Page 161 of 184 FirstFirst ... 61111151159160161162163171 ... LastLast
Results 1,601 to 1,610 of 1839

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1601
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,160
    The demographic problem isn't exclusive to capitalism. This is extremely obvious, but there's a great example of enforced negative net population growth looking grim: https://seekingalpha.com/article/416...onomic-outlook

    (Note: I remain somewhat sinophilic about the future because I think the above is an automation accelerant, as is the China 2025 initiative)

    I agree with Steve, Quebec, and by extension Gordon, that better childcare (I'm a vouchers guy myself, but whatever) leads to better utilization of human capital, which will be increasingly important in the context of a demographic crunch.

    I don't necessarily see the reason for the middle man pejorative. I actually prefer our daycare (though it's on the high end of the expense scale) to family care (we have 4 local grandparents) in most cases. They're better trained and better prepared in most cases, and crucially, we pay them to do a good job. A nanny actually becomes a reasonable proposition on a cost basis at only 2 kids requiring care, and that would be better still.

    Your species would have to be pretty bitchass for this particular problem to result in extinction. I don't think you're going to have any real problem with birthrates, because having kids is actually amazingly fulfilling, which is why people are willing to pay high economic and opportunity costs in the first place.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    we need to change the economic and social structure, if we want to sustain the population.
    Reducing the population* is the best possible thing we could do for our planet and species.






    *not to zero, don't @ me.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  2. #1602
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,160
    Before I get crucified for the above what I mean by that is a world in which GDP per capita rises as population falls naturally incentivizes the birth rate by changing the associated economics. It's a mathematical certainty that it will stabilize at some level when accounting for secondary effects in a rational actor market.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  3. #1603
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    The demographic problem isn't exclusive to capitalism. This is extremely obvious, but there's a great example of enforced negative net population growth looking grim: https://seekingalpha.com/article/416...onomic-outlook

    (Note: I remain somewhat sinophilic about the future because I think the above is an automation accelerant, as is the China 2025 initiative)

    I agree with Steve, Quebec, and by extension Gordon, that better childcare (I'm a vouchers guy myself, but whatever) leads to better utilization of human capital, which will be increasingly important in the context of a demographic crunch.

    I don't necessarily see the reason for the middle man pejorative. I actually prefer our daycare (though it's on the high end of the expense scale) to family care (we have 4 local grandparents) in most cases. They're better trained and better prepared in most cases, and crucially, we pay them to do a good job. A nanny actually becomes a reasonable proposition on a cost basis at only 2 kids requiring care, and that would be better still.

    Your species would have to be pretty bitchass for this particular problem to result in extinction. I don't think you're going to have any real problem with birthrates, because having kids is actually amazingly fulfilling, which is why people are willing to pay high economic and opportunity costs in the first place.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Reducing the population* is the best possible thing we could do for our planet and species.






    *not to zero, don't @ me.
    i think there are many many reasons for people choosing to not have children. the pure dollars and cents are one part, but there are other reasons. opportunity cost is a real thing, regardless of economic systems. not having children is also an extremely rewarding life too.

    i was recently in an argument about this very topic, and my point is not that genX and millennials are using any different logic or reasoning to not have children, its because frankly, we are the first generation in human history, in the history of this planet, to have an honest and simple way to not have children. the reasons for not having children have been around since humans started writing things down, but there has not really been a real mechanism by which to actually honestly choose to not. we forget, that it has really only been since the 1990s that real family planning has been available to most americans.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #1604
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,160
    The sexual revolution (hormonal birth control empowering female sexual choice) was in the 1960s. You're just moving goalposts to fit your narrative. Plenty of people already made the choice. By your own analysis it's reasonable to conclude that the rate of childbearing among the most recent generation has declined by some combination of factors:

    1. Increased levels of educational debt
    2. Increased cost of the single family home
    3. Stagnant real wages with respect to the cost of 1. and 2.

    Of course, there are additional social factors in play. But proferring the idea that people are just now figuring out that living a low cost, selfishly focused lifestyle yields a high probability of "fun" is laughably arrogant.

    My own laughable speculation:
    Perhaps the social factor that's changed is that hedonism is more likely than ever to be conflated with meaning.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  5. #1605
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    The sexual revolution (hormonal birth control empowering female sexual choice) was in the 1960s. You're just moving goalposts to fit your narrative. Plenty of people already made the choice. By your own analysis it's reasonable to conclude that the rate of childbearing among the most recent generation has declined by some combination of factors:

    1. Increased levels of educational debt
    2. Increased cost of the single family home
    3. Stagnant real wages with respect to the cost of 1. and 2.

    Of course, there are additional social factors in play. But proferring the idea that people are just now figuring out that living a low cost, selfishly focused lifestyle yields a high probability of "fun" is laughably arrogant.

    My own laughable speculation:
    Perhaps the social factor that's changed is that hedonism is more likely than ever to be conflated with meaning.
    not really.

    because the pill was invented in the 1960s doesn't mean it was even marginally available to most people. never mind socially tolerated. the late 80s or 90s was really the first time in human history that people had a real choice.

    hell, i have two female coworkers in there 30s without kids that say literally every day, someone asks them when they are having kids. we still don't live in a world like this, as evidenced by your next statement i have a problem with:



    i also think your mis-characterization with the choice to not have children is hilariously wrong. selfish? you are the one arguing that human population needs to be reduced for the betterment of the planet, but are also having children. thats likely the single most selfish thing a human being can do. i can do the carbon math on it, but there is simply no possible way a single, non-reproducing person can consume what having a child consumes.

    so don't give me your bullshit "you are selfish for not wanting to have kids" crap. there is nothing self-less about having children.



    as detailed, its not that humans are just now learning that can lead great lives without children .... its that they finally can make that choice without getting (too much) shit.

    also hedonism =/= living your life with your own agency
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #1606
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,160
    It's not fun if you make it this easy
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  7. #1607
    your the one mistaking living ones life the way they want to, with hedonism.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #1608
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    My own laughable speculation:
    Perhaps the social factor that's changed is that hedonism is more likely than ever to be conflated with meaning.
    I could have this wrong, but Im pretty sure hedonism was originally explicitly about finding meaning

  9. #1609
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,895
    And I think I could make a pretty strong argument that hedonism is one of the largest drivers of the American economy so I'm not sure it's a great pejorative in this context.

  10. #1610
    in the latest round of "what josh and others would have to say in order to try and gymnastics there way to trump being honest"

    Trump: "Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia. Because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan. Russia."

    Trump's assessment of Syria: "We're talking about sand and death. That's what we're talking about."

    Trump says he had a meeting about Iran and the Middle East with lots of good-looking generals: "Like from a movie. Better looking than Tom Cruise, and stronger."

    Trump added that there were many "computer boards" in this Iran meeting with the hottie generals.

    President Trump: "I think I would have been a good general, but who knows?"
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •