3 ms·

Shaming people for intensely personal choices is rude. Cut it out. Your argument basically presupposes that there’s something desirable about suburban homes, a

Shaming people for intensely personal choices is rude. Cut it out. Your argument basically presupposes that there’s something desirable about suburban homes, and that people not buying them is abnormal. I find this both unconvincing and historically incoherent.

brightball 8y ago
My argument is that not having children en masse as a group goes against biology. It's happening in a lot of places too. https://www.businessinsider.com/do-it-for-denmark-ad-campaign-to-encourage-pregnancy-2015-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/do-it-for-denmark-ad-campaig... It's not shaming to point out a thing is happening or that it a thing is biologically necessary to further the human race. You're welcome to call it anything you want, but there's a lot of "shaming" that's gone in the other direction as well. I've watched it my entire life. Desired home locations are just a side effect.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Okay, then I’d argue that having 2 kids goes against biology. And that moving to a suburban home and schooling your kids rather than working them in the field is unnatural. That is after all, how humanity worked for a few Millenia.
  - brightball 8y ago
    If people don't reproduce, people stop existing. You're arguing for the Amish.
- vkou 8y ago
  Having access to automobiles, vaccination, running water, and anti-biotics goes against biology. On the other hand, getting eaten by a tiger, living with ringworms, having your teeth fall out before middle age, or having 50/50 odds of dying by the age of 4 is perfectly natural, does not go against biology. I don't think biology is a great litmus test for how we want to structure society.
  - brightball 8y ago
    Aside from automobiles, the other examples you have are things humans have done to further the survival of the species. More advanced versions of seeking food and shelter essentially. Which is a natural expectation of the species...
    - vkou 8y ago
      What if the survival of the species requires us to take steps to, over generations, reduce our population to ~1 billion?
- d1zzy 8y ago
  Yes, having kids is (currently) still the main way to propagate our species. It may not be so in the future and/or when lifespans increase many times it may make more sense to make much fewer kids. Even today, with a global fertility rate of 2.5 children per woman and a population of over 7 billion people I don't think there's any need to worry about biological mandates. On the contrary, I think that in developed countries where each human being consumes much more (and consequently generates more waste) than other countries the birth rate should be heavily lowered. Of course, our economy/society may not be engineered for that but better start doing it sooner than later.

brightball 8y ago

My argument is that not having children en masse as a group goes against biology. It's happening in a lot of places too. https://www.businessinsider.com/do-it-for-denmark-ad-campaign-to-encourage-pregnancy-2015-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/do-it-for-denmark-ad-campaig... It's not shaming to point out a thing is happening or that it a thing is biologically necessary to further the human race. You're welcome to call it anything you want, but there's a lot of "shaming" that's gone in the other direction as well. I've watched it my entire life. Desired home locations are just a side effect.

village-idiot 8y ago
Okay, then I’d argue that having 2 kids goes against biology. And that moving to a suburban home and schooling your kids rather than working them in the field is unnatural. That is after all, how humanity worked for a few Millenia.
- brightball 8y ago
  If people don't reproduce, people stop existing. You're arguing for the Amish.
vkou 8y ago
Having access to automobiles, vaccination, running water, and anti-biotics goes against biology. On the other hand, getting eaten by a tiger, living with ringworms, having your teeth fall out before middle age, or having 50/50 odds of dying by the age of 4 is perfectly natural, does not go against biology. I don't think biology is a great litmus test for how we want to structure society.
- brightball 8y ago
  Aside from automobiles, the other examples you have are things humans have done to further the survival of the species. More advanced versions of seeking food and shelter essentially. Which is a natural expectation of the species...
  - vkou 8y ago
    What if the survival of the species requires us to take steps to, over generations, reduce our population to ~1 billion?
d1zzy 8y ago
Yes, having kids is (currently) still the main way to propagate our species. It may not be so in the future and/or when lifespans increase many times it may make more sense to make much fewer kids. Even today, with a global fertility rate of 2.5 children per woman and a population of over 7 billion people I don't think there's any need to worry about biological mandates. On the contrary, I think that in developed countries where each human being consumes much more (and consequently generates more waste) than other countries the birth rate should be heavily lowered. Of course, our economy/society may not be engineered for that but better start doing it sooner than later.