Having a family is becoming an unaffordable luxury

[nero120]

Just now, NoHPCinTheUK said:

Try to spend 70% of your income just to feed you and you'll see where you quality of life goes. 

Wow, so the best you could come up with was a process that was invented in 1903 (I asked for a development in my lifetime that improved my quality of life)?! How many trillions I wonder have been invested in science since then and to what benefit?

The irony here being that, I value science and I work in tech. I'm taking the other side of the argument here because you make a poor case for it. State-funded science is dismal, and is now captured by woke interests forcing investment into "climate science" and net-zero crap whilst crowding out better uses.

What would be even better would be if science was forced to come up with it's own capital for research rather than extorting the public through the state via taxation.

[nero120]

@NoHPCinTheUK do work in a science-related industry?

[NoHPCinTheUK]

21 minutes ago, Smith said:

I don't think it should be managed; I think people should have the brains and self-awareness to see where things are heading and take some personal responsibility for their actions.

And a good starting point would be to drop the ridiculous assumption on which this thread is based, that parents are somehow doing us all a favour.

What the hell you're talking about? Personal responsibility? The Marxist propaganda has totally messed up your brains. 

[Smith]

3 minutes ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

What the hell you're talking about? Personal responsibility? The Marxist propaganda has totally messed up your brains. 

OK, that's the best you can do, fair enough. Well, anyone reading this thread can make their own mind up about how that debate played out.

[NoHPCinTheUK]

29 minutes ago, nero120 said:

Wow, so the best you could come up with was a process that was invented in 1903 (I asked for a development in my lifetime that improved my quality of life)?! How many trillions I wonder have been invested in science since then and to what benefit?

The irony here being that, I value science and I work in tech. I'm taking the other side of the argument here because you make a poor case for it. State-funded science is dismal, and is now captured by woke interests forcing investment into "climate science" and net-zero crap whilst crowding out better uses.

What would be even better would be if science was forced to come up with it's own capital for research rather than extorting the public through the state via taxation.

The process has been vastly imporved during your lifetime. Cargo ships and their improved engines have made your life less miserables, same with a car's engines, which consume less fuel per mile than thier old version. Solar panels, wind farms and nuclear are also technologies which improved your living standards. 

You are just a first world spoiled child. You and your marxist friend should be put on a tight diet to see first hand what it means to live w/o the abundance of resources that is only possible with technology and the great imaginantion of human beings. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by NoHPCinTheUK

[NoHPCinTheUK]

Just now, Smith said:

OK, that's the best you can do, fair enough. Well, anyone reading this thread can make their own mind up about how that debate played out.

What the hell do you want me to reply? Personal responsibility about what? The whole ESG crap? Save the planet bs? 

 

[nero120]

2 minutes ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

The process has been vastly imporved during your lifetime. Cargo ships and their improved engines have made your life less miserables, same with car's engines, which consume less fuel per miles than thier old version. Solar panels, wind farms and nuclear are also technologies which improved your living standards. 

You are just a first world spoiled child. You and your marxist friend should be put on a tight diet to see first hand what it means to live w/o the abundance of resources that is only possible with technology and the great imaginantion of human beings. 

So you're saying globalisation has improved my life? Funny I look around at our broken nation, enslaved to debt and tech, drug-addicted, narcissistic, nihilistic and sociopathic, and I don't really feel the quality of life. Despite all these "scientific progresses" you haven't mentioned, people are mostly unhappy.

Lol, and I'm not a marxist at all, not even a socialist. You're just a f***ing moron unable to form a coherent argument, and that offends me.

[nero120]

32 minutes ago, nero120 said:

@NoHPCinTheUK do work in a science-related industry?

Answer please.

[winkie]

Nature is very good at dealing with growing population numbers.....if nature doesn't do it man will.

 

We are irrelevant in the scheme of things, here only a nano second in time.....

[NoHPCinTheUK]

3 minutes ago, nero120 said:

So you're saying globalisation has improved my life? Funny I look around at our broken nation, enslaved to debt and tech, drug-addicted, narcissistic, nihilistic and sociopathic, and I don't really feel the quality of life. Despite all these "scientific progresses" you haven't mentioned, people are mostly unhappy.

Lol, and I'm not a marxist at all, not even a socialist. You're just a f***ing moron unable to form a coherent argument, and that offends me.

You can't be serious! I did not mention globalisation, you're just moving the goal post here. Are we discussing scientific and technological progress or the criminals we've had in the smoking rooms for 40 years here? 

