5 ms·

Without kids living and being born and learning and becoming productive members of society your lifestyle would not exist and current economic models would coll

Without kids living and being born and learning and becoming productive members of society your lifestyle would not exist and current economic models would collapse in a handful of years. You are shooting everyone including yourself in the foot because you personally don't need to walk places.

giantg2 1y ago
"and current economic models would collapse in a handful of years." It's possible that's not a bad thing considering they're built on excessive consumption and an ever expanding population.
- AngryData 1y ago
  I would agree that current models are crap, but what kind of alternative would actually be viable with dumber, less healthy, and a shrinking population? We could do with one of them, maybe two if we are just scraping by for time, but all three? That is a one way ticket to a collapse that wouldn't be overcome for many generations.
timewizard 1y ago
> and becoming productive members of society Child labor was legal until 1930. It has been a part of society for longer than it hasn't. I think your calculus is a little off. > your lifestyle would not exist Because /some/ children struggle to eat enough? Which, again, has been a norm in our society for longer than it hasn't. We didn't fully get rid of horses as beasts of burden in agriculture until the 1950s. > you personally don't need to walk places. Carrying everyone who can't walk is not a universal good. Particularly when some of those people can't walk because of a tiny, temporary, and highly solvable problem. Now you have people who make it their career to carry people. Their motivations are to carry as many people as is possible. If we actually made it so no one had to be carried they would be out a job. We live in a world of odd incentives. There is no point at which abandoning the middle way will benefit you, regardless of how pretty those ideas sound.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  > Child labor Are you serious. > Because /some/ children struggle to eat enough? They said "without kids", not without this particular program. > Carrying everyone who can't walk is not a universal good. Particularly when some of those people can't walk because of a tiny, temporary, and highly solvable problem. > Now you have people who make it their career to carry people. Their motivations are to carry as many people as is possible. If we actually made it so no one had to be carried they would be out a job. These are children. Someone is carrying them no matter what.
  - timewizard 1y ago
    > Are you serious. Yes. I'm calling into question the idea that modern treatment of children is responsible for the world we live in. Clearly it is not given the relative scarcity of it in our history. I'm not saying we shouldn't give children a free lunch just that the OPs reasoning was rather lofty and detached from history. > They said "without kids", not without this particular program. They're replying to someone with the obvious implication that this program is in some way critical to children "learning and becoming productive members of society." > Someone is carrying them no matter what. Now are you serious? Do parents consider it their career to raise their own children? Does this career have the effect of increasing the number of children they care for in exchange for greater profits? Which is why I invoked incentives. The tragedy here being that schools consider their primary obligation to the child and not to the family. So when parents are in a situation where they cannot care for their children successfully, for whatever reason, we completely ignore the core problem and instead patch over it. Worse it can sometimes create negative stigma for the child and work to further destabilize their living situation.
    - j16sdiz 1y ago
      Extended families, charity and churches exists long before public school exists. They have been taking similar role before the industrial revolution.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago

giantg2 1y ago

"and current economic models would collapse in a handful of years." It's possible that's not a bad thing considering they're built on excessive consumption and an ever expanding population.

AngryData 1y ago
I would agree that current models are crap, but what kind of alternative would actually be viable with dumber, less healthy, and a shrinking population? We could do with one of them, maybe two if we are just scraping by for time, but all three? That is a one way ticket to a collapse that wouldn't be overcome for many generations.

timewizard 1y ago

> and becoming productive members of society Child labor was legal until 1930. It has been a part of society for longer than it hasn't. I think your calculus is a little off. > your lifestyle would not exist Because /some/ children struggle to eat enough? Which, again, has been a norm in our society for longer than it hasn't. We didn't fully get rid of horses as beasts of burden in agriculture until the 1950s. > you personally don't need to walk places. Carrying everyone who can't walk is not a universal good. Particularly when some of those people can't walk because of a tiny, temporary, and highly solvable problem. Now you have people who make it their career to carry people. Their motivations are to carry as many people as is possible. If we actually made it so no one had to be carried they would be out a job. We live in a world of odd incentives. There is no point at which abandoning the middle way will benefit you, regardless of how pretty those ideas sound.

Dylan16807 1y ago
> Child labor Are you serious. > Because /some/ children struggle to eat enough? They said "without kids", not without this particular program. > Carrying everyone who can't walk is not a universal good. Particularly when some of those people can't walk because of a tiny, temporary, and highly solvable problem. > Now you have people who make it their career to carry people. Their motivations are to carry as many people as is possible. If we actually made it so no one had to be carried they would be out a job. These are children. Someone is carrying them no matter what.
- timewizard 1y ago
  > Are you serious. Yes. I'm calling into question the idea that modern treatment of children is responsible for the world we live in. Clearly it is not given the relative scarcity of it in our history. I'm not saying we shouldn't give children a free lunch just that the OPs reasoning was rather lofty and detached from history. > They said "without kids", not without this particular program. They're replying to someone with the obvious implication that this program is in some way critical to children "learning and becoming productive members of society." > Someone is carrying them no matter what. Now are you serious? Do parents consider it their career to raise their own children? Does this career have the effect of increasing the number of children they care for in exchange for greater profits? Which is why I invoked incentives. The tragedy here being that schools consider their primary obligation to the child and not to the family. So when parents are in a situation where they cannot care for their children successfully, for whatever reason, we completely ignore the core problem and instead patch over it. Worse it can sometimes create negative stigma for the child and work to further destabilize their living situation.
  - j16sdiz 1y ago
    Extended families, charity and churches exists long before public school exists. They have been taking similar role before the industrial revolution.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago