5 ms·

What is the definition of "reasonably comfortable life"? From the point of view of most of human history and most of the people currently living on earth, even

• wiseowise 3y ago
  If you can raise your kid on a median, as in your kid isn’t spoiled and not lacking - you’re good to go.
  • Thiez 3y ago
    Median? So the bottom 50% of the population as measured by wealth or income should not have children, according to you?
    • wiseowise 3y ago
      Median of their environment. > So the bottom 50% of the population as measured by wealth or income should not have children, according to you? If that means world where kids are presented with equal opportunity for happiness - then yes. To give you an example: whole class goes on a trip for X sum, one child's parents can't afford that trip. What is moral to do in this case?
      • chr1 3y ago
        Moral thing is for the child that doesn't have enough money to not go on that trip. It is a valuable lesson that to get something useful from other people you need to do something useful for them first. The difference of what you did and what you took is the money you have. Taking children to the same trips and giving them all the same toys does not give them equal opportunities, due to natural differences of abilities and interests the children have. I myself was a child who very often had to stay at home when my class went to cinema or to play computer games. I never would even consider to want to have one less sibling in exchange for going to more trips. In fact i would happily give most of what i had as a child in exchange for having one more brother. After all the best memories are not from expensive things, but from reading a book, or playing together with toys made from simple sticks and newspaper. If your answer to your question is that, if a child can't go to a trip with the rest of the class then that child is better to not exist at all, then your system of beliefs is immoral and abhorrent. And it is a good thing that such a system of beliefs also leads people holding it to not reproduce and by that select such horrible thinking out of population.
        • wiseowise 3y ago
          You're so hellbent on proving your point that you don't even read what I write. > Moral thing is for the child that doesn't have enough money to not go on that trip. It is a valuable lesson that to get something useful from other people you need to do something useful for them first. The difference of what you did and what you took is the money you have. Child doesn't have enough money?! What are you even talking about? > I myself was a child who very often had to stay at home when my class went to cinema or to play computer games. I never would even consider to want to have one less sibling in exchange for going to more trips. In fact i would happily give most of what i had as a child in exchange for having one more brother. After all the best memories are not from expensive things, but from reading a book, or playing together with toys made from simple sticks and newspaper. And what about single children families? > If your answer to your question is that, if a child can't go to a trip with the rest of the class then that child is better to not exist at all, then your system of beliefs is immoral and abhorrent. And it is a good thing that such a system of beliefs also leads people holding it to not reproduce and by that select such horrible thinking out of population. I love how all of your message is focused on kid, like parents are just passive observers in all of this. Keep searching for the boogeyman who wants kid to not exist, and not horrible parents to not procreate. Either way, none will be able to convince another as it's impossible to provide whole life context to one another. Maybe if we had more extended chat in real life we'd be able to come to some conclusion together, but definitely not on a forum with limited time and limited text.
          • chr1 3y ago
            > Child doesn't have enough money Yes child has the amount of money that parents are able to provide. > Keep searching for the boogeyman who wants kid to not exist, and not horrible parents to not procreate. Why do you think that not being able to send a child to school trip with the rest of the class makes one a "horrible parent"? Not providing child with a sibling is a significantly worse thing. > I love how all of your message is focused on kid, like parents are just passive observers in all of this. Parents are trying to give their kid as good a life as possible, and having several siblings gives more opportunities in life and better life overall, than being a single child and having more toys, trips, etc.
  • chr1 3y ago
    Median compared to which group neighbourhood/city/world? What you are saying is basically equivalent to selling one child in order to buy a toy like the neighbour has for another.
    • wiseowise 3y ago
      Median of their environment. All kids should have equal opportunities.
      • AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        So the bottom half shouldn't have children? And who appointed you an authority on deciding who should be conceived and who should not? But also this: > All kids should have equal opportunities. That's your rationale for your position? Your position does not follow from your rationale. Even if only median-or-above families have children, that won't create equal opportunities. That will just make the children of median families the poorest children, with the fewest opportunities. So your position doesn't follow, even from your stated moral standard. (Your stated moral standard is also far from self-evidently correct. But even accepting your standard, your position still doesn't follow. What follows is forced wealth equality.)
• throwaway2037 3y ago
  even the poorest people in US and Europe live _unreasonably_ comfortable lives. This is ridiculous. They do not.