Fertility rates

[Social Justice League]

16 minutes ago, Bear Hug said:

 

What's precious about the resources?  Other than the fact that we need them to survive? 

If human kind is a waste, then why not consider resources to also be a waste and not bother protecting them?

Survival instincts are strong and are logical conclusion of the evolution.  Those who don't have them quickly become extinct. That's the strength of the religions surviving: all it takes for their believers to multiply more than non-believers, and their views will always win.

But is there any actual absolute value in our survival?  Other than some biodiversity advantage for the local ecosystem with its other parts also evolved to survive? 

No, human beings don't need to exist and when the sun burns out, we won't along with all other life on earth.

Like I said, every single animal is "just passing thorugh".

[Bear Hug]

9 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

No, human beings don't need to exist and when the sun burns out, we won't along with all other life on earth.

Like I said, every single animal is "just passing thorugh".

Then why is there any issue with doing as much damage as possible?

[Social Justice League]

2 minutes ago, Bear Hug said:

Then why is there any issue with doing as much damage as possible?

I should have said, Westen Capitalist humans don't need t exist.

Just a drain and a waste of resources.

[Bear Hug]

4 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

I should have said, Westen Capitalist humans don't need t exist.

Just a drain and a waste of resources.

I can't follow.  You seem to agree on somewhat meaningless and finite lifespan of human race, yet appear to judge how certain sections of humans utilize the resources.  Who cares?

[Social Justice League]

10 hours ago, Bear Hug said:

I can't follow.  You seem to agree on somewhat meaningless and finite lifespan of human race, yet appear to judge how certain sections of humans utilize the resources.  Who cares?

Either the sun burns out or we get nuclear holocaust.

Either way is fine by me.

 

(I edited this post as I don't think all humans are scum)

Edited November 14, 2018 by Social Justice League

[winkie]

On 13/11/2018 at 14:03, Maynardgravy said:

It was actually 19,000 deaths out of the casualties </pedant>

...widely documented, 19,000 deaths in one day is bad enough....doubt that would ever be repeated thankfully.....people are more educated and informed today.

https://www.history.com/news/why-was-the-battle-of-the-somme-so-deadly

[Riedquat]

40 minutes ago, winkie said:

...widely documented, 19,000 deaths in one day is bad enough....doubt that would ever be repeated thankfully.....people are more educated and informed today.

https://www.history.com/news/why-was-the-battle-of-the-somme-so-deadly

It won't be repeated in the same way simply because modern warfare doesn't rely on large numbers of people in quite the same way. The tactical lessons learned apply to fighting with the technology of the time, and when that changes (which of course it has, a lot) new lessons need to be learned.

[Errol]

17 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

I should have said, Westen Capitalist humans don't need t exist.

Just a drain and a waste of resources.

That's fine. Provided the West puts up massive walls with guns on top to stop anyone from Africa or other third world countries from making their way north.

[Errol]

1 hour ago, winkie said:

...widely documented, 19,000 deaths in one day is bad enough....doubt that would ever be repeated thankfully.....people are more educated and informed today.

https://www.history.com/news/why-was-the-battle-of-the-somme-so-deadly

Far more people died in the Battle of Stalingrad than the British lost in the entirety of World War I. So nothing had really be learned from WWI at all.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Errol

[TryingToWin]

On ‎09‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 14:42, Errol said:

Yes, but luckily what happens in Africa is nothing to do with us. If they choose to breed themselves into oblivion, and then starve that is entirely their choice. Nature will sort it out. They will starve or die from disease if they continue breeding at such rates.

Europe and the West just needs walls in place with troops to stop the migrants from getting in to our countries. Perfectly possible to do this - you just need to be prepared to break eggs.

This. This is the approach.

I blame the lefts hatred of the natural order. There is a natural form of population control in all species. Starvation.

I have a theory that the more you subsidise something, the more you encourage it.

Stop the welfare gravy train, Stop subsidizing single parent mothers. Stop the aid to starving countries where people are having 10 kids.

 

We have a situation where humanity is actually regressing because reasonable people have 2 kids and then subsidize retarded people so they can have 10. Let nature take its course.

How hard would it be to get my simple program through parliament: Mandatory Contraceptive implants for welfare recipients. The tech is there, I don't know why it's not being used.

[mrtickle]

6 hours ago, TryingToWin said:

We have a situation where humanity is actually regressing because reasonable people have 2 kids and then subsidize retarded people so they can have 10. Let nature take its course.

How hard would it be to get my simple program through parliament: Mandatory Contraceptive implants for welfare recipients. The tech is there, I don't know why it's not being used.

I presume you mean for FEMALE welfare recipients, and not that you'd forgotten that a large proportion of claimants are men.

