5 ms·

> Parents are making sacrifices which benefit society as a whole. 100%. We need people to have kids (and for it to be financially possible to do so) because k

> Parents are making sacrifices which benefit society as a whole. 100%. We need people to have kids (and for it to be financially possible to do so) because kids are literally the future generations of human society, and if no one is having kids then we'll see a very rapid collapse. This is, incidentally, why it pisses me off when people complain that their pets don't get the same kind of accommodations that children do e.g. on airplanes or in restaurants, or that tax breaks exist for children. Your pets are optional. Children are mandatory. Not everyone has to have children, but enough people do. Having children isn't just planting trees for future society to enjoy the shade of, it's literally creating that future society (to reference an old proverb).

YarickR2 6y ago
Pets are optional ? I didn't expect myself to hate this statement so much
- mc32 6y ago
  Optional for the continuation of society. Like say Elon going to Mars, he could take a pet. Pets provide some good, but they are not essential. Notice in poorer societies pets don’t enjoy the same privileged position they do in wealthy societies.
- grillvogel 6y ago
  pets are required? i think most people who have kids agree that once you have kids you care a lot less about your pets than you did before
- outworlder 6y ago
  > Pets are optional ? I didn't expect myself to hate this statement so much They are just as optional as kids. Some of the comments here make it sound like they come from an alternate post-apocalyptic reality where they are trying to re-populate the planet. Not from this reality. You know, the one were we have a planet struggling to support the current and ever increasing population.
icebraining 6y ago
I also think it's stupid to resent parents; they need the time for the kids, who aren't at fault in any of this. That said, why do you assume we all care about having a future society? Frankly I only care about existing humans. The species is irrelevant to me.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  It doesn't matter if you personally don't care; society as a whole cares about its self-perpetuation. Also, your life is gonna be pretty damn bleak in your twilight years if everyone stops having children now. There will be no one to take care of the old people, no one to farm the food, etc. Every single job that keeps society up and running would have to be performed exclusively by elderly people, many of whom would be in no condition to work and would in fact need to be cared for rather than being able to care for others through work. Good luck with that.
- mc32 6y ago
  If you don’t care about the future of humanity then why care about progress at all? Why care about any species. Why care about pollution or climate change or anything?
  - icebraining 6y ago
    Humanity is likely to decide continue having kids regardless of what I feel about it, and since I care about humans, I feel the obligation to protect those kids and their descendants. And similarly for other species.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      This seems to directly contradict your previous statement? It's not clear to me now what you're even trying to argue.
      - icebraining 6y ago
        I wish people would stop smoking. But since they likely won't, I feel the obligation to fund lung cancer research, to help the future cancer patients. I wish people would stop having children. But since they likely won't, I feel the obligation to keep the environment reasonably clean, to help the future humans.
room500 6y ago
I don't understand this sentiment. Farming is critical for society. However, we don't require everyone to pull on their overalls and work the land. Security is critical for society. However, we don't expect every person to pick up their machine gun and jump in a trench. Society is nowhere near a population level that is dangerously low. In fact, we are more concerned with overpopulation and overconsumption. If you have children, that's great! Congratulations! Enjoy! But it was your choice - not one forced upon you by some dire social need.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  You're not getting the point that, in the aggregate, it is NOT a choice to have farmers, soldiers* , and yes, parents. On an individual level it might be a choice, but society necessarily needs to be structured to get enough of each of those occupations, i.e. to have sufficient numbers of people making each of those choices. And the required population percentage of parents is at least 50X higher than for farmers and soldiers. And overpopulation/overconsumption isn't a problem. What is a problem is unsustainable growth. Life is much more pleasant today for most people than it was centuries ago because simply having more people allows for more technological development, more sub-specialization, and better efficiencies of scale, and thus paradoxically with more people everyone can have a much higher standard of living than with fewer people. In other words, it isn't zero sum. If the world's population starts rapidly declining then that will be a significant decline in the average standard of living, not an improvement. * I don't want to get into the argument here whether soldiers are actually necessary; let's just assume for this argument that they are, or replace them with construction workers or whatever.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    >And overpopulation/overconsumption isn't a problem. What is a problem is unsustainable growth. Life is much more pleasant today for most people than it was centuries ago because simply having more people allows for more technological development, more sub-specialization, and better efficiencies of scale, and thus paradoxically with more people everyone can have a much higher standard of living than with fewer people. The equation isn't so simple. Life is also much more pleasant today because we are enjoying benefits today at the expense of the future generations' environment. Just like governments can excessively borrow from future taxpayers and then drown them if the growth doesn't pan out, so can consumption of resources if mitigation or reversal of environmental change not favorable to humans doesn't pan out. Also, by definition, "over"population and "over"consumption are a problem, otherwise they wouldn't be "over". All life is constrained by the parameters of the system in which it exists, including humans.
sarakayakomzin 6y ago
>This is, incidentally, why it pisses me off when people complain that their pets don't get the same kind of accommodations that children do e.g. on airplanes or in restaurants, or that tax breaks exist for children. Your pets are optional. Children are mandatory. I'm just glad someone decided to step in and say you were the person who should have children. Mandatory to who? Nobody asked you to make such a noble sacrifice.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
I think you misunderstood the meaning of the word ‘mandatory’

