5 ms·

"the whole world": - economists & businesspeople who can't conceive of a world without growth - religious people who think God wants them to be fruitful and m

"the whole world": - economists & businesspeople who can't conceive of a world without growth - religious people who think God wants them to be fruitful and multiply - atheists who think we have some kind of evolutionary imperative - parents who think that being childfree is an affront to their choices

atonse 2y ago
wow, that’s really quite reductive. It sounds more like this might be a choice you feel strongly about but are projecting selfishness on to others? This can be a totally fine choice for someone to make personally (which I support), but also not good for society as a whole. Both things can objectively be true.
- CogitoCogito 2y ago
  Are you saying it's selfish to not have kids? Other than accidental parents, I've never met any who didn't have kids because they wanted them. How were they not acting selfishly?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - CogitoCogito 2y ago
    It's interesting to see this comment downvoted. I'm honestly curious as to the thinking here. How are parents having kids because they want them not acting selfishly?
    - RestlessMind 2y ago
      Actually both parents and non-parents exhibit selfishness, just of different flavors. Parents have natural urges to have kids (literally, evolution!). So it is self-explanatory. Non-parents will need a younger generation when they grow old for satisfying all the Maslow hierarchies of needs (food, medical care, entertainment, funding social safety nets etc). So the ones who are not producing any kids by choice are consciously offloading their old-age care and hence act selfishly. People in both categories may not be aware of their own flavor of selfishness.
      - atonse 2y ago
        Agreed. I just thought it was unnecessary to just paint one side as purely selfish.
      - CogitoCogito 2y ago
        > So the ones who are not producing any kids by choice are consciously offloading their old-age care and hence act selfishly. When my father was dying, I out of all his children was able to help him the most since I don't have children of my own. Clearly I could devote my life to helping old people and do more overall good for that group, then just producing children (who may or may not do so). In fact, I could make the claim that "the ones who *are* producing kids by choice are consciously producing more work for future generations to do hence acting selfishly". That position would be similarly asinine. But sure if you understand there is no inherent good to parenting and it's basically just people doing what they want to do (well when having the children by choice anyway), then I guess you maybe show a little humility. I may someday have children, but I'm under no illusion that I'd be doing the world a favor.
  - stefantalpalaru 2y ago
    [dead]
  - illiac786 2y ago
    I think the previous poster said the opposite: you think that others think you are selfish (projecting on others).
  - atonse 2y ago
    I was saying the opposite. The parent poster is implying that there are only selfish reasons that someone would want society to have more families/kids. I was saying that it didn’t feel like they were arguing in good faith by ascribing only selfish motivations for those who advocate for that point of view.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Why would it not be good for society as a whole?
  - atonse 2y ago
    Having an aging workforce means you lose available skills. And aging population means you have more dependents than caretakers for them. An aging population in some parts of the world means you have fewer men to fight in a conflict (assuming your adversary doesn’t have an aging population). There’s loss of specialization, loss of skill transfer, younger people do more manual labor like harvesting food. You need people of a certain age range to basically run society.
Havoc 2y ago
> atheists who think we have some kind of evolutionary imperative Procreation kinda is an evolutionary imperative- atheism or not
- silverquiet 2y ago
  I'm not super thrilled about being compelled by evolution or a god.
  - Havoc 2y ago
    Neither am I but evolution doesn’t seem inclined to engage in philosophical discussions
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      I suppose it's a subject I've long wondered about - am I just some sort of biological robot fulfilling some pre-determined program? Or have I actually been equipped with some sort of agency? I guess it's the old free will question and it may be unanswerable. That said, I can't say I've ever really felt much instinctual desire to reproduce, and if I have, perhaps I have reasoned myself out of the idea in some way. Either way it would seem that I am an evolutionary dead end. Am I supposed to feel some way about that? It seems like having an opinion on g=9.8m/s2 or the boiling point of water; useless.
      - mensetmanusman 2y ago
        Free will is so self-evident that deniers of free will have to give lectures at universities to convince everyone else that the universe is making illusions for fun at the cost of thermodynamic efficiency.
        vidarh 2y ago
        Define it in a way that doesn't mean it is just an illusion, and that actually explains something then. I've yet to meet anyone able to do so coherently.
gizmo 2y ago
The economists are worried because (retirement) savings are nothing more than a claim on future labor. As people grow older and are less capable of taking care of themselves other people need to care for them. People can be secure in their retirement when the number they have saved is sufficient to purchase the labor they need later in life. But what will the price of that labor be when birth rates collapse and there aren't sufficient people around to do this labor? Retirement savings mean nothing when the people needed to do the work are not available. For wealthy western countries immigration is the only realistic solution address the shortage of working-age people. It's not a silver bullet, though. Immigration scares people and populist politicians will exploit this fear of change. We should also remember that politicians in rich countries are very old. They care a great deal about anything that affects their own retirement. To young people who don't have high expectations for their quality of life in their last couple of decades on earth this panic about demographic change may seem silly. But baby boomers care and they are the ones making policy.
- atoav 2y ago
  The fact is that my parents generation (currently retiring) made a bet on the younger generations supporting them through the retirement [insert socialism joke if you're from the US]. I never signed up to this tho, I have been born into it. Now I agree that the whole thing is in principle a good idea, but all fairness goes out of the window as soon as a your demographics are such that the biggest voting block is at the same time not working. So a class of old politicians constantly keeps putting off needed changes in the way retirement works, a price for which younger generations have to pay. The same happens in infrastructure, climate change etc. At some point my generation will have to question the validity of that social contract.
  - iteratethis 2y ago
    What do you suggest regarding the social contract? I'm asking because whatever policy you'd like to see applied to the current elderly, is to be applied with twice the intensity to yourself, as the generation behind you is even smaller.
nailer 2y ago
I’m not sure if I should dignify this with the response, but part of caring for old people is having enough young people to do it.
- eppp 2y ago
  Because old people exist it is now the duty of the unborn to care for them? That is so sad.
  - gattilorenz 2y ago
    Because the environment exist it is my duty to pollute less? That's so sad! /s We do this all the time, including with debt, pensions, etc. Once born, the currently unborn have the choice to take care of their parents or not, to decide en masse not to become a doctor or nurse, to emigrate to a different country without a pension system (or to just be jobless forever to avoid paying for that)...
rayiner 2y ago
That listing of people seems pretty comprehensive. If that’s not the “whole world” it comes pretty close! And to be clear, us parents think that being “childfree” is shallow and selfish, like being one of those sovereign citizens who doesn’t want to pay taxes. It’s basically being the ultimate hipster—thinking of oneself as being too special for something hominids have been doing for millions of years.
- gizmo 2y ago
  When people who don't want to be parents become parents out of obligation they tend to f up their kids.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The idea that parenting makes a huge difference in kids is 20th century anti-Catholic propaganda perpetuated by WASPs. Outside the extremes, parenting doesn’t make much of a difference: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/parenting-anxiety-happiness-children/677960 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/parenting-.... For the vast majority of people, biology will kick in and make them love and adequately raise their kids, regardless of their individual “wants.”
  - loeg 2y ago
    I don't think that's true, or at least, overstates it. I think there are a lot of people who don't feel strongly about becoming parents that end up being great parents.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  The selfish/selfless thing has never made much sense to me apropos of children; they seem to be about fulfilling some personal want. Is the woman who has 3 kids from 3 different dads being selfless? I've never heard anyone say they want to have kids to go onto work menial jobs and pay taxes; frankly that's my every day and I don't have much interest in inflicting it on some poor, unsuspecting child.
  - 2y ago
belter 2y ago
Spoken like a true Vulcan...However, even in Vulcan logic, procreation extends beyond mere economics, religion, or evolution...

