Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
More babies please
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


SylviaSmile


Feb 2, 2013, 2:28 PM
Post #1 of 27 (2573 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 982

More babies please
Report this Post
Can't Post

So who's concerned about the demographic crisis?


Gmburns2000


Feb 2, 2013, 2:56 PM
Post #2 of 27 (2566 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15013

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post


I've been worried about this for years. The Boomers put a heavy burden on future generations because it's pay-as-you-go (they put a heavy burden because they didn't properly fund it).

Add this to two wars, a cut in taxes, and a recession? Shit's gonna get expensive in the next 15 years or so.


dr_feelgood


Feb 2, 2013, 3:13 PM
Post #3 of 27 (2556 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25627

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
Looks like the fundies are right. We'd better stop letting our wimminfolk into school and out of the house, and take away that G-D darned birth control. Can't have any of that if we want to remain 'murka the great.


SylviaSmile


Feb 2, 2013, 3:18 PM
Post #4 of 27 (2551 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 982

Re: [dr_feelgood] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
Looks like the fundies are right. We'd better stop letting our wimminfolk into school and out of the house, and take away that G-D darned birth control. Can't have any of that if we want to remain 'murka the great.

I'll take it you're not worried, then? As far as you're concerned, if you die before something becomes an issue, it's not important?


SylviaSmile


Feb 2, 2013, 3:19 PM
Post #5 of 27 (2547 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 982

Re: [Gmburns2000] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Gmburns2000 wrote:

I've been worried about this for years. The Boomers put a heavy burden on future generations because it's pay-as-you-go (they put a heavy burden because they didn't properly fund it).

Add this to two wars, a cut in taxes, and a recession? Shit's gonna get expensive in the next 15 years or so.

Yeah, it seems like issues with babies and budgets tend to dovetail. I wonder if such a thing as "retirement" will exist for me when I get to age 65 or 70...


dr_feelgood


Feb 2, 2013, 3:23 PM
Post #6 of 27 (2545 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25627

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
Looks like the fundies are right. We'd better stop letting our wimminfolk into school and out of the house, and take away that G-D darned birth control. Can't have any of that if we want to remain 'murka the great.

I'll take it you're not worried, then? As far as you're concerned, if you die before something becomes an issue, it's not important?
No, the author's conclusions are completely hairbrained, and based around the idea that women exist merely to fire out kids in the name of national prestige. Zeig Heil. Barring any unexpected events, I'll likely live through the "demographic bust" that he warns of. I take serious issue with the veiled racism and overt sexism of the article, and it appears that this is a case of selectively using statistics for an ideological end.
Fuck him.


SylviaSmile


Feb 2, 2013, 3:27 PM
Post #7 of 27 (2536 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 982

Re: [dr_feelgood] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
Looks like the fundies are right. We'd better stop letting our wimminfolk into school and out of the house, and take away that G-D darned birth control. Can't have any of that if we want to remain 'murka the great.

I'll take it you're not worried, then? As far as you're concerned, if you die before something becomes an issue, it's not important?
No, the author's conclusions are completely hairbrained, and based around the idea that women exist merely to fire out kids in the name of national prestige. Zeig Heil. Barring any unexpected events, I'll likely live through the "demographic bust" that he warns of. I take serious issue with the veiled racism and overt sexism of the article, and it appears that this is a case of selectively using statistics for an ideological end.
Fuck him.

Were we reading the same article? I didn't find anything sexist about it, and is it racist merely that he pointed out the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant birthrates?


dr_feelgood


Feb 2, 2013, 3:28 PM
Post #8 of 27 (2533 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25627

Re: [dr_feelgood] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post




Gmburns2000


Feb 2, 2013, 3:48 PM
Post #9 of 27 (2529 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15013

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
Looks like the fundies are right. We'd better stop letting our wimminfolk into school and out of the house, and take away that G-D darned birth control. Can't have any of that if we want to remain 'murka the great.

I'll take it you're not worried, then? As far as you're concerned, if you die before something becomes an issue, it's not important?
No, the author's conclusions are completely hairbrained, and based around the idea that women exist merely to fire out kids in the name of national prestige. Zeig Heil. Barring any unexpected events, I'll likely live through the "demographic bust" that he warns of. I take serious issue with the veiled racism and overt sexism of the article, and it appears that this is a case of selectively using statistics for an ideological end.
Fuck him.