 

[Uncle_Kenny]

On 14/11/2018 at 03:25, Social Justice League said:

I should have said, Westen Capitalist humans don't need t exist.

Just a drain and a waste of resources.

 

6 hours ago, TryingToWin said:

How hard would it be to get my simple program through parliament: Mandatory Contraceptive implants for welfare recipients. The tech is there, I don't know why it's not being used.

I've heard these sentiments before, we all know where this train of thought leads.

[Riedquat]

4 hours ago, Uncle_Kenny said:

I've heard these sentiments before, we all know where this train of thought leads.

So TPB damned well better start thinking about how to come up with more acceptable solutions before that train of thought gains traction.

[Mrs Bear]

From experience of my own daughters and their  contemporaries,  people are forming long long term relationships later - not necessarily because they don't want to,  but because they only found the right person relatively late.  

Elder daughter and several of her contemporaries only started families in late 30s/early 40s.  And some of them would love more than 2, but because of sky high housing and childcare costs, it's pretty much out of the question.  Only 2 of daughter's extensive circle have had 3 children, and those are the ones  to whom expenses are not a major issue, I.e. the highest earners. 

 

 

[iamnumerate]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Bear said:

From experience of my own daughters and their  contemporaries,  people are forming long long term relationships later - not necessarily because they don't want to,  but because they only found the right person relatively late.  

Elder daughter and several of her contemporaries only started families in late 30s/early 40s.  And some of them would love more than 2, but because of sky high housing and childcare costs, it's pretty much out of the question.  Only 2 of daughter's extensive circle have had 3 children, and those are the ones  to whom expenses are not a major issue, I.e. the highest earners. 

 

 

Sadly those who don't worry about forming long term relationships still have the same number of children as before.

I know exactly how she feels about housing and childcare costs.  I have a Chinese friend who told me that in China the Grandparents solve the childcare cost problem, she has to meet my parents one day!

Edited November 16, 2018 by iamnumerate

[Mrs Bear]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

Sadly those who don't worry about forming long term relationships still have the same number of children as before.

I know exactly how she feels about housing and childcare costs.  I have a Chinese friend who told me that in China the Grandparents solve the childcare cost problem, she has to meet my parents one day!

Well, a lot of UK g-parents do help out a lot with childcare, but what with so many of their children starting families later in life, it often means that grandparents are 60s/70s rather than 50s, and consequently find looking after very little ones that  much more exhausting. 

I used to do regular childcare for one, but when no. 2 arrived only 15 months later, I knew it was going to be too much, so we help with nursery  costs instead - I know we are lucky to be able to afford it.  I still do quite a few one-offs/emergencies, though. 

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Bear said:

Well, a lot of UK g-parents do help out a lot with childcare, but what with so many of their children starting families later in life, it often means that grandparents are 60s/70s rather than 50s, and consequently find looking after very little ones that  much more exhausting. 

I used to do regular childcare for one, but when no. 2 arrived only 15 months later, I knew it was going to be too much, so we help with nursery  costs instead - I know we are lucky to be able to afford it.  I still do quite a few one-offs/emergencies, though. 

True, I was saying that you should, just thinking that it was interesting.  I know what you mean about little ones being exhausting and I am well away from my 50s.

[onlooker]

1 hour ago, Mrs Bear said:

From experience of my own daughters and their  contemporaries,  people are forming long long term relationships later - not necessarily because they don't want to,  but because they only found the right person relatively late.  

Elder daughter and several of her contemporaries only started families in late 30s/early 40s.  And some of them would love more than 2, but because of sky high housing and childcare costs, it's pretty much out of the question.  Only 2 of daughter's extensive circle have had 3 children, and those are the ones  to whom expenses are not a major issue, I.e. the highest earners. 

 

 

Are children such a big expense? Food and clothing have never been cheaper. Secondhand clothes and toys are in greater abundance now than ever, and easily available through charity shops and sales. There are always hand me downs.

Space is an issue, but previous generations lived at higher densities than we do now, and didn't suffer.

Childcare is very much an issue, but older children can look after younger. We used to belong to baby sitting circles, and sat for each others children.

I think the main constraint on family size now is that it cramps people's social life and enjoyment.

[iamnumerate]

2 minutes ago, onlooker said:

Are children such a big expense? Food and clothing have never been cheaper. Secondhand clothes and toys are in greater abundance now than ever, and easily available through charity shops and sales. There are always hand me downs.

Space is an issue, but previous generations lived at higher densities than we do now, and didn't suffer.

Childcare is very much an issue, but older children can look after younger. We used to belong to baby sitting circles, and sat for each others children.

I think the main constraint on family size now is that it cramps people's social life and enjoyment.

The main cost is the time i.e. the hours you are not working, particularly if the mother is freelance and gets only statutory maternity pay. 

