4 ms·

Competitive woodcutting is extremely exhausting (I imagine) but we don't subsidize it or demand that non-woodcutters take equivalent time off to compensate. Ha

Competitive woodcutting is extremely exhausting (I imagine) but we don't subsidize it or demand that non-woodcutters take equivalent time off to compensate. Having children is a choice. If you're about to say that women will be discriminated against on the basis that they might have children, it would be easy to allow them to be docked pay. This has an immediate "ugh" reaction because as a society we put mothers and bearing children on a pedestal. Having children is a bad thing for the world, and those who choose to have children are definitely the more privileged.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Having children is not a choice, it is a matter of survival. Below replacement fertility is a real problem with so far unknown results. You do end up in a hole where "it is a choice but everyone who takes it is penalized" is the actual result. (at least for some time) If it is out beneficial, it is not a choice anyway or one only rich can afford. You said it yourself.
- zimablue 8y ago
  We are not at below replacement rate though, globally. And we could sustain it for a very long time, at least hundreds of generations. It's not a relevant problem
CalRobert 8y ago
It depends on one's philosophy I guess. Having more than the replacement rate is bad for the world. On average, even having the replacement rate is bad for the world (for now). Maybe human extinction would be good for the world depending on your view of what good is (an unspoilt ecological Eden sounds nice - though I like the idea of at least a few people around) However, it's worth noting that countries with high gender equality (including shared parental leave) tend to have below-replacement birthrates. It kind of makes sense that letting people have a kid and stay in the workforce means fewer kids - being a working parent with 1 kid is hard enough (even with leave). Even with fully shared parental leave, having a kid is more expensive if you have a career. By contrast, if having a kid knocks you out of the workplace entirely it makes the cost of having another lower. My wife and I have a kid and we have indeed thought "well, if we have two kids the creche fees nearly double, and the math doesn't work out, so if we're going to stay a two-income family we really can only have one". And we all end up paying for crap we don't want to. Buying a house is a choice but before I left the US my taxes subsidized the insanely stupid mortgage interest tax deduction. I HATE paying for roads through taxes. I think they should be completely tolled and made to support themselves, and that if the externalities were priced in most travel would be via bike/ebike/walking/public transport. But I don't get much choice; my taxes pay for them. We have sprawling roads _everywhere_, there's no peace and quiet _anywhere_, and civilisation (including today's children) may die a horrible death as a result.

AstralStorm 8y ago

Having children is not a choice, it is a matter of survival. Below replacement fertility is a real problem with so far unknown results. You do end up in a hole where "it is a choice but everyone who takes it is penalized" is the actual result. (at least for some time) If it is out beneficial, it is not a choice anyway or one only rich can afford. You said it yourself.

zimablue 8y ago
We are not at below replacement rate though, globally. And we could sustain it for a very long time, at least hundreds of generations. It's not a relevant problem

CalRobert 8y ago

It depends on one's philosophy I guess. Having more than the replacement rate is bad for the world. On average, even having the replacement rate is bad for the world (for now). Maybe human extinction would be good for the world depending on your view of what good is (an unspoilt ecological Eden sounds nice - though I like the idea of at least a few people around) However, it's worth noting that countries with high gender equality (including shared parental leave) tend to have below-replacement birthrates. It kind of makes sense that letting people have a kid and stay in the workforce means fewer kids - being a working parent with 1 kid is hard enough (even with leave). Even with fully shared parental leave, having a kid is more expensive if you have a career. By contrast, if having a kid knocks you out of the workplace entirely it makes the cost of having another lower. My wife and I have a kid and we have indeed thought "well, if we have two kids the creche fees nearly double, and the math doesn't work out, so if we're going to stay a two-income family we really can only have one". And we all end up paying for crap we don't want to. Buying a house is a choice but before I left the US my taxes subsidized the insanely stupid mortgage interest tax deduction. I HATE paying for roads through taxes. I think they should be completely tolled and made to support themselves, and that if the externalities were priced in most travel would be via bike/ebike/walking/public transport. But I don't get much choice; my taxes pay for them. We have sprawling roads _everywhere_, there's no peace and quiet _anywhere_, and civilisation (including today's children) may die a horrible death as a result.