Mortai Gravesend said:... Something tells me you don't really know anything about that phenomena and have made assumptions about causes -__-
White British families have moved out of London as many immigrants have settled in the capital. The report's writers expressed concern about British social cohesion and stated that different ethnic groups were living "parallel lives"; they were concerned that lack of contact between the groups could result in fear more readily exploited by extremists. The London School of Economics in a study found similar results.
Ah I see you cut out the original post, which if you READ it, shows that I'm right, And you accuse me of being dishonest? maybe you should consider actually trying to argue my points in just saying "NO YOU'RE LYING"Mortai Gravesend said:Babbling about things I didn't say in response to me is stupid. And goes to show that maybe you do have reading comprehension issues. Nothing I said implied only caring about you and yours. Is being honest that hard of a concept?Darkmantle said:Only caring about you and yours, is selfish.Mortai Gravesend said:No, that isn't how selfishness is defined. Furthermore you're dishonestly exaggerating it. It's a matter of magnitude, not willingness to help others. Come back with integrity, or maybe better reading comprehension.Darkmantle said:that would be the definition of selfish. Not wanting to help anyone who isn't in your immediate group. So yes, it is selfish.Mortai Gravesend said:So it's selfish to not want to raise kids to take care of a bunch of people you don't know? People need to care for the aging so it's the duty of the young to crank out kids to provide for them?octafish said:Agreed. Just look to Japan for a worst case scenario. They have a rapidly aging population and no-one to care for them. Their economy is suffering for it too. Australia is in a similar boat, we have more Baby Boomers who will need aged care that we can afford while maintaining sensible tax rates.Regnes said:I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population, but since there are factors such as early death, sterility, homosexuality inhibiting us, couple must produce above 2 children or the population will dwindle over the years. Then of course there's the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is not equal, so even more children need to be produced.
Lowering the national reproductive rates to below the par required for sustaining to population results in age demographic imbalances. China is famous for it's one child policy they introduced to help counter overpopulation. This has been disastrous because it actually worked to an extent and since people stopped producing enough children, the country's average age is very high compared to most countries, it's a big problem when your country mostly contains seniors for obvious reasons.
Canada's population is actually at risk because too many people don't feel it's worth their time to have kids. Personally I think the government needs to offer more incentives to parents. Sure you will have welfare bums who will only benefit further from this, but more good will come of it than bad I think.
Former Premiere of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell made the situation a little worse in 2010 with the introduction of the new tax system. Yeah, let's tax all children's clothing and goods, I'm sure more people will have kids if we do that.
I think the way to look at this is that future children don't actually exist. So on one hand, you aren't being selfish in the traditional sense of it harming someone else, and on the exact same hand, assuming you are still calling it selfishness (despite not being harmful to others) is to point out that it is not hurting other people. So either way it isn't a bad thing, but depending upon how you view the concept, it isn't actually selfish.octafish said:That sounds selfish doesn't it? Putting your own interests before others, isn't that what selfish is? (Just to continue a discussion on the internet, nothing personal.)Mortai Gravesend said:mother of all snips
True. But spending years of your life to raise kids is more than a little solidarity. That is years of your life, work you have to do, interests of your own you have to shelve.
You make good points. I just find that being pessimistic about stuff like this has a much greater chance of yielding a positive outcome. If it gets better, awesome! If it gets worse, at least I was right.AngloDoom said:I don't mean to sound condescending, but do you think it's only this generation of people who've thought this way?Mikeyfell said:Look at the state of technological advancement today. They made cameras, cell phones, MP3 players, Laptops, etc. and what's the next step? they put them all in the same device. Technology has started moving sideways.Zayle79 said:There's just no way. People from any time period have no idea where their technology is going. Back when computers were just enormous calculators, do you think people had any idea that they would ever be anything more than that? Scientists did, of course, but even they had no idea what they would eventually turn into in sixty years. I don't know where our technology is going, but cloud computing, quantum computing, commercial space travel, and artificial intelligence are all being worked on right now. The Singularity could happen in the next 30 years.Mikeyfell said:I think you're confusing "There are smarter people today" with "People today are smarter"Zayle79 said:But people get smarter as time goes on. If a person from the year 1900 who was considered to have average intelligence were to take a modern-day IQ test, they be considered mildly retarded by today's standards. Besides, just think about it--if it really worked like it did in Idiocracy, then how has our society come so far since, say, the Middle Ages?
Not that it means you're obligated to have kids. The whole "people are getting dumber!" thing just really irritates me.
Nobody back then was half as smart as Stephen Hawking, but how many people today are half that smart? You may be extremely knowledgeable about a lot of things but you have to realize that somebody hundreds of years ago came up with all of those things.
I think we're past the tipping point for intelligence, meaning that our resources have out stripped our need to think.
A fictional character from a videogame said it best.
People don't need to think for them selves any more because there's a shortcut for pretty much anything you'd need to do. Modern infrastructure means everything is too convenient, and with convenience people get lazy. And lazy people have no intensive to innovate.a line from Mass Effect 2 said:All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates.
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that in 30 years the only notable scientific advancement is that the phones will be smaller.
The IQ thing is a fact, by the way. It's called the Flynn effect--the average IQ goes up about 3 points every decade, meaning average-intelligence people from the 19th Century would be considered mildly retarded today. People in general (not just the occasional geniuses whose scores would barely affect the average) get smarter.
