4 ms·

Big families sound great, Elon Musk. But who’s going to take care of the kids?

3 points by neverminder 5y ago

brodouevencode 5y ago
When I see posts like this I try to keep an open mind. Trying so hard…
jevoten 5y ago
> Birthrate-boosting programmes conflict with those for educating girls: the more educated women are, the fewer children they have. This is phrased as an inherent property of education, but how true is it? I argue that if educational systems were more accommodating to young mothers, women wouldn't need to postpone motherhood for the sake of education. What about existing programmes that give tax incentives and financial aid to young families? Does that also conflict with educating girls? The author has performed a clever rhetorical sleight of hand, using the fact that education correlates with lower birthrate, to claim that any effort to increase the birthrate reduces education. This is nonsense - would she claim that a punitive tax on families would help women's education, by way of lowering the birthrate? She has causation backwards, the equivalent of "wet streets cause rain". And the fight for equality shouldn't end at enabling women to choose between education or motherhood. It should keep going until they don't have to choose. Same goes for professional careers. The Guardian article, despite their usual sensitivity to feminist causes, is completely lacking in this perspective. Speaking of perspective: > Musk’s striking indifference to the implications of a scheme that will depend, as with all reproductive fantasies, on women’s biological compliance, may actually have helped. Fellow pronatalists who acknowledge, with various hero-mother inducements, the required female sacrifice in independence, earnings and influence Lets ignore the repeated casting of motherhood as inherently limiting (despite things like alimony and child support that greatly reduce the sacrifice in independence). "women's biological compliance"? Really? Women would never want more children, or be equal participants in this drive with men, they merely "comply"? Meanwhile, men don't have to comply - since Musk is male, he speaks from the common will of all men? It's strange seeing the Guardian use such dehumanizing, sexist language.
stevespang 5y ago
Elon is wrong on this one. He has six kids he hardly ever sees, do they even know their father ? We have too many people on planet Earth now. The mostly Asians are vaccuming the oceans of aquatic wildlife. Mass consumerism, billions of humans driving cars which most consume fossil fuels and contribute to global warming, even electric cars have lot's of plastic and rubber tires which end up as granules or powders washed off roads in creeks, streams and rivers to our oceans. Same for plastic bags, packaging, toys, the more humans - the more need for them to buy all the garbage coming out of factories and eventually ending up in landfills. The more problems with sewage, water shortages whether drinking water or water to irrigate agricultural crops to feed more and more humans. It's unsustainable. Wars, famines and pandemics are necessary evils to pushback against human overpopulation.
silexia 5y ago
The article is BS written by an extremist. Reproduction is literally the purpose of all life forms, humans included. Our rapid technological advances have been matched by rapid population growth. The two are correlated if not causative. Elon Musk is a great visionary who sees humans becoming an interstellar species. The author of this article wants to destroy that with sophistry.
JackOfCrows 5y ago
I would simply ignore the fact that I had kids and go back to pretending to work 120 hours a week while shitposting on Twitter like Based Elon

3 points by neverminder 5y ago

When I see posts like this I try to keep an open mind. Trying so hard…

> Birthrate-boosting programmes conflict with those for educating girls: the more educated women are, the fewer children they have. This is phrased as an inherent property of education, but how true is it? I argue that if educational systems were more accommodating to young mothers, women wouldn't need to postpone motherhood for the sake of education. What about existing programmes that give tax incentives and financial aid to young families? Does that also conflict with educating girls? The author has performed a clever rhetorical sleight of hand, using the fact that education correlates with lower birthrate, to claim that any effort to increase the birthrate reduces education. This is nonsense - would she claim that a punitive tax on families would help women's education, by way of lowering the birthrate? She has causation backwards, the equivalent of "wet streets cause rain". And the fight for equality shouldn't end at enabling women to choose between education or motherhood. It should keep going until they don't have to choose. Same goes for professional careers. The Guardian article, despite their usual sensitivity to feminist causes, is completely lacking in this perspective. Speaking of perspective: > Musk’s striking indifference to the implications of a scheme that will depend, as with all reproductive fantasies, on women’s biological compliance, may actually have helped. Fellow pronatalists who acknowledge, with various hero-mother inducements, the required female sacrifice in independence, earnings and influence Lets ignore the repeated casting of motherhood as inherently limiting (despite things like alimony and child support that greatly reduce the sacrifice in independence). "women's biological compliance"? Really? Women would never want more children, or be equal participants in this drive with men, they merely "comply"? Meanwhile, men don't have to comply - since Musk is male, he speaks from the common will of all men? It's strange seeing the Guardian use such dehumanizing, sexist language.

stevespang 5y ago

Elon is wrong on this one. He has six kids he hardly ever sees, do they even know their father ? We have too many people on planet Earth now. The mostly Asians are vaccuming the oceans of aquatic wildlife. Mass consumerism, billions of humans driving cars which most consume fossil fuels and contribute to global warming, even electric cars have lot's of plastic and rubber tires which end up as granules or powders washed off roads in creeks, streams and rivers to our oceans. Same for plastic bags, packaging, toys, the more humans - the more need for them to buy all the garbage coming out of factories and eventually ending up in landfills. The more problems with sewage, water shortages whether drinking water or water to irrigate agricultural crops to feed more and more humans. It's unsustainable. Wars, famines and pandemics are necessary evils to pushback against human overpopulation.

silexia 5y ago

The article is BS written by an extremist. Reproduction is literally the purpose of all life forms, humans included. Our rapid technological advances have been matched by rapid population growth. The two are correlated if not causative. Elon Musk is a great visionary who sees humans becoming an interstellar species. The author of this article wants to destroy that with sophistry.

JackOfCrows 5y ago

I would simply ignore the fact that I had kids and go back to pretending to work 120 hours a week while shitposting on Twitter like Based Elon