What you're doing here is refusing to admit that humans have been capable of solving many issues.

Classic Marxist thinking. 

[14stFlyer]

1 hour ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

Animals are not homo sapiens.

I am afraid you are wrong here. Some of them are   

Homo sapiens is definitely an animal. 
 

Kingdom: Animalia

Multicellular organisms; cells with a nucleus, with cell membranes but lacking cell walls

Phylum: Chordata

Animals with a spinal cord

Class: Mammalia

Warm-blooded chordates that bear live young; females have mammary glands that secrete milk to nourish young

Order: Primates

Mammals with collar bone; eyes face forward; grasping hands with fingers; two types of teeth (incisors and molars)

Family: Hominidae

Primates with upright posture, large brain, stereoscopic vision, flat face, different use of hands and feet

Genus: Homo

Hominids with S-curved spine, recognisable as human

Species: Homo sapiens

Humans with high forehead, well-developed chin, thin skull bones

[nero120]

1 minute ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

You can't be serious! I did not mention globalisation, you're just moving the goal post here. Are we discussing scientific and technological progress or the criminals we've had in the smoking rooms for 40 years here? 

What you're doing here is refusing to admit that humans have been capable of solving many issues.

Classic Marxist thinking. 

"Cargo ships and their improved engines have made your life less miserables"

JHC you're thick as sh1t aren't you?! Well, enjoy sucking up your drool over and over again, I'm out.

[NoHPCinTheUK]

8 minutes ago, nero120 said:

"Cargo ships and their improved engines have made your life less miserables"

JHC you're thick as sh1t aren't you?! Well, enjoy sucking up your drool over and over again, I'm out.

So what, Karl, you're now denying that humans have always put stuffs on a ships and sailed them around? 

Joseph, what if, rather than the other way round, Britain was the country selling billions worth of goods per annum to the world using those ships? Then it would have worked out pretty well for us and you wouldn't be here with your ludistic pile of garbage, would you? 

Edited March 27, 2023 by NoHPCinTheUK

[no_dependent4663]

22 hours ago, Smith said:

But some here are arguing that it needs to keep increasing to avoid "chaos", arguing that the current decline is a problem. So my question stands: how will population growth ad infinitum end?

I agree a 'pause' is needed right now as both technology and infrastructure as well as just plain old human organisation, cooperation and resource allocation aren't up to snuff currently. Doesn't means we should give into defeatism though imo.

To answer your interesting question though;

multi-planetary if we are thinking long-term. Mega-skyscrapers, and new land made in the ocean in the medium term.

Vertical farming and lab meat(tastes the same, genetically the same) for food.

Fitting and feeding people isn't the problem, the pollution is. fusion may happen before its too late. Not sure on carbon capture. Sewage will need a rethink. renewables will keep advancing. Solar has the greatest potential, so much untapped potential and solar panels are getting more efficient all the time.

Tech brought us this far and yet has never been advancing as quickly as it is now. The acceleration of tech increases, making it exponential.

[mandyshoes]

22 hours ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

Same old argument. 

Because no one wants to listen or make provision 

[Smith]

2 minutes ago, no_dependent4663 said:

I agree a 'pause' is needed right now as both technology and infrastructure as well as just plain old human organisation, cooperation and resource allocation aren't up to snuff currently. Doesn't means we should give into defeatism though imo.

To answer your interesting question though;

multi-planetary if we are thinking long-term. Mega-skyscrapers, and new land made in the ocean in the medium term.

Vertical farming and lab meat(tastes the same, genetically the same) for food.

Fitting and feeding people isn't the problem, the pollution is. fusion may happen before its too late. Not sure on carbon capture. Sewage will need a rethink. renewables will keep advancing. Solar has the greatest potential, so much untapped potential and solar panels are getting more efficient all the time.

Tech brought us this far and yet has never been advancing as quickly as it is now. The acceleration of tech increases, making it exponential.

Thank you for being the first to answer this question. Very interesting thoughts, and perhaps others will agree this is the way to go, although as someone on this thread has said, things don't really seem to be going on the right direction at the moment to be optimistic. Personally, I think nature taking its own course is a more likely scenario, and fewer people the most plausible solution.

[mandyshoes]

22 hours ago, nero120 said:

Just out of interest, can you name one revolutionary technology that has directly improved my standard of living within my lifetime?