atonse 2y ago

wow, that’s really quite reductive. It sounds more like this might be a choice you feel strongly about but are projecting selfishness on to others? This can be a totally fine choice for someone to make personally (which I support), but also not good for society as a whole. Both things can objectively be true.

CogitoCogito 2y ago
Are you saying it's selfish to not have kids? Other than accidental parents, I've never met any who didn't have kids because they wanted them. How were they not acting selfishly?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- CogitoCogito 2y ago
  It's interesting to see this comment downvoted. I'm honestly curious as to the thinking here. How are parents having kids because they want them not acting selfishly?
  - RestlessMind 2y ago
    Actually both parents and non-parents exhibit selfishness, just of different flavors. Parents have natural urges to have kids (literally, evolution!). So it is self-explanatory. Non-parents will need a younger generation when they grow old for satisfying all the Maslow hierarchies of needs (food, medical care, entertainment, funding social safety nets etc). So the ones who are not producing any kids by choice are consciously offloading their old-age care and hence act selfishly. People in both categories may not be aware of their own flavor of selfishness.
    - atonse 2y ago
      Agreed. I just thought it was unnecessary to just paint one side as purely selfish.
    - CogitoCogito 2y ago
      > So the ones who are not producing any kids by choice are consciously offloading their old-age care and hence act selfishly. When my father was dying, I out of all his children was able to help him the most since I don't have children of my own. Clearly I could devote my life to helping old people and do more overall good for that group, then just producing children (who may or may not do so). In fact, I could make the claim that "the ones who *are* producing kids by choice are consciously producing more work for future generations to do hence acting selfishly". That position would be similarly asinine. But sure if you understand there is no inherent good to parenting and it's basically just people doing what they want to do (well when having the children by choice anyway), then I guess you maybe show a little humility. I may someday have children, but I'm under no illusion that I'd be doing the world a favor.
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago
  [dead]
- illiac786 2y ago
  I think the previous poster said the opposite: you think that others think you are selfish (projecting on others).
- atonse 2y ago
  I was saying the opposite. The parent poster is implying that there are only selfish reasons that someone would want society to have more families/kids. I was saying that it didn’t feel like they were arguing in good faith by ascribing only selfish motivations for those who advocate for that point of view.
082349872349872 2y ago
Why would it not be good for society as a whole?
- atonse 2y ago
  Having an aging workforce means you lose available skills. And aging population means you have more dependents than caretakers for them. An aging population in some parts of the world means you have fewer men to fight in a conflict (assuming your adversary doesn’t have an aging population). There’s loss of specialization, loss of skill transfer, younger people do more manual labor like harvesting food. You need people of a certain age range to basically run society.

Havoc 2y ago

> atheists who think we have some kind of evolutionary imperative Procreation kinda is an evolutionary imperative- atheism or not

silverquiet 2y ago
I'm not super thrilled about being compelled by evolution or a god.
- Havoc 2y ago
  Neither am I but evolution doesn’t seem inclined to engage in philosophical discussions
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    I suppose it's a subject I've long wondered about - am I just some sort of biological robot fulfilling some pre-determined program? Or have I actually been equipped with some sort of agency? I guess it's the old free will question and it may be unanswerable. That said, I can't say I've ever really felt much instinctual desire to reproduce, and if I have, perhaps I have reasoned myself out of the idea in some way. Either way it would seem that I am an evolutionary dead end. Am I supposed to feel some way about that? It seems like having an opinion on g=9.8m/s2 or the boiling point of water; useless.
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      Free will is so self-evident that deniers of free will have to give lectures at universities to convince everyone else that the universe is making illusions for fun at the cost of thermodynamic efficiency.
      - vidarh 2y ago
        Define it in a way that doesn't mean it is just an illusion, and that actually explains something then. I've yet to meet anyone able to do so coherently.

gizmo 2y ago

The economists are worried because (retirement) savings are nothing more than a claim on future labor. As people grow older and are less capable of taking care of themselves other people need to care for them. People can be secure in their retirement when the number they have saved is sufficient to purchase the labor they need later in life. But what will the price of that labor be when birth rates collapse and there aren't sufficient people around to do this labor? Retirement savings mean nothing when the people needed to do the work are not available. For wealthy western countries immigration is the only realistic solution address the shortage of working-age people. It's not a silver bullet, though. Immigration scares people and populist politicians will exploit this fear of change. We should also remember that politicians in rich countries are very old. They care a great deal about anything that affects their own retirement. To young people who don't have high expectations for their quality of life in their last couple of decades on earth this panic about demographic change may seem silly. But baby boomers care and they are the ones making policy.

atoav 2y ago
The fact is that my parents generation (currently retiring) made a bet on the younger generations supporting them through the retirement [insert socialism joke if you're from the US]. I never signed up to this tho, I have been born into it. Now I agree that the whole thing is in principle a good idea, but all fairness goes out of the window as soon as a your demographics are such that the biggest voting block is at the same time not working. So a class of old politicians constantly keeps putting off needed changes in the way retirement works, a price for which younger generations have to pay. The same happens in infrastructure, climate change etc. At some point my generation will have to question the validity of that social contract.
- iteratethis 2y ago
  What do you suggest regarding the social contract? I'm asking because whatever policy you'd like to see applied to the current elderly, is to be applied with twice the intensity to yourself, as the generation behind you is even smaller.

nailer 2y ago

I’m not sure if I should dignify this with the response, but part of caring for old people is having enough young people to do it.

eppp 2y ago
Because old people exist it is now the duty of the unborn to care for them? That is so sad.
- gattilorenz 2y ago
  Because the environment exist it is my duty to pollute less? That's so sad! /s We do this all the time, including with debt, pensions, etc. Once born, the currently unborn have the choice to take care of their parents or not, to decide en masse not to become a doctor or nurse, to emigrate to a different country without a pension system (or to just be jobless forever to avoid paying for that)...

rayiner 2y ago

That listing of people seems pretty comprehensive. If that’s not the “whole world” it comes pretty close! And to be clear, us parents think that being “childfree” is shallow and selfish, like being one of those sovereign citizens who doesn’t want to pay taxes. It’s basically being the ultimate hipster—thinking of oneself as being too special for something hominids have been doing for millions of years.

gizmo 2y ago
When people who don't want to be parents become parents out of obligation they tend to f up their kids.
- rayiner 2y ago
  The idea that parenting makes a huge difference in kids is 20th century anti-Catholic propaganda perpetuated by WASPs. Outside the extremes, parenting doesn’t make much of a difference: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/parenting-anxiety-happiness-children/677960 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/parenting-.... For the vast majority of people, biology will kick in and make them love and adequately raise their kids, regardless of their individual “wants.”
- loeg 2y ago
  I don't think that's true, or at least, overstates it. I think there are a lot of people who don't feel strongly about becoming parents that end up being great parents.
silverquiet 2y ago
The selfish/selfless thing has never made much sense to me apropos of children; they seem to be about fulfilling some personal want. Is the woman who has 3 kids from 3 different dads being selfless? I've never heard anyone say they want to have kids to go onto work menial jobs and pay taxes; frankly that's my every day and I don't have much interest in inflicting it on some poor, unsuspecting child.
- 2y ago

belter 2y ago

Spoken like a true Vulcan...However, even in Vulcan logic, procreation extends beyond mere economics, religion, or evolution...