4 ms·

Tone: deliberately somewhat inflammatory, in the hopes of sparking a discussion; this is in addition to all the "standard" reasons people give. Because most tr

by defen 9y ago

Tone: deliberately somewhat inflammatory, in the hopes of sparking a discussion; this is in addition to all the "standard" reasons people give. Because most traits, including IQ and conscientiousness, are strongly heritable, and therefore assortative mating + smart-people-not-having-kids is one of the worst large-scale social dynamics happening today. Because people who deliberately choose not to have kids when they are otherwise capable (financially, mentally, physically) are free-riding on the hard work of everyone else.

mnm1 9y ago
Seems to me it's the people that have kids that generally free ride on society, not the other way around (not that there's anything wrong with that). Also, it's incredibly authoritative to expect people who are capable to have kids. Romania tried that in the 70s and 80s with Ceauseascu banning all contraception. Well the people gave him the only Christmas gift a person who bans contraceptives ever deserves: execution. That was the greatest Christmas in Romanian history.
- oliwarner 9y ago
  There are other ways to influence this. The biggest problem society can face in this regard is unsupported children. No snobbery here but this is a problem we can throw money at. Better schools, better class sizes, free school meals to combat malnutrition, adult education to fight multi-generational unemployment. Middle class families are already doing their bit here. Additional income taxes on DINKs (via higher base rates and breaks for supported children) could really help the next generation of lower class children, and therefore society as a whole.
oliwarner 9y ago
AKA, eugenics. Obviously a controversial word thanks to modern history but at a personal level, this is what drives populations; a belief (innate or otherwise) that your offspring will make the world better. But even past the genetic level, as somebody with education and moderate means, I do feel like our children will also be well educated and with the support of our resources will be able to make positive changes to the world. I happen to agree with you on the broader point. People who put their lifestyle/career ahead of family might be a net drain on society. But you can't force people to procreate or stop others based on their socio-economic standing. All you can do is give disadvantaged children a step up with better resources: better public schooling, early-years nurseries, free school meals, etc. And adult education for those without jobs. And pay for that with higher income taxes at the middle class, with breaks for having and supporting children (within limit). Essentially an added tax on DINKs to support lower class children.

by defen 9y ago

mnm1 9y ago

Seems to me it's the people that have kids that generally free ride on society, not the other way around (not that there's anything wrong with that). Also, it's incredibly authoritative to expect people who are capable to have kids. Romania tried that in the 70s and 80s with Ceauseascu banning all contraception. Well the people gave him the only Christmas gift a person who bans contraceptives ever deserves: execution. That was the greatest Christmas in Romanian history.

oliwarner 9y ago
There are other ways to influence this. The biggest problem society can face in this regard is unsupported children. No snobbery here but this is a problem we can throw money at. Better schools, better class sizes, free school meals to combat malnutrition, adult education to fight multi-generational unemployment. Middle class families are already doing their bit here. Additional income taxes on DINKs (via higher base rates and breaks for supported children) could really help the next generation of lower class children, and therefore society as a whole.

oliwarner 9y ago

AKA, eugenics. Obviously a controversial word thanks to modern history but at a personal level, this is what drives populations; a belief (innate or otherwise) that your offspring will make the world better. But even past the genetic level, as somebody with education and moderate means, I do feel like our children will also be well educated and with the support of our resources will be able to make positive changes to the world. I happen to agree with you on the broader point. People who put their lifestyle/career ahead of family might be a net drain on society. But you can't force people to procreate or stop others based on their socio-economic standing. All you can do is give disadvantaged children a step up with better resources: better public schooling, early-years nurseries, free school meals, etc. And adult education for those without jobs. And pay for that with higher income taxes at the middle class, with breaks for having and supporting children (within limit). Essentially an added tax on DINKs to support lower class children.