Chemotherapy radiotherapy - many medicines - e have much better water these days - sanitation - cleaning products 

[no_dependent4663]

22 hours ago, nero120 said:

Wow, so the best you could come up with was a process that was invented in 1903 (I asked for a development in my lifetime that improved my quality of life)?! How many trillions I wonder have been invested in science since then and to what benefit?

The irony here being that, I value science and I work in tech. I'm taking the other side of the argument here because you make a poor case for it. State-funded science is dismal, and is now captured by woke interests forcing investment into "climate science" and net-zero crap whilst crowding out better uses.

What would be even better would be if science was forced to come up with it's own capital for research rather than extorting the public through the state via taxation.

have you made any use of the internet? wifi? GPS? It seems you admittedly owe your paycheck to tech.

Climate science has its place as it stops new inventions from killing us. For example, we could have the flying cars they fantasised about in the 80s but we would likely also have smog. Taking the time to develop eVtoL is much more prudent.

Also, running science like a business is such a bad idea after literally two seconds of thought. It's whenever the profit motive is introduced that things go pearshaped like in the US where companies regularly pay for *independent* studies. Pls direct your libertarianism anywhere else. Leave science alone.

[mandyshoes]

On 3/25/2023 at 5:03 PM, Homeless Millionaire said:

The only people who can comfortably afford children are the wealthy and the benefit scroungers. For productive members of society it's becoming increasingly risky. Nothing new though, been heading that way for over 20 years.

There is a huge element of truth in that 

[mandyshoes]

On 3/25/2023 at 9:43 PM, VancouverGuy said:

When I was making my children, I have to say I wasn't thinking very much about house prices.

Agree

When we had kids we worked out if it was affordable

Kids are a choice

I do not buy a Ferrari then expect the taxpayer to fund it - I buy a car I can afford to run 

[Smith]

3 minutes ago, mandyshoes said:

Because no one wants to listen or make provision 

Agreed. Like all animals we're genetically programmed to reproduce, and it's obviously a very emotive subject for many, who prefer to bury their head in the sand rather than face up to the consequences.

But let's at least make a start by stopping all this nonsense about parents being morally superior because they're acting selflessly for humanity. People have children because they think it will make them happier, in exactly the same way as other people choose not to. The last thing we should be doing is guilt tripping women who don't want to have kids into doing so!

 

[mandyshoes]

23 hours ago, Smith said:

Sorry but I don't accept the economic theory that populations always need to grow. Not least because the end game would inevitably be destruction of the environment they need to survive.

Agree 100%

And with AI the world will have far far far fewer jobs 

[no_dependent4663]

3 minutes ago, Smith said:

Thank you for being the first to answer this question. Very interesting thoughts, and perhaps others will agree this is the way to go, although as someone on this thread has said, things don't really seem to be going on the right direction at the moment to be optimistic. Personally, I think nature taking its own course is a more likely scenario, and fewer people the most plausible solution.

Yeah agreed current leadership is trash worldwide and in Africa already hundreds of thousands are dying over drought and famine.

Did you know the most deadly conflict in the 21st century happened in the 2020s? No, because it wasn't Ukraine, it was in Ethiopia. A proxy war with Egypt over water. Hundreds of thousands dead in that one war alone.

So yes that course of action is indeed already playing out before our eyes around the world. It will affect us just not as much imo. Eastern Europe is also depopulating quickly.

It's sad but tech will continue to advance regardless. No grace in it but barring any nuclear destruction, or environmental collapse, humanity will keep advancing just not as quickly, fairly or painlessly as we like. And as always those who have less will suffer the most. inequality will always be the main issue to us residents of the 'haves' countries. Its the 'have-nots' who need to worry about survival

 

[no_dependent4663]

13 minutes ago, Smith said:

Agreed. Like all animals we're genetically programmed to reproduce, and it's obviously a very emotive subject for many, who prefer to bury their head in the sand rather than face up to the consequences.

But let's at least make a start by stopping all this nonsense about parents being morally superior because they're acting selflessly for humanity. People have children because they think it will make them happier, in exactly the same way as other people choose not to. The last thing we should be doing is guilt tripping women who don't want to have kids into doing so!

 

modern society is guilt-tripping women who do want to have kids.

[nero120]

12 minutes ago, mandyshoes said:

Agree 100%

And with AI the world will have far far far fewer jobs 

Hearing the little people refer to "AI" like it's some god-like, steam engine-level revolutionary technology is just .