I don't think baby sitting circles work for childcare during working hours, even if they did you would still lose 1 days pay.

[scottbeard]

3 hours ago, Mrs Bear said:

From experience of my own daughters and their  contemporaries,  people are forming long long term relationships later - not necessarily because they don't want to,  but because they only found the right person relatively late.  

Elder daughter and several of her contemporaries only started families in late 30s/early 40s.  And some of them would love more than 2, but because of sky high housing and childcare costs, it's pretty much out of the question.  Only 2 of daughter's extensive circle have had 3 children, and those are the ones  to whom expenses are not a major issue, I.e. the highest earners. 

Is it the cost of looking after the children that's changed...or just the minimum standard of living we feel is acceptable to foist upon them?

Nowadays many middle class people might not have a 3rd child because they can't afford a 4-bed house so they can all have their own room, when years ago kids would all share a bedroom....or even a bed! 

My Mum grew up in a 2-bed house where her parents and grandma also lived, so she shared a bedroom with her grandma until she was 14. 

I honestly think that it's actually a re-framing of what we consider "acceptable" that makes more difference than the underlying earnings vs costs of having children.

[rantnrave]

33 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Is it the cost of looking after the children that's changed...or just the minimum standard of living we feel is acceptable to foist upon them?

Nowadays many middle class people might not have a 3rd child because they can't afford a 4-bed house so they can all have their own room, when years ago kids would all share a bedroom....or even a bed! 

My Mum grew up in a 2-bed house where her parents and grandma also lived, so she shared a bedroom with her grandma until she was 14. 

I honestly think that it's actually a re-framing of what we consider "acceptable" that makes more difference than the underlying earnings vs costs of having children.

Isn't it illegal these days for a boy and girl to share a bedroom if one of them is 8+?

[zugzwang]

23 hours ago, TryingToWin said:

This. This is the approach.

I blame the lefts hatred of the natural order. There is a natural form of population control in all species. Starvation.

I have a theory that the more you subsidise something, the more you encourage it.

Stop the welfare gravy train, Stop subsidizing single parent mothers. Stop the aid to starving countries where people are having 10 kids.

 

We have a situation where humanity is actually regressing because reasonable people have 2 kids and then subsidize retarded people so they can have 10. Let nature take its course.

How hard would it be to get my simple program through parliament: Mandatory Contraceptive implants for welfare recipients. The tech is there, I don't know why it's not being used.

Sterilise the poor and defective? Francis Galton was making the same argument a century ago. Many of his idea were adopted enthusiastically by eugenics proponents in North America and Western Europe. Adolf Hitler advocated the same philosophy in Mein Kampf. Common early 20th century eugenics methods included identifying and classifying as 'unfit' individuals who were poor, mentally ill, deaf, blind, promiscuous, homosexual and developmentally disabled. After WWII the practice of imposing measures intended to prevent births by social, racial or religious discrimination was outlawed as genocide by the United Nations.

That's why your 'simple program' isn't being used.

 

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Sterilise the poor and defective? Francis Galton was making the same argument a century ago. Many of his idea were adopted enthusiastically by eugenics proponents in North America and Western Europe. Adolf Hitler advocated the same philosophy in Mein Kampf. Common early 20th century eugenics methods included identifying and classifying as 'unfit' individuals who were poor, mentally ill, deaf, blind, promiscuous, homosexual and developmentally disabled. After WWII the practice of imposing measures intended to prevent births by social, racial or religious discrimination was outlawed as genocide by the United Nations.

That's why your 'simple program' isn't being used.

 

I don't agree with eugenics but stop paying people to have children would be a good idea (and not the same).

[scottbeard]

34 minutes ago, rantnrave said:

Isn't it illegal these days for a boy and girl to share a bedroom if one of them is 8+?

No it's not (although some housing associations or rentals may impose that as a rental condition).

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-system/legal-definition-child-rights-law/bedroom-sharing-moving-out/

It would be a very tough law to create as you might put parents who already have a child in the position of saying "if your new baby is a boy, he can share the only bedroom in your house with his brother indefinitely.  If it's a girl, one of them has to go into care when she turns 8".

[ElPapasito]

2 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Sterilise the poor and defective? Francis Galton was making the same argument a century ago. Many of his idea were adopted enthusiastically by eugenics proponents in North America and Western Europe. Adolf Hitler advocated the same philosophy in Mein Kampf. Common early 20th century eugenics methods included identifying and classifying as 'unfit' individuals who were poor, mentally ill, deaf, blind, promiscuous, homosexual and developmentally disabled. After WWII the practice of imposing measures intended to prevent births by social, racial or religious discrimination was outlawed as genocide by the United Nations.

That's why your 'simple program' isn't being used.

 

Thank you.  I was going to be less generous in countering his murderous drivel.