3 ms·

Society needs fresh blood to work, pay taxes, pay our retirement pensions, but the bill is still stuck upon the individuals that choose to have children. Only c

by epx 12y ago

Society needs fresh blood to work, pay taxes, pay our retirement pensions, but the bill is still stuck upon the individuals that choose to have children. Only crazy people have children nowadays.

hnal943 12y ago
Do you think people choose to have kids out of obligation to "Society?"
- TulliusCicero 12y ago
  Most don't, obviously. He's still right, though: kids financially benefit the wider society, but most of the initial costs are borne by the individual parents. And since statistically speaking, having kids doesn't make you any happier (and at least temporarily makes you less happy), having kids does seem rather irrational on its face.
- lutusp 12y ago
  In a word, yes. Let me remind you of the meaning of "proletarian". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat Quote: "... children—proles (from Latin proli, "offspring")—were listed instead of their property; hence, the name proletarius, "the one who produces offspring"." In Rome the proletariat were nothing less than baby factories. Many were completely indoctrinated in this role, regarding it as their duty. And this class has existed, with different names, to the present.
informatimago 12y ago
This is all wrong. Or else, we're failing as a species. An individual, or any group of individuals, should be able to sustain themselves by their own work, as long as there are enough resources in the environment (or ecosystem). Given that children are not self sustaining, individuals, or rather couples, but even more so, groups of individuals (villages, tribes, countries), should be able to get even more resources than their own need by their own work, so as to feed their children, their women and their olds. Or better, capitalize resources so they can feed themselves when they're old. A society that would really need fresh blood, that had too many taxes or retirement pensions to pay, and where women cannot bear children because they have to work to sustain themselves, since men aren't retributed enough to feed their families all by themselves, those societies are beyond failure. They have effectively failed. It's done. But I'm not sure that's the case in Europe or in the USA. I still think that there are enough resources, and even more than ever, given techological and scientific progress; eg. 200 years ago, 98% of the population had to work to feed the remaining 2%; nowadays 1% of the population has to work to feed the remaining 99%; therefore people should be able to work productively 4 days a year (not at those useless jobs), and earn enough resources to feed himself. Working 12 more days a year, he should earn enough resource to feed his wife and two children. Similarly, to shelter and clothe oneself shouldn't require much more work. All the rest goes to pay taxes of all kinds, that we shouldn't have to bear with. http://www.thevenusproject.com/ http://www.thevenusproject.com/

by epx 12y ago

Society needs fresh blood to work, pay taxes, pay our retirement pensions, but the bill is still stuck upon the individuals that choose to have children. Only crazy people have children nowadays.

hnal943 12y ago

Do you think people choose to have kids out of obligation to "Society?"

TulliusCicero 12y ago
Most don't, obviously. He's still right, though: kids financially benefit the wider society, but most of the initial costs are borne by the individual parents. And since statistically speaking, having kids doesn't make you any happier (and at least temporarily makes you less happy), having kids does seem rather irrational on its face.
lutusp 12y ago
In a word, yes. Let me remind you of the meaning of "proletarian". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat Quote: "... children—proles (from Latin proli, "offspring")—were listed instead of their property; hence, the name proletarius, "the one who produces offspring"." In Rome the proletariat were nothing less than baby factories. Many were completely indoctrinated in this role, regarding it as their duty. And this class has existed, with different names, to the present.

informatimago 12y ago

This is all wrong. Or else, we're failing as a species. An individual, or any group of individuals, should be able to sustain themselves by their own work, as long as there are enough resources in the environment (or ecosystem). Given that children are not self sustaining, individuals, or rather couples, but even more so, groups of individuals (villages, tribes, countries), should be able to get even more resources than their own need by their own work, so as to feed their children, their women and their olds. Or better, capitalize resources so they can feed themselves when they're old. A society that would really need fresh blood, that had too many taxes or retirement pensions to pay, and where women cannot bear children because they have to work to sustain themselves, since men aren't retributed enough to feed their families all by themselves, those societies are beyond failure. They have effectively failed. It's done. But I'm not sure that's the case in Europe or in the USA. I still think that there are enough resources, and even more than ever, given techological and scientific progress; eg. 200 years ago, 98% of the population had to work to feed the remaining 2%; nowadays 1% of the population has to work to feed the remaining 99%; therefore people should be able to work productively 4 days a year (not at those useless jobs), and earn enough resources to feed himself. Working 12 more days a year, he should earn enough resource to feed his wife and two children. Similarly, to shelter and clothe oneself shouldn't require much more work. All the rest goes to pay taxes of all kinds, that we shouldn't have to bear with. http://www.thevenusproject.com/ http://www.thevenusproject.com/