And while the Flynn effect may hold true up to a point I still think that thing I said about the tipping point is also true, that we've either peaked already or we will very shortly. You know the old saying: What goes up must come down.
This kind of stopped being about kids. Hell I might be wrong, but I care about my nonexistent offspring enough to not risk their patience on it.
Back in the early 1800's, people started saying man had starts to ascend God and was nearing the point of finally reaching the point of having nothing else to learn. Scientists could "tear aside the veil of nature" and see it's inner-most secrets.
Technology is in no way 'moving sideways' because phones have cameras in them. Cars do fine with radios and televisions in them and we haven't suddenly stopped learning as a result. Technology 'slowing down' is a pattern we see time and time again - often before a big technological upheaval with a quick succession of radical improvements to what we already knew.
If you're worried we're reaching our peak, I wouldn't just yet. I'd go as far as saying you don't have to until the sun explodes.
EDIT --
Totally forgot to address your point about people becoming lazier when it comes to learning, let's try that again =D
I don't know how intelligent people were a hundred years ago - a lot of literature likes to suggest everyone was speaking Greek and Latin for funsies but very few people even had access to that type of education - and some people just love to learn. With every subject in the world, there is bound to be one enthusiast who loves it enough to try and learn it all. Even if we start having less and less of these people proportionately, there will almost certainly be a profit to be made somewhere and the people who aren't 'thinkers' will happily be 'funders' to the people with the initiative to chase what they want, at least in my mind.
I don't know, this is all just my opinion of course. For now, I bet an internet cookie that we'll see some kind of appliance in every household in the next fifty years that didn't exist prior to today. If I'm wrong: cookie for you, Sir.
There's 7 billion people in the world, and 330,000,000 in the U.S.Regnes said:I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population, but since there are factors such as early death, sterility, homosexuality inhibiting us, couple must produce above 2 children or the population will dwindle over the years. Then of course there's the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is not equal, so even more children need to be produced.
Lowering the national reproductive rates to below the par required for sustaining to population results in age demographic imbalances. China is famous for it's one child policy they introduced to help counter overpopulation. This has been disastrous because it actually worked to an extent and since people stopped producing enough children, the country's average age is very high compared to most countries, it's a big problem when your country mostly contains seniors for obvious reasons.
Canada's population is actually at risk because too many people don't feel it's worth their time to have kids. Personally I think the government needs to offer more incentives to parents. Sure you will have welfare bums who will only benefit further from this, but more good will come of it than bad I think.
Former Premiere of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell made the situation a little worse in 2010 with the introduction of the new tax system. Yeah, let's tax all children's clothing and goods, I'm sure more people will have kids if we do that.
Are you buying only products made in your country? Are you helping your country's exports? Are you sitting on money (savings) that a bank is using to buy stock in foreign companies instead of pumping it back into the economy? Are you protesting when once national brands sell themselves off to overseas buyers? Campaigning the local, state and federal governments on these issues? Etc., etc., you get the picture.Regnes said:I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children.
Oh so true, just like no foreign governments ever bribe our politicians to vote in favor of policy to benefit said foreign national companies.Grey Day for Elcia said:Are you buying only products made in your country? Are you helping your country's exports? Are you sitting on money (savings) that a bank is using to buy stock in foreign companies instead of pumping it back into the economy? Are you protesting when once national brands sell themselves off to overseas buyers? Campaigning the local, state and federal governments on these issues? Etc., etc., you get the picture.Regnes said:I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children.
It's not about spending money. It's about ensuring a continuous input of the labour force.instantbenz said:The 'economy' issue brought up by so many people is moot. Money accrued will be greater for the potential parent. At some point that money gets used or absorbed by the economy regardless. This isn't rocket science here.
If you don't have kids, you have fewer expenses. You can then spend money on what you want instead of on diapers and baby formula so check this out:
$ for shit I want into economy=$ for shit I'd spend on baby into economy
so, transitively, using a condom is like buying a ticket to a future of you pumping money into the economy as knocking someone up is a ticket to a future of you pumping money into the economy
ta-da
Double negatives always give me that split second of headache, lol.instantbenz said:Oh so true, just like no foreign governments ever bribe our politicians to vote in favor of policy to benefit said foreign national companies.Grey Day for Elcia said:Are you buying only products made in your country? Are you helping your country's exports? Are you sitting on money (savings) that a bank is using to buy stock in foreign companies instead of pumping it back into the economy? Are you protesting when once national brands sell themselves off to overseas buyers? Campaigning the local, state and federal governments on these issues? Etc., etc., you get the picture.Regnes said:I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children.
Margaret Thatcher and the Saudis? The money comes back to us.
Again, the 'economy' issue proves nothing. It is not selfish to not procreate.
Nah, I love kids. I'm in the minority when it comes to that on this site lol.irishda said:Oh the Escapist, wherein a bunch of mid-20's to early teens try to rationalize children or their hatred of them without actually understanding them.
It's not selfish to choose childlessness, but, most of the time, you don't get a choice hahaha. Even with contraception, more than half of the parents I've ever talked to said they had children DESPITE planning/trying against having them. A lot of people hate kids, right up until the moment they have one of their own.