6 ms·

I'm not a religious nut, but you have to admit that religion which typically prioritizing lots of babies got this one right

gloryjulio 4y ago
By having ppl indoctrinated to accept being at lower caste to produce babies and contributing, where the ppl at top of the pyramid are sucking all the blood from the bottom. Yeah that would work out
- rayiner 4y ago
  That sounds more like the modern secularism than at least Christianity or Islam. Indeed, the latter is more egalitarian. Nearly everyone can take pride in raising a family. Only a relative cognitive elite can forgo having kids to pursue a demanding career.
  - gloryjulio 4y ago
    How are Christianity or Islam more egalitarian? Don't their elites have way more power to define what the bottom feeders can do or say? How is giving ppl less right more egalitarian? What kind of backward logic are you talking about?
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      They're more egalitarian because there's a authority that is written. I can use the Bible or the Koran to judge the minister or the organization. I don't know if this is done in Islam, but it is in at least some strains of Christianity.
      - gloryjulio 4y ago
        I am not talking about the book. I am talking about in practice. I am not even getting the nitty gitty details of things like women's rights. I am only asking one question. Has there been a time in history where there are really no elites group in the religious groups and everyone is equal? When did that happen? It's such a hypocrisy that all the religions have a good idea that we should have a god above men so that we don't worship human as god, but in the end it never translated to the practice isn't it?
    - rayiner 4y ago
      They’re more egalitarian because their vision of a good life (working hard, getting married, raising kids, and following the rules) is attainable for nearly anyone. Even the elites must abide by that definition at least publicly. In modern secular society, elites use their power to define a vision of a good life that reflects their own life, but is unattainable for the average person: living comfortably in a big, interesting city, having an interesting or impactful or glamorous professional job, being a famous performer or fame-adjacent, etc.
      - gloryjulio 4y ago
        > In modern secular society How about change it to forever? Has there ever been a time where everyone is equal? I have NEVER seen that happen in practice, just like the communists' so called 'equality'. Let's put it in this way, I have never seen 'All animals are equal'. I have only seen 'but some animals are more equal than others'. You should read Animal Farm.
- SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
  Classic humanity, I mean that's pretty much how everything's done everywhere
- locutous 4y ago
  The ones with the kids are happy, the ones with the money are not. That's how it works out. Money doesn't buy happiness. Having a family successfully contributes a great deal to happiness.
  - Klinky 4y ago
    That's what people are indoctrinated with, causing a lot of people to start a family too soon. However, I assure you many who have kids are not happy, especially while raising them in poverty or on unlivable wages.
    - locutous 4y ago
      "indoctrinated". You say that like people who say this are selling rotten fruit as new. You can verify this for yourself. Go to an old folks home. Ask them about their lives. See how many don't bring up their children. Or mention them with regret. Look into their eyes as they speak of them. In my experience everyone wears their children like badges of honor and any regrets are about not doing enough for them or having their priorities not family oriented enough. This is the perspective of the oldest among us with the longest time here to contemplate what they find most important. Yes, we preach it, have preached it. This doesn't make it any less true, because it is true. Your being given the keys to life and your appear to want to question. Today's poor people are richer than rich people way back when those old folks were raising children. I've been quite poor and with children. I'm intimately familiar with the pain of being poor. Speaking from my experience, in 20 years your poorness won't matter, but your children, if any, will. Waiting for perfection before having children is like never shipping because there are flaws in the code. Sure, you try not to ship crap but it still must go out as best as you can manage.
      - Klinky 4y ago
        As a product of generational trauma, I find the "no perfect time, just have kids" mentality disgusting. Perhaps these old people's regrets about not doing enough for their children are because they didn't prepare properly to actually have children. Children being used to prop up your own self image strips both you and your child of their individuality. People should want more in life than to "have children" and need to give the decision to have children the proper weight it deserves. If someone does not feel satisfied in their own self or their relationship, they should avoid having children hoping to fill a void. People should not assume or default to their purpose in life being to simply have children. I assure you that just hoping the poorness goes away after 20 years doesn't magically result in it happening, nor does time effortlessly unwind the trauma or mend the damage done by generations of people who were ill prepared to take care of children.
kitsunesoba 4y ago
Depends on if one values quality of life for the children, in my opinion. Birthing lots of kids into circumstances that are easily turned desperate seems undesirable in my eyes, particularly if we're aiming for a society composed of mentally healthy adults.
- rayiner 4y ago
  I would be shocked if Americans were “mentally healthier” than say Indians or Chinese. Living in a world of physical limits rather than endless possibilities has a way of focusing the mind.
  - kitsunesoba 4y ago
    As an American I think our mental health, at least among millennials and gen Z is generally in shambles, largely thanks to financial stress. We have a lot of depressed young people feeling like there is no bright future to strive for and that they're going to be working some menial job until the day they die.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      That would be an argument in favor of us having sharply better mental health than Indian and Chinese people.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      > We have a lot of depressed young people feeling like there is no bright future to strive for and that they're going to be working some menial job until the day they die. I agree that stress about this eventuality is the root of a lot of mental health issues. But I would say the problem is actually that recent generations have been socialized into thinking that the average person can expect any more than that. A blessing Indians and Chinese have is being free of that socialization.
kspacewalk2 4y ago
No, it didn't. Having lots of babies is terrible for all sorts of reasons, and generally holds poor countries back and keeps them poor. Much like with money inflation, a human inflation target of 2% seems wise. Higher or lower than that leads to trouble.
- oska 4y ago
  Societies have periods of (population) growth and (population) decline. Wanting, and managing for a steady 2% growth rate is technocratic, unrealistic, and will lead to more trouble than having natural periods of growth and decline. (Same with steady money growth too.)