Were we reading the same article? I didn't find anything sexist about it, and is it racist merely that he pointed out the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant birthrates?

It's pretty sexist and racist, actually, but that doesn't stop the numbers from being what they are. Still, it definitely has an agenda, but I still think anyone who thinks things will get easier for the generations younger than the Boomers are crazy. We're really in a bad position.


dr_feelgood


Feb 2, 2013, 3:48 PM
Post #10 of 27 (2527 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25627

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
Looks like the fundies are right. We'd better stop letting our wimminfolk into school and out of the house, and take away that G-D darned birth control. Can't have any of that if we want to remain 'murka the great.

I'll take it you're not worried, then? As far as you're concerned, if you die before something becomes an issue, it's not important?
No, the author's conclusions are completely hairbrained, and based around the idea that women exist merely to fire out kids in the name of national prestige. Zeig Heil. Barring any unexpected events, I'll likely live through the "demographic bust" that he warns of. I take serious issue with the veiled racism and overt sexism of the article, and it appears that this is a case of selectively using statistics for an ideological end.
Fuck him.

Were we reading the same article? I didn't find anything sexist about it, and is it racist merely that he pointed out the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant birthrates?
Here, let me highlight the sexist parts of my above quote...
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.

I could find much more, but I don't want to read that shit again. If you are curious why I am so goddamned angry, maybe do a bit of reading about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...in_the_United_States
(hint: this is where the veiled racism comes in)


SylviaSmile


Feb 2, 2013, 4:04 PM
Post #11 of 27 (2512 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 982

Re: [dr_feelgood] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
Looks like the fundies are right. We'd better stop letting our wimminfolk into school and out of the house, and take away that G-D darned birth control. Can't have any of that if we want to remain 'murka the great.

I'll take it you're not worried, then? As far as you're concerned, if you die before something becomes an issue, it's not important?
No, the author's conclusions are completely hairbrained, and based around the idea that women exist merely to fire out kids in the name of national prestige. Zeig Heil. Barring any unexpected events, I'll likely live through the "demographic bust" that he warns of. I take serious issue with the veiled racism and overt sexism of the article, and it appears that this is a case of selectively using statistics for an ideological end.
Fuck him.

Were we reading the same article? I didn't find anything sexist about it, and is it racist merely that he pointed out the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant birthrates?
Here, let me highlight the sexist parts of my above quote...
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.

I could find much more, but I don't want to read that shit again. If you are curious why I am so goddamned angry, maybe do a bit of reading about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...in_the_United_States
(hint: this is where the veiled racism comes in)

I guess I read it differently. The bolded parts of your quote I didn't take as implying a value judgment, just an explanation of how we got where we are. As a woman, working on a master's degree no less, it makes intuitive sense to me--I can't foresee really being able to "afford" having kids for at least 4-5 years, and full disclosure, I am 27. Anyway, the conclusions at the end don't include notions like "stop women from receiving equal education with men" or "take away birth control." Instead, it's much less provocative, more boring stuff, like reform social security tax, reform higher education, make better roads . . . which who knows if those would actually help, but I'm just saying I didn't find the conclusions of the article sexist.

As for the racist bit, I guess I'm still not seeing it. The article said

In reply to:
the only thing that will preserve America's place in the world is if all Americans—Democrats, Republicans, Hispanics, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians and atheists—decide to have more babies

so where does eugenics come in?


SylviaSmile


Feb 2, 2013, 4:08 PM
Post #12 of 27 (2507 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 982

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I hope I'm as sensitive to sexism as the next woman, but really, I hope we never get to the point where it's not PC to say that women are the ones who have the babies . . . that's not sexist, that's just true!


dr_feelgood


Feb 2, 2013, 4:31 PM
Post #13 of 27 (2498 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25627

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
Looks like the fundies are right. We'd better stop letting our wimminfolk into school and out of the house, and take away that G-D darned birth control. Can't have any of that if we want to remain 'murka the great.

I'll take it you're not worried, then? As far as you're concerned, if you die before something becomes an issue, it's not important?
No, the author's conclusions are completely hairbrained, and based around the idea that women exist merely to fire out kids in the name of national prestige. Zeig Heil. Barring any unexpected events, I'll likely live through the "demographic bust" that he warns of. I take serious issue with the veiled racism and overt sexism of the article, and it appears that this is a case of selectively using statistics for an ideological end.
Fuck him.

Were we reading the same article? I didn't find anything sexist about it, and is it racist merely that he pointed out the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant birthrates?
Here, let me highlight the sexist parts of my above quote...
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.

I could find much more, but I don't want to read that shit again. If you are curious why I am so goddamned angry, maybe do a bit of reading about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...in_the_United_States
(hint: this is where the veiled racism comes in)

I guess I read it differently. The bolded parts of your quote I didn't take as implying a value judgment, just an explanation of how we got where we are. As a woman, working on a master's degree no less, it makes intuitive sense to me--I can't foresee really being able to "afford" having kids for at least 4-5 years, and full disclosure, I am 27. Anyway, the conclusions at the end don't include notions like "stop women from receiving equal education with men" or "take away birth control." Instead, it's much less provocative, more boring stuff, like reform social security tax, reform higher education, make better roads . . . which who knows if those would actually help, but I'm just saying I didn't find the conclusions of the article sexist.

As for the racist bit, I guess I'm still not seeing it. The article said

In reply to:
the only thing that will preserve America's place in the world is if all Americans—Democrats, Republicans, Hispanics, blacks, whites, Jews, Christians and atheists—decide to have more babies

so where does eugenics come in?
Let's dissect his argument for a second.
Low birth rate bad for economy and growth paradigm.
Women + College + Birth control= lower birth rate
Women outside of traditional professions such as teaching and nursing (where they might actually earn wages close to their male counterparts)= lower birth rate
BCP and cohabitation= "broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing." = lower birth rate
Therefore, advances in Women's lib (equal wages and opportunity, education, contraception and abortion services) = low birthrate = bad for economy and growth paradigm.

Strong economy=Strong nation
"Low-fertility societies don't innovate because their incentives for consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care"= Obamacare suxorz
"They don't invest aggressively because, with the average age skewing higher, capital shifts to preserving and extending life and then begins drawing down"= Old people bad for economy.
"They cannot project power because they lack the money to pay for defense and the military-age manpower to serve in their armed forces"= More Babies, more soldiers to die in the abattoir of American hegemony.
"If we want to continue leading the world, we simply must figure out a way to have more babies." Babies=Strong economy + strong nation.

Racism and Eugenics:
In reply to:
Which leaves us with outsourcing our fertility. We've received a massive influx of immigrants from south of the border since the late 1970s. Immigration has kept America from careening over the demographic cliff. Today, there are roughly 38 million people in the U.S. who were born elsewhere. (Two-thirds of them are here legally.) To put that in perspective, consider that just four million babies are born annually in the U.S.
2/3rds here legally=1/3 here illegally.
"We'll need smart pronatalist policies, too." If we don't breed more, the brown hordes with high fertility rates will overwhelm our great nation.

Aside from the standard conservative bullshit (ditch social security, privatize university costs, limit worker autonomy, shift the population from liberal cities to the countryside), this article is basically one big ball of racist and sexist nationalism based on fears of imperial decline. His statistics may be accurate, but his conclusions are fallacious.


dr_feelgood


Feb 2, 2013, 4:33 PM
Post #14 of 27 (2497 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25627

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

SylviaSmile wrote:
I hope I'm as sensitive to sexism as the next woman, but really, I hope we never get to the point where it's not PC to say that women are the ones who have the babies . . . that's not sexist, that's just true!
Yes, basic anatomy. Babies come out of uteruses. Can we move on to why he thinks that a lower baby:uterus ratio is a bad thing?


USnavy


Feb 2, 2013, 6:19 PM
Post #15 of 27 (2467 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2648

Re: [Gmburns2000] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Gmburns2000 wrote:


Add this to two wars, a cut in taxes, and a recession? Shit's gonna get already expensive in the next 15 years or so.

