Suggesting that poor people shouldn't be to Bear Children. it's common sense

[PyewPiedie]

people should not have children until they are ready to support them!

 

[hamini]

i agree but YOU CAN'T STOP HUMANITY!😂

 

[DANDAN_THE_DANDAN]

This is an era where common sense is no longer common.

r/EntitledParents
This subreddit makes me lose my faith in humanity

 

[totallynotmike]

I expect you boys to get some time off from commenting.

 

[Holo]

Maybe one or two is ok but having more than that knowing you can't financially support them and living off the state is a piss take.

 

[Plykiya]

You get money for having kids?
My time to shine

 

[ninjadork]

What you're overlooking is that a shitload of wealth and upward growth is created explicitly because poor people have kids they "can't support". Trillions of poor people throughout history doing hard work to scrape a living for their families forms the bedrock of many of humanity's greatest innovations such as sustainable agriculture and the Industrial Revolution, not to mention the wide assortment of folks who have advanced human science and society after being born into poor families that "couldn't support them".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kamkwamba (I can hunt up more if you wish, but I'll leave this here as illustration)

Advocating for parents to take better care of their kids is all well and good, but neither anyone here nor anyone anywhere else has right or reason to declare that such-and-so can't have kids. You are not omniscient, and it is not for you to destroy the future by claiming that what exists now is the end-all limit of what can and likely will be.

Now if we're discussing whether or not government welfare is a problem, that's something completely different.

 

[Alvoth]

the worst case, there always poor family that really poor but having kids more than five, that they end up marriage their kids off to adultpaedo, with an excuses so their kids can have better life (many this case happened in my place) or to sell teir kids to prostitue etc, there's always human that really no common sense whatsoever.

 

[421cookies]

Good thing I'm a shut in neet.

 

[Xzayer]

I believe it’s a bigger issue as a whole

Used to work alongside people that were in the department of larbor. Some people come from various walks of life and would come in needing assistance.

There will always be those individuals that will leech of others and the system. All the while bringing forth children and grandchildren and raising them to do the same thing.

But there are others that choose to ultilize what they have and make their lot in life (including their children) to make things better. I can’t be the one to say that certain people who are of a certain financial status should/shouldn’t have children.

But I do believe planning, preparedness, attitude, being resourceful play a role within this.

 

[GigaGigue]

Children are the future of our society. We need them no matter where they're from. They will be the one to work as doctor when you won't be able to walk. They will be the one that will fill the bottle of wine you'll drink to forgot the sadness. Or, they might dig your grave, pay tax, educate your children.

Society will need the most hand it can have to handle the ever increasing number of old people.

Society need them to grow. So it's the society's responsibility to help the unfortunate children that are raise in poorer family. Every penny invested in them will be returned later. It is a low risk investment.

So the more children, the better. And after, it is up to the states to ensure that their every right are respected. (Right to eat, to sleep, to be love, to have a shelter, etc.)

In fact, it is rich people who shouldn't have children. Them having children means they can pay less tax to the states. So that's it: since the rich like to work and make money, than let's them pay for those who want to have fun. 😎

 

[ninjadork]

@GigaGigue I'm a huge fan of American constitutionalism, so I'm going to have to oppose you directly on this one.

There are only two Rights in this world; the right to life, and the right to personal liberty. You might argue that certain aspects of life like self-defense are a necessity to ensure the First and Only Two, but in all cases it is your responsibility and yours alone to acquire what you need/want from life. Nobody, not your parents, not your siblings, not your friends, and especially not your government *spit* have any obligations to provide you anything; only to avoid infringing on your pursuits of life and liberty.

The stuff you're listing as "rights" "(Right to eat, to sleep, to be love, to have a shelter, etc.)" and the trend you are establishing by listing them are fraudulent bastardizations designed to trick people into standing in corners whacking off while tin-pot bureaucrats and petty tyrants seize power.

 

[Drifter]

I've never started a family because I knew I couldn't give them the life I would want to. I cant find the words to truly express how much it angers me to hear people whining about how much children cost and the things they cant have because of their children. I want to get in their faces and yell "You have children. That's what you got for your time and money. Enjoy them!"

