4 ms·

How much of this issue is related to having a part of the population think that people having children is solely a private question? "You had children, why shou

How much of this issue is related to having a part of the population think that people having children is solely a private question? "You had children, why should I bear your burden!" If none of us had children there would d be no economy to support anyone's life in, let's say, 40 years from now. People making and raising new sane and healthy people should be considered a social and common good, for the sake of all, and should be protected and encouraged. Maybe not too many children, true, but at least enough to keep some semblance of population balance, no?

ngngngng 6y ago
Yep. If you want to see something scary, go browse reddit.com/r/childfree It's an entire community of people that feel like heroes for not having children, and despise the thought of even having to come into contact with a child. It carries a similar religious fervor to veganism but it doesn't actually help anyone or anything.
- extrawork99 6y ago
  Lol. Found the person that can only identify as a breeder. Not having children is the most impactful thing you can do environmentally. Also: Veganism literally doesn’t actually help anything at all.
- asciident 6y ago
  I'm not advocating for the mindset there, but can't you see a justification of why that might be? I think reasonable people can debate whether or not overpopulation is the main contributor to the environmental disaster upon us that is an existential crises for humans on this planet. Under that perspective, wouldn't those who chose not to have children, while it was an unpopular option, be the heroes?
  - rimliu 6y ago
    It is underpopulation, not overpopulation that will be a problem soon (and already is in some parts of the world).
wayneftw 6y ago
I’ve always thought that people should need to get a license to have a baby. You need a license to pull fish out of a river or to plant bamboo in your own yard, but any moron is allowed to make new people. How does that make any sense? With a baby license, hopefully we would actually only make new sane, healthy people - currently that’s not happening because the world is chock full of unhealthy idiots that I don’t want to bear the burden of supporting. It’s not a perfect idea, but if it’s a societal concern as you said, why shouldn’t we regulate it?
- thursday0987 6y ago
  > I’ve always thought that people should need to get a license to have a baby. what a perfect idea! Then Trump could sign an executive order saying "no licenses for black people" and bam - racism is solved forever. /s (obviously)
  - jajsd3udf 6y ago
    I know it's not your main point, but this kind of simplistic reasoning that "racism = Trump" is precisely what white privilege/ignorance is about.
- nicbou 6y ago
  Who hands out the licences?
- garden_hermit 6y ago
  It starts to approach eugenics pretty quickly, which we as a society have pretty much rejected. But we do regulate the raising of children, to a certain extent. For example, we regulate school curriculum to install a certain set of values and knowledge in children. As a society, we also attempt to regulate certain kinds of parenting, by making certain forms of child abuse and neglect illegal.
  - seattletech 6y ago
    Well we tolerate eugenics in some ways though. Look at the prevalence of Down's syndrome children now vs. the advent of accurate prenatal testing
nicbou 6y ago
As I understand it, we already subsidise child-rearing through taxation. Single, childless people are taxed at a higher rate. This is fine. However, this is happening at a smaller, more arbitrary scale. It's not "I support our future through a legally defined contribution", but "my colleague is working 25% less and still gets paid the same, but I need to take PTO to get a haircut". I think it depends on how you frame it. 1. We should all get equal treatment. Parents enjoys benefits that other employees don't. Their personal life can affect their performance, but that doesn't apply to other employees. 2. We're all in this situation together. To each according to their needs, from each according to their capacity. I think both are true.
- tbatchelli 6y ago
  It is complicated, I agree. Tax cuts don't really make that much of a difference at the end of the day. Loss of job promotions, inability to take the same financial risks, childcare, education, lack of downtime, etc, all I think have a much bigger impact financially. But it is also understandable to think that it is unfair to make non-parents pick up the slack for those who are parents. Although as a society we already pick up the slack for those who are unable to work. Again, it is a question of wether we think there is a social good to have some of us raise children to become, hopefully, taxpaying adults, and if this is a common good, then who and how should bear the burden? Only the parents?
- ak217 6y ago
  Not disputing your other points, but: > we already subsidise child-rearing through taxation. Single, childless people are taxed at a higher rate In the US, being married is a tax advantage only if one partner earns much more than the other. Otherwise it's a wash. In the US, the child tax credit is $2K per child per year. In most cases, this does not come close to covering the costs of raising a child. So, no, for most people being discussed in the article (generally, dual earners in HCOL US areas), child-rearing is not significantly subsidized through taxation (at least not at the income tax level as you implied).
  - ergocoder 6y ago

ngngngng 6y ago

Yep. If you want to see something scary, go browse reddit.com/r/childfree It's an entire community of people that feel like heroes for not having children, and despise the thought of even having to come into contact with a child. It carries a similar religious fervor to veganism but it doesn't actually help anyone or anything.