Fixed that for you. I hope employers adjust their employees' wadges to compensate accordingly . If not, it looks like America's economy is going to crawl deeper into the hole we are already so deep in. If shit gets more expensive and wadges stay the same, people are going to stop buying shit. America has already made it clear they are thoroughly done with these high fuel prices. When California gas stations had to raise the price of fuel to over $6.00 a gallon last year, people stopped buying and they went out of business.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 2, 2013, 6:23 PM)


Gmburns2000


Feb 2, 2013, 6:35 PM
Post #16 of 27 (2461 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15013

Re: [USnavy] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
Gmburns2000 wrote:


Add this to two wars, a cut in taxes, and a recession? Shit's gonna get already expensive in the next 15 years or so.

Fixed that for you. I hope employers adjust their employees' wadges to compensate accordingly . If not, it looks like America's economy is going to crawl deeper into the hole we are already so deep in. If shit gets more expensive and wadges stay the same, people are going to stop buying shit.

That's what my original point was. Any adjustments will need to be significant once we get to the point where more Boomers are retired compared to those who are not retired or dead.

In reply to:
America has already made it clear they are thoroughly done with these high fuel prices. When California gas stations had to raise the price of fuel to over $6.00 a gallon last year, people stopped buying and they went out of business.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHALaughLaughLaughHAHAHAone11HAHAHAHAHA!!!LaughLaughLaugh

Americans have no idea what expensive gas is. For every other country I've lived in or spent a significant amount of time in, $6.00 is cheap...and a dream.


dr_feelgood


Feb 2, 2013, 7:52 PM
Post #17 of 27 (2451 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25627

Re: [USnavy] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
Gmburns2000 wrote:


Add this to two wars, a cut in taxes, and a recession? Shit's gonna get already expensive in the next 15 years or so.

Fixed that for you. I hope employers adjust their employees' wadges to compensate accordingly . If not, it looks like America's economy is going to crawl deeper into the hole we are already so deep in. If shit gets more expensive and wadges stay the same, people are going to stop buying shit. America has already made it clear they are thoroughly done with these high fuel prices. When California gas stations had to raise the price of fuel to over $6.00 a gallon last year, people stopped buying and they went out of business.

COMMUNIST!!!!!!1


veganclimber


Feb 2, 2013, 8:27 PM
Post #18 of 27 (2441 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [dr_feelgood] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

There are far too many people in the world as it is. Encouraging people to have more is insanity in my opinion.


Kartessa


Feb 3, 2013, 7:49 PM
Post #19 of 27 (2383 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Posts: 7356

Re: [USnavy] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
Gmburns2000 wrote:


Add this to two wars, a cut in taxes, and a recession? Shit's gonna get already expensive in the next 15 years or so.

Fixed that for you. I hope employers adjust their employees' wadges to compensate accordingly . If not, it looks like America's economy is going to crawl deeper into the hole we are already so deep in. If shit gets more expensive and wadges stay the same, people are going to stop buying shit. America has already made it clear they are thoroughly done with these high fuel prices. When California gas stations had to raise the price of fuel to over $6.00 a gallon last year, people stopped buying and they went out of business.

You think wages will go up to reflect the rising cost of living?

And I'm the one who smokes drugs?!?


lena_chita
Moderator

Feb 4, 2013, 4:17 AM
Post #20 of 27 (2349 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5462

Re: [dr_feelgood] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
SylviaSmile wrote:
I hope I'm as sensitive to sexism as the next woman, but really, I hope we never get to the point where it's not PC to say that women are the ones who have the babies . . . that's not sexist, that's just true!
Yes, basic anatomy. Babies come out of uteruses. Can we move on to why he thinks that a lower baby:uterus ratio is a bad thing?


While I agree with you about all sorts of sexist and racist undertones in this article, I also think that Sylvia has it right. Regardless of the writing, the issue is still there.

The demographics of US, and a lot of other countries in the developed world, is changing. The population is shrinking, or will start to shrink soon, and the age distribution of the population is changing.

BUT the economy is still set up in a way that implies ample supply of working-age people, and long-term economic thinking should start accounting for these changes.


camhead


Feb 5, 2013, 6:31 AM
Post #21 of 27 (2303 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

SylviaSmile wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
In reply to:
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
Looks like the fundies are right. We'd better stop letting our wimminfolk into school and out of the house, and take away that G-D darned birth control. Can't have any of that if we want to remain 'murka the great.

