3 ms·

> ... this is demonstrably false when talking in general. No, it is demonstrably true when talking in general. To deny this is to deny the scientific theory of

by lutusp 14y ago

> ... this is demonstrably false when talking in general. No, it is demonstrably true when talking in general. To deny this is to deny the scientific theory of evolution. More resources leads to more reproduction. Organisms that don't follow this rule, die out. >> Education is free. > That's true, but meaningless in practical terms. What? Are we talking about education, or are we talking about purchasing a sheepskin? > However to have a real effect you need to organize and disseminate information, etc...all much easier with money. So education can't happen unless the ruling class releases the information essential to education? You have a very interesting picture of reality. How did people educate themselves before there was a ruling class, before there was someone who needed to "organize and disseminate information"? On that topic, how did the ruling class get there in the first place -- or was it "turtles all the way down" (a famous Bertrand Russell line)? Education doesn't mean waiting to be told what to think, it means learning how to think.

thejsjunky 14y ago
> To deny this is to deny the scientific theory of evolution. No, it's to understand the statistics. The richer and more economically developed a country is in general; the lower the birthrate. Likewise that's the trend for households/regions/etc. In general the better off a person is, the less likely they are to have children or to have many children. Your analysis is too simplistic. The issue here is where the incentive lies: with having more children or less. Programs that give money to the poor do neither of those things inherently. It depends on how the money is given; that is what causes the incentive to go one way or the other. As we covered, it becomes more complicated because there are ways to give incentive to have more children. To put it simply, if you pay a woman for each child she has...she is more likely to have more children. If you give her the chance to earn more money, she is LESS likely to have more children. > So education can't happen unless the ruling class releases the information essential to education? That's a rather nice strawman you've constructed. > How did people educate themselves before Much more slowly and with greater difficulty than they do now; that's the point.

by lutusp 14y ago

thejsjunky 14y ago

> To deny this is to deny the scientific theory of evolution. No, it's to understand the statistics. The richer and more economically developed a country is in general; the lower the birthrate. Likewise that's the trend for households/regions/etc. In general the better off a person is, the less likely they are to have children or to have many children. Your analysis is too simplistic. The issue here is where the incentive lies: with having more children or less. Programs that give money to the poor do neither of those things inherently. It depends on how the money is given; that is what causes the incentive to go one way or the other. As we covered, it becomes more complicated because there are ways to give incentive to have more children. To put it simply, if you pay a woman for each child she has...she is more likely to have more children. If you give her the chance to earn more money, she is LESS likely to have more children. > So education can't happen unless the ruling class releases the information essential to education? That's a rather nice strawman you've constructed. > How did people educate themselves before Much more slowly and with greater difficulty than they do now; that's the point.