I see a lot of parents say this. They somehow think their kids are a gift to the world.
To me climate change, overpopulation causing insane resource consumption make it look kind of selfish when people want their own kids.
I understand that in terms of social systems we "need" more kids to support the old. But at the same time these kids will grow old at some point as well, and if you always need more kids than old people that means you need growth forever, which just means you're kicking the can down the road and creating more environmental issues in the meantime.
Have kids, don't have kids, whatever. But don't pretend like you did something selfless.
If people were having more kids we'd just have a bigger demographic collapse in the future.
I don't think that's what they meant at all. Just that on a personal level raising children means you'll have less time/money/energy/resources for your own pursuits.
> I see a lot of parents say this. They somehow think their kids are a gift to the world.
Quite literally so. If you want to benefit from our society/civilization, without making the next generation that will become that society/civilization, you're saying you deserve to get all the things you get from it without contributing back. The government took out debt in your name, to be paid back by future generations that you aren't helping to create... it's borderline fraud.
> To me climate change, overpopulation
A crazy doomsday hippy wrote a book with an unsupportable, unsubstantiated crackpot theory in 1968, and now you believe this concept that never existed and is pretty meaningless. What is the cutoff population number after which is overpopulation? Did you know that in the 1980s the UK's population crashed and only a few roving cannibals still lived there?
> I understand that in terms of social systems we "need" more kids to support the old. But at the same time these kids will grow old at some point as well, and if you always need more kids than old people that means you need growth forever,
This is bad math. You need to hug pretty close to replacement fertility (2.1 kids), but you don't need growth.
Hmmm, I see more and more of the opposite. Children are consuming more resources we don’t have, how can you put a child into this world heading into oblivion anyway, etc.
When you were a kid for the first 20 years society provided for it - schooling etc. A day of school will easily cost the community 1000 $/€ of public money per day.
After that the kids turn into net positives that finance the rest of society.
A society that is declining in population because of a large number of people actively choosing to not have kids means that they are not “doing their part” to build our society.
It sounds weird and abstract, but on a large scale makes sense.
By the time you stop working society gives you more for your life, they maintain and uphold society and pay for your retirement. When you don’t have children you only take from then on without returning to society.
Wait, what? Don't you pay back the money spent on you in the school system by being a working member of the economy? How does having more children to draw more school funding out of society benefit it if not for the economic impact they, and therefore you because you also went to school, eventually have?
carlmr|1 year ago
To me climate change, overpopulation causing insane resource consumption make it look kind of selfish when people want their own kids.
I understand that in terms of social systems we "need" more kids to support the old. But at the same time these kids will grow old at some point as well, and if you always need more kids than old people that means you need growth forever, which just means you're kicking the can down the road and creating more environmental issues in the meantime.
Have kids, don't have kids, whatever. But don't pretend like you did something selfless.
If people were having more kids we'd just have a bigger demographic collapse in the future.
giraffe_lady|1 year ago
seanw444|1 year ago
NoMoreNicksLeft|1 year ago
Quite literally so. If you want to benefit from our society/civilization, without making the next generation that will become that society/civilization, you're saying you deserve to get all the things you get from it without contributing back. The government took out debt in your name, to be paid back by future generations that you aren't helping to create... it's borderline fraud.
> To me climate change, overpopulation
A crazy doomsday hippy wrote a book with an unsupportable, unsubstantiated crackpot theory in 1968, and now you believe this concept that never existed and is pretty meaningless. What is the cutoff population number after which is overpopulation? Did you know that in the 1980s the UK's population crashed and only a few roving cannibals still lived there?
> I understand that in terms of social systems we "need" more kids to support the old. But at the same time these kids will grow old at some point as well, and if you always need more kids than old people that means you need growth forever,
This is bad math. You need to hug pretty close to replacement fertility (2.1 kids), but you don't need growth.
Fire-Dragon-DoL|1 year ago
illiac786|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
lynguist|1 year ago
After that the kids turn into net positives that finance the rest of society.
A society that is declining in population because of a large number of people actively choosing to not have kids means that they are not “doing their part” to build our society.
It sounds weird and abstract, but on a large scale makes sense.
By the time you stop working society gives you more for your life, they maintain and uphold society and pay for your retirement. When you don’t have children you only take from then on without returning to society.
Rinzler89|1 year ago
I think by that point I already paid for my retirement for the 40+ years that I've worked.
skeaker|1 year ago