I'll take it you're not worried, then? As far as you're concerned, if you die before something becomes an issue, it's not important?

1: our entire economic and monetary system– colleges, investment, retirement, house buying– is based upon the assumption that there will be more consumption and consumers (read: people) tomorrow than there is today.

2: traditional liberal political and economic doctrines hold that, given the greatest amount of freedom, consumers will just naturally consume more and more, keeping our economic (if not environmental) system sustainable.

3: If you extend the greatest amount of freedom to women, allowing them to control when and how many times they give birth, birthrates will plummet. You don't need China's one-child policy, you just need comprehensive sex ed, accessible contraception and abortion services, and above all female equality.

4: All that first world governments will have to do to promote slightly more population growth is simply provide more incentives for women to CHOOSE to have kids. More tax breaks, paid maternity leave, state-funded day care, pre-school, better educational systems, and a culture that does not punish professional women for having kids. That would cause birthrates to rise again. Or, we could just let the private free market provide incentives to have kids, since we all know how great they are at quickly responding to social change.

But finally, we're coming down to this problem, which at its root is Malthusian: Our economy needs exponential growth to keep going. While technology and knowledge might also grow exponentially as well, natural resources (clean air, food, water, minerals) either grow numerically, or decrease. In other words (DUH) our environment is unsustainable.

And, as Jared Diamond says, the environment could function quite nicely without the human economy. But could the human economy function without the natural environment?


gunkiemike


Feb 5, 2013, 3:57 PM
Post #22 of 27 (2279 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2263

Re: [USnavy] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
When California gas stations had to raise the price of fuel to over $6.00 a gallon last year, people stopped buying and they went out of business.

Sounds good, but it's not true. CA gas prices peaked in 2008 then took a HUGE tumble over the next 12 months of the recession. Since then they have steadily climbed back up, and two months ago they passed the 2008 mark to set an all-time high. Yet volume in CA is still more than 25 percent below pre-recession levels. In spite of this, major oil co's stocks are at or near all-time highs.


Partner rrrADAM


Feb 7, 2013, 1:09 PM
Post #23 of 27 (2241 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [SylviaSmile] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

6.5 BILLION is a lot already. Too many, actually.

Just say'n. Unimpressed


veganclimber


Feb 7, 2013, 2:56 PM
Post #24 of 27 (2226 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [rrrADAM] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rrrADAM wrote:
6.5 7.1 BILLION is a lot already. Too many, actually.

Just say'n. Unimpressed

Your information was a bit out of date. Only by a couple years though.


Partner cracklover


Feb 8, 2013, 1:58 PM
Post #25 of 27 (2192 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [camhead] More babies please [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
4: All that first world governments will have to do to promote slightly more population growth is simply provide more incentives for women to CHOOSE to have kids. More tax breaks, paid maternity leave, state-funded day care, pre-school, better educational systems, and a culture that does not punish professional women for having kids. That would cause birthrates to rise again.

As you (camhead) probably already know - other countries are doing this, and it's working. Hell, if the US had the policies of some European countries, I might well be a daddy already.


In reply to:
But finally, we're coming down to this problem, which at its root is Malthusian: Our economy needs exponential growth to keep going. While technology and knowledge might also grow exponentially as well, natural resources (clean air, food, water, minerals) either grow numerically, or decrease. In other words (DUH) our environment is unsustainable.

And, as Jared Diamond says, the environment could function quite nicely without the human economy. But could the human economy function without the natural environment?

Kinda scary stuff.

How does China fit into this? A billion people, a one child policy, and a strong and growing economy. How can that be if economic growth requires population growth?

Kartessa wrote:
You think wages will go up to reflect the rising cost of living?

And I'm the one who smokes drugs?!?

Actually it's true. It's called inflation. And many economists think that a moderate (rather than the current miniscule) inflation is exactly what the US needs to dry up its current moderate debt crisis.

The economics nutshell version: With inflation, $$ are worth less in real economic terms. Not just positive dollars, but negative dollars (debt) too. So it means that US debt shrinks in relation to all real benchmarks.

The big downside: some wages *don't* go up. People on a fixed wage - pensioners - get screwed.

GO

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$17.55 (10% off)
$35.96 (10% off)
$21.56 (10% off)
$197.06 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook