4 ms·

Time isn’t a sufficient measure to serve as a proxy for quality parenting.

ben_w 2y ago
But it is a way to limit people to a fixed maximum number of children. Say it's a requirement for an hour per day per child — no matter how many drugs Musk takes to stay awake, he can't have more than 24 kids.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  But, lots of people have many kids thst they don't take care of. Genghis Khan is one such example, apocryphally having so many kids as to constitute 2% of the current Asian population having had him as an ancestor. So I don't quite get your point, there is no maximum.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    The suggestion is to change the rules, so what people currently do is irrelevant. Genghis Khan set the rules, which is why actually changing them would be very difficult.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      The suggestion falls apart under any scrutiny, you can't force anyone to take care of their kids, if they want to, they will, and if they don't, they won't. Genghis Khan is more closer to our current ruleset than anyone currently is to this suggested rule set, he didn't set any rules, he was following the same rules as people currently do, as I mentioned in the previous sentence.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > The suggestion falls apart under any scrutiny, you can't force anyone to take care of their kids, if they want to, they will, and if they don't, they won't. I can easily imagine a punishment of forced sterilisation for non-compliance. It wouldn't be the first time human society had that as a punishment.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        I mean, if we're talking about totalitarian rather than democratic regimes, then sure, you can sterilize people who don't comply.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > democratic regimes UK, 2015, due to the mother not being capable of looking after her kids: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 Also, one of the main things that made it stop wasn't specifically democracy, but that eugenics became unacceptable, otherwise you'd have to explain why you think the US wasn't democratic until 1942: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Once you start getting into forced sterilization, that is when you will start losing many people on so called reforms, it is simply untenable, regardless of whether the government is truly democratic or not (and by democratic earlier I meant non-totalitarian, I should've been more accurate). That ruling by the UK is also not something I'd support, even if the courts ruled so.
        ben_w 2y ago
        You recon that forced sterilization for being unable to look after all your kids would be unpopular? Even for a maximum limit that's significantly higher than the number that most people would be capable of? You have a higher regard for pubic opinion than me, if you think public opinion would prevent it — in the UK it's fairly easy to run into support for this as a penalty for various things that were already crimes, along with various other things that the speaker thought ought to be. This was even (jokingly) suggested as a thing to be done to former prime minister Boris Johnson, due to his frequent affairs and unknown number of children.
        2y ago
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
    I think a lot of people living at that time would constitute 2% of the current Asian population having had him (or her) as an ancestor.

But it is a way to limit people to a fixed maximum number of children. Say it's a requirement for an hour per day per child — no matter how many drugs Musk takes to stay awake, he can't have more than 24 kids.

satvikpendem 2y ago
But, lots of people have many kids thst they don't take care of. Genghis Khan is one such example, apocryphally having so many kids as to constitute 2% of the current Asian population having had him as an ancestor. So I don't quite get your point, there is no maximum.
- ben_w 2y ago
  The suggestion is to change the rules, so what people currently do is irrelevant. Genghis Khan set the rules, which is why actually changing them would be very difficult.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    The suggestion falls apart under any scrutiny, you can't force anyone to take care of their kids, if they want to, they will, and if they don't, they won't. Genghis Khan is more closer to our current ruleset than anyone currently is to this suggested rule set, he didn't set any rules, he was following the same rules as people currently do, as I mentioned in the previous sentence.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > The suggestion falls apart under any scrutiny, you can't force anyone to take care of their kids, if they want to, they will, and if they don't, they won't. I can easily imagine a punishment of forced sterilisation for non-compliance. It wouldn't be the first time human society had that as a punishment.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        I mean, if we're talking about totalitarian rather than democratic regimes, then sure, you can sterilize people who don't comply.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > democratic regimes UK, 2015, due to the mother not being capable of looking after her kids: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 Also, one of the main things that made it stop wasn't specifically democracy, but that eugenics became unacceptable, otherwise you'd have to explain why you think the US wasn't democratic until 1942: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Once you start getting into forced sterilization, that is when you will start losing many people on so called reforms, it is simply untenable, regardless of whether the government is truly democratic or not (and by democratic earlier I meant non-totalitarian, I should've been more accurate). That ruling by the UK is also not something I'd support, even if the courts ruled so.
        ben_w 2y ago
        You recon that forced sterilization for being unable to look after all your kids would be unpopular? Even for a maximum limit that's significantly higher than the number that most people would be capable of? You have a higher regard for pubic opinion than me, if you think public opinion would prevent it — in the UK it's fairly easy to run into support for this as a penalty for various things that were already crimes, along with various other things that the speaker thought ought to be. This was even (jokingly) suggested as a thing to be done to former prime minister Boris Johnson, due to his frequent affairs and unknown number of children.
        2y ago
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
  I think a lot of people living at that time would constitute 2% of the current Asian population having had him (or her) as an ancestor.