gloryjulio 4y ago

By having ppl indoctrinated to accept being at lower caste to produce babies and contributing, where the ppl at top of the pyramid are sucking all the blood from the bottom. Yeah that would work out

rayiner 4y ago
That sounds more like the modern secularism than at least Christianity or Islam. Indeed, the latter is more egalitarian. Nearly everyone can take pride in raising a family. Only a relative cognitive elite can forgo having kids to pursue a demanding career.
- gloryjulio 4y ago
  How are Christianity or Islam more egalitarian? Don't their elites have way more power to define what the bottom feeders can do or say? How is giving ppl less right more egalitarian? What kind of backward logic are you talking about?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    They're more egalitarian because there's a authority that is written. I can use the Bible or the Koran to judge the minister or the organization. I don't know if this is done in Islam, but it is in at least some strains of Christianity.
    - gloryjulio 4y ago
      I am not talking about the book. I am talking about in practice. I am not even getting the nitty gitty details of things like women's rights. I am only asking one question. Has there been a time in history where there are really no elites group in the religious groups and everyone is equal? When did that happen? It's such a hypocrisy that all the religions have a good idea that we should have a god above men so that we don't worship human as god, but in the end it never translated to the practice isn't it?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    They’re more egalitarian because their vision of a good life (working hard, getting married, raising kids, and following the rules) is attainable for nearly anyone. Even the elites must abide by that definition at least publicly. In modern secular society, elites use their power to define a vision of a good life that reflects their own life, but is unattainable for the average person: living comfortably in a big, interesting city, having an interesting or impactful or glamorous professional job, being a famous performer or fame-adjacent, etc.
    - gloryjulio 4y ago
      > In modern secular society How about change it to forever? Has there ever been a time where everyone is equal? I have NEVER seen that happen in practice, just like the communists' so called 'equality'. Let's put it in this way, I have never seen 'All animals are equal'. I have only seen 'but some animals are more equal than others'. You should read Animal Farm.
SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
Classic humanity, I mean that's pretty much how everything's done everywhere
locutous 4y ago
The ones with the kids are happy, the ones with the money are not. That's how it works out. Money doesn't buy happiness. Having a family successfully contributes a great deal to happiness.
- Klinky 4y ago
  That's what people are indoctrinated with, causing a lot of people to start a family too soon. However, I assure you many who have kids are not happy, especially while raising them in poverty or on unlivable wages.
  - locutous 4y ago
    "indoctrinated". You say that like people who say this are selling rotten fruit as new. You can verify this for yourself. Go to an old folks home. Ask them about their lives. See how many don't bring up their children. Or mention them with regret. Look into their eyes as they speak of them. In my experience everyone wears their children like badges of honor and any regrets are about not doing enough for them or having their priorities not family oriented enough. This is the perspective of the oldest among us with the longest time here to contemplate what they find most important. Yes, we preach it, have preached it. This doesn't make it any less true, because it is true. Your being given the keys to life and your appear to want to question. Today's poor people are richer than rich people way back when those old folks were raising children. I've been quite poor and with children. I'm intimately familiar with the pain of being poor. Speaking from my experience, in 20 years your poorness won't matter, but your children, if any, will. Waiting for perfection before having children is like never shipping because there are flaws in the code. Sure, you try not to ship crap but it still must go out as best as you can manage.
    - Klinky 4y ago
      As a product of generational trauma, I find the "no perfect time, just have kids" mentality disgusting. Perhaps these old people's regrets about not doing enough for their children are because they didn't prepare properly to actually have children. Children being used to prop up your own self image strips both you and your child of their individuality. People should want more in life than to "have children" and need to give the decision to have children the proper weight it deserves. If someone does not feel satisfied in their own self or their relationship, they should avoid having children hoping to fill a void. People should not assume or default to their purpose in life being to simply have children. I assure you that just hoping the poorness goes away after 20 years doesn't magically result in it happening, nor does time effortlessly unwind the trauma or mend the damage done by generations of people who were ill prepared to take care of children.

kitsunesoba 4y ago

Depends on if one values quality of life for the children, in my opinion. Birthing lots of kids into circumstances that are easily turned desperate seems undesirable in my eyes, particularly if we're aiming for a society composed of mentally healthy adults.

rayiner 4y ago
I would be shocked if Americans were “mentally healthier” than say Indians or Chinese. Living in a world of physical limits rather than endless possibilities has a way of focusing the mind.
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  As an American I think our mental health, at least among millennials and gen Z is generally in shambles, largely thanks to financial stress. We have a lot of depressed young people feeling like there is no bright future to strive for and that they're going to be working some menial job until the day they die.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    That would be an argument in favor of us having sharply better mental health than Indian and Chinese people.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > We have a lot of depressed young people feeling like there is no bright future to strive for and that they're going to be working some menial job until the day they die. I agree that stress about this eventuality is the root of a lot of mental health issues. But I would say the problem is actually that recent generations have been socialized into thinking that the average person can expect any more than that. A blessing Indians and Chinese have is being free of that socialization.

kspacewalk2 4y ago

No, it didn't. Having lots of babies is terrible for all sorts of reasons, and generally holds poor countries back and keeps them poor. Much like with money inflation, a human inflation target of 2% seems wise. Higher or lower than that leads to trouble.

oska 4y ago
Societies have periods of (population) growth and (population) decline. Wanting, and managing for a steady 2% growth rate is technocratic, unrealistic, and will lead to more trouble than having natural periods of growth and decline. (Same with steady money growth too.)