extrawork99 6y ago
Lol. Found the person that can only identify as a breeder. Not having children is the most impactful thing you can do environmentally. Also: Veganism literally doesn’t actually help anything at all.
asciident 6y ago
I'm not advocating for the mindset there, but can't you see a justification of why that might be? I think reasonable people can debate whether or not overpopulation is the main contributor to the environmental disaster upon us that is an existential crises for humans on this planet. Under that perspective, wouldn't those who chose not to have children, while it was an unpopular option, be the heroes?
- rimliu 6y ago
  It is underpopulation, not overpopulation that will be a problem soon (and already is in some parts of the world).

wayneftw 6y ago

I’ve always thought that people should need to get a license to have a baby. You need a license to pull fish out of a river or to plant bamboo in your own yard, but any moron is allowed to make new people. How does that make any sense? With a baby license, hopefully we would actually only make new sane, healthy people - currently that’s not happening because the world is chock full of unhealthy idiots that I don’t want to bear the burden of supporting. It’s not a perfect idea, but if it’s a societal concern as you said, why shouldn’t we regulate it?

thursday0987 6y ago
> I’ve always thought that people should need to get a license to have a baby. what a perfect idea! Then Trump could sign an executive order saying "no licenses for black people" and bam - racism is solved forever. /s (obviously)
- jajsd3udf 6y ago
  I know it's not your main point, but this kind of simplistic reasoning that "racism = Trump" is precisely what white privilege/ignorance is about.
nicbou 6y ago
Who hands out the licences?
garden_hermit 6y ago
It starts to approach eugenics pretty quickly, which we as a society have pretty much rejected. But we do regulate the raising of children, to a certain extent. For example, we regulate school curriculum to install a certain set of values and knowledge in children. As a society, we also attempt to regulate certain kinds of parenting, by making certain forms of child abuse and neglect illegal.
- seattletech 6y ago
  Well we tolerate eugenics in some ways though. Look at the prevalence of Down's syndrome children now vs. the advent of accurate prenatal testing

nicbou 6y ago

As I understand it, we already subsidise child-rearing through taxation. Single, childless people are taxed at a higher rate. This is fine. However, this is happening at a smaller, more arbitrary scale. It's not "I support our future through a legally defined contribution", but "my colleague is working 25% less and still gets paid the same, but I need to take PTO to get a haircut". I think it depends on how you frame it. 1. We should all get equal treatment. Parents enjoys benefits that other employees don't. Their personal life can affect their performance, but that doesn't apply to other employees. 2. We're all in this situation together. To each according to their needs, from each according to their capacity. I think both are true.

tbatchelli 6y ago
It is complicated, I agree. Tax cuts don't really make that much of a difference at the end of the day. Loss of job promotions, inability to take the same financial risks, childcare, education, lack of downtime, etc, all I think have a much bigger impact financially. But it is also understandable to think that it is unfair to make non-parents pick up the slack for those who are parents. Although as a society we already pick up the slack for those who are unable to work. Again, it is a question of wether we think there is a social good to have some of us raise children to become, hopefully, taxpaying adults, and if this is a common good, then who and how should bear the burden? Only the parents?
ak217 6y ago
Not disputing your other points, but: > we already subsidise child-rearing through taxation. Single, childless people are taxed at a higher rate In the US, being married is a tax advantage only if one partner earns much more than the other. Otherwise it's a wash. In the US, the child tax credit is $2K per child per year. In most cases, this does not come close to covering the costs of raising a child. So, no, for most people being discussed in the article (generally, dual earners in HCOL US areas), child-rearing is not significantly subsidized through taxation (at least not at the income tax level as you implied).
- ergocoder 6y ago