of people who are to become even more utterly worthless in the face of automation "At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir." "Are there no prisons?" "Plenty of prisons..." "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "Both very busy, sir..." "Those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."