YarickR2 6y ago

Pets are optional ? I didn't expect myself to hate this statement so much

mc32 6y ago
Optional for the continuation of society. Like say Elon going to Mars, he could take a pet. Pets provide some good, but they are not essential. Notice in poorer societies pets don’t enjoy the same privileged position they do in wealthy societies.
grillvogel 6y ago
pets are required? i think most people who have kids agree that once you have kids you care a lot less about your pets than you did before
outworlder 6y ago
> Pets are optional ? I didn't expect myself to hate this statement so much They are just as optional as kids. Some of the comments here make it sound like they come from an alternate post-apocalyptic reality where they are trying to re-populate the planet. Not from this reality. You know, the one were we have a planet struggling to support the current and ever increasing population.

icebraining 6y ago

I also think it's stupid to resent parents; they need the time for the kids, who aren't at fault in any of this. That said, why do you assume we all care about having a future society? Frankly I only care about existing humans. The species is irrelevant to me.

CydeWeys 6y ago
It doesn't matter if you personally don't care; society as a whole cares about its self-perpetuation. Also, your life is gonna be pretty damn bleak in your twilight years if everyone stops having children now. There will be no one to take care of the old people, no one to farm the food, etc. Every single job that keeps society up and running would have to be performed exclusively by elderly people, many of whom would be in no condition to work and would in fact need to be cared for rather than being able to care for others through work. Good luck with that.
mc32 6y ago
If you don’t care about the future of humanity then why care about progress at all? Why care about any species. Why care about pollution or climate change or anything?
- icebraining 6y ago
  Humanity is likely to decide continue having kids regardless of what I feel about it, and since I care about humans, I feel the obligation to protect those kids and their descendants. And similarly for other species.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    This seems to directly contradict your previous statement? It's not clear to me now what you're even trying to argue.
    - icebraining 6y ago
      I wish people would stop smoking. But since they likely won't, I feel the obligation to fund lung cancer research, to help the future cancer patients. I wish people would stop having children. But since they likely won't, I feel the obligation to keep the environment reasonably clean, to help the future humans.

room500 6y ago

I don't understand this sentiment. Farming is critical for society. However, we don't require everyone to pull on their overalls and work the land. Security is critical for society. However, we don't expect every person to pick up their machine gun and jump in a trench. Society is nowhere near a population level that is dangerously low. In fact, we are more concerned with overpopulation and overconsumption. If you have children, that's great! Congratulations! Enjoy! But it was your choice - not one forced upon you by some dire social need.

CydeWeys 6y ago
You're not getting the point that, in the aggregate, it is NOT a choice to have farmers, soldiers* , and yes, parents. On an individual level it might be a choice, but society necessarily needs to be structured to get enough of each of those occupations, i.e. to have sufficient numbers of people making each of those choices. And the required population percentage of parents is at least 50X higher than for farmers and soldiers. And overpopulation/overconsumption isn't a problem. What is a problem is unsustainable growth. Life is much more pleasant today for most people than it was centuries ago because simply having more people allows for more technological development, more sub-specialization, and better efficiencies of scale, and thus paradoxically with more people everyone can have a much higher standard of living than with fewer people. In other words, it isn't zero sum. If the world's population starts rapidly declining then that will be a significant decline in the average standard of living, not an improvement. * I don't want to get into the argument here whether soldiers are actually necessary; let's just assume for this argument that they are, or replace them with construction workers or whatever.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >And overpopulation/overconsumption isn't a problem. What is a problem is unsustainable growth. Life is much more pleasant today for most people than it was centuries ago because simply having more people allows for more technological development, more sub-specialization, and better efficiencies of scale, and thus paradoxically with more people everyone can have a much higher standard of living than with fewer people. The equation isn't so simple. Life is also much more pleasant today because we are enjoying benefits today at the expense of the future generations' environment. Just like governments can excessively borrow from future taxpayers and then drown them if the growth doesn't pan out, so can consumption of resources if mitigation or reversal of environmental change not favorable to humans doesn't pan out. Also, by definition, "over"population and "over"consumption are a problem, otherwise they wouldn't be "over". All life is constrained by the parameters of the system in which it exists, including humans.

sarakayakomzin 6y ago

>This is, incidentally, why it pisses me off when people complain that their pets don't get the same kind of accommodations that children do e.g. on airplanes or in restaurants, or that tax breaks exist for children. Your pets are optional. Children are mandatory. I'm just glad someone decided to step in and say you were the person who should have children. Mandatory to who? Nobody asked you to make such a noble sacrifice.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

I think you misunderstood the meaning of the word ‘mandatory’