4 ms·
I think that's missing the point. If people don't reproduce, society dies out. That said there are enough people to allow for this to be an option... except in
by proc0 3y ago
I think that's missing the point. If people don't reproduce, society dies out. That said there are enough people to allow for this to be an option... except in totalitarian societies which have more interest in power than in progress.
- clipsy 3y ago> I think that's missing the point. If people don't reproduce, society dies out. All the more reason to compensate women for carrying babies to term.
- proc0 3y agoIf women hold the entire species hostage, we can imagine what men could do to prevent that. Having a child is basically making a copy of your genes which is its own reward.
- lusus_naturae 3y agoHow is it missing the point? It's recognizing that having babies is a valuable service to society. Why are you expecting women to run a charity via their wombs? Pay any pregnant women the base rate for a new army recruit, and increase the pay annually or per milestone reached till a child is legally an adult. Do this for every child raised as an adult on top of a woman's own income from her job (maybe prorate based on her earned income). Actually, maybe there should be separate pays for child rearing as well so this benefit doesn't just help women, exclusively. We do this already via taxes and credits, this is just making things more proactive via month to month salary structure.
- proc0 3y agoThe point of having a child is not just for society, it's for your own personal benefit of passing on your genes. If you don't want to pass on your genes then don't reproduce. Also, if society pays people for their children, society also owns them (to the extent they pay for them), which at least in my opinion, I'd rather not have my children be property of the government.