People who cannot do that, for whatever reason, should not have children.

I also have to disagree about needing more children. A scarcity of workers (post plague) is what brought about the rise of the middle class with the rich having to pay more for services. The current overabundance of workers is what is widening the gap between the rich and the poor so we can afford to shrink the population a bit.

 

[DarkFlame]

This sounds like a topic of individual liberty and responsibility.

In that case, I will just say that the the choices made are the ones made by the individual in question, and it is up to them on how they they should decide to deal with such situation.

 

[Holo]

@GigaGigue

Not when AI becomes mainstream. Robots will be doing the menial tasks. A labour force won't be needed.

 

[ninjadork]

@Drifter Entirely agree on the first bit.

I have to partially disagree on the second, because I would posit that that was a flaw with Feudalism itself, not purely a population issue. Every form of government has its own integral weakness that cannot be removed, only guarded against; the flaw in Feudalism is that it is static and does not change unless something catastrophic happens to destroy it (or nearly so). The Black Plague you're referencing was that catastrophe, combined with the Mongol invasion.

More flexible government methods do not need massive population changes to create fundamental progress and improvement.

And as for today's modern population issues; is that gap between rich and poor caused by population changes? Or is it caused by stupidly exploitative (and frequently illegal) business practices like H1B visas that are manipulated to be a somewhat draconian indentured servitude, or the hiring of illegal immigrants "off the books" for far less than minimum wage?

 

[Teddy]

@ninjadork.

As someone who had learn about child development and such. I don't think its easy to survive without food or shelter. Especially for a paperweight that would put anything in its mouth that was in its hands.

So state or parent provision is kinda necessary for right to live. And abortion is always against right to live too.

And right to be loved sounds stupid but is actually important for child development. Especially in the first four years as brain synapse are constantly being rewired. In otherwords if you keep a fully functioning infant in a hydrated box with food and oxygen for a few years. They will be effectively deaf, blind and paralysed. Cause adult rewiring only occurs for memory and emotions according to my knowledge. So they need care and are dependent.

For personal liberty on the other hand. A baby can't control the enrichment of the environment. Ie food, books, items to fiddle wit. To learn and adapt. Like as in adult can go gym or study for what they want but a baby doesn't know that books are for learning and leg machines are for regretting life.

So maybe for adults but not so for infants.

Although I do hate parents (and adults slugs that live off pity tax intentionally) that give birth for benefits and don't care for the
Children and just pass them off to the state. It aint the child's fault. Atleast not yet.

But yes overpopulation is a thing especially for big spending Capitalist countries that waste resources as apart of their personal liberty. Kids grow up wasting til they can't afford to and others waste what they do not have. And kids aren't a safe investment at all. Cause when they have to provide or choose not to provide for elders, they be thinking what we are thinking in reverse (better they didn't exist) leading to mass depression and low quality of life in the elderly that aren't visited or have enough money to survive properly that media doesn't care about.

 

[ninjadork]

@Teddy

As someone who had learn about child development...So state or parent provision is kinda necessary for right to live...So maybe for adults but not so for infants.

That whole first section establishes the necessity of adult supervision of, care for, and relationships with children, but nothing more. So I would argue that, on a societal scale, such things should be left to the parents, except in such cases where the parents are actively destroying their children; that's where legal processes and adoption come in.

Overpopulation is a propagandic logical/historical fallacy created by the Soviet Union during the Cold War to deflect international attention away from the ecological and agricultural disasters it was perpetrating. The entire concept is founded on the idea that people above a certain concentration effectively die and/or kill each other off "just because" and there is nothing human innovation and scientific advancement can do about it. Which is utter dreck, considering that things like nuclear power, solar conversion, vaccines, and the First Great Crossbreeding exist.

 

[Teddy]

@ninjadork

Wasnt your point from before that

Nobody, not your parents, not your siblings, not your friends, and especially not your government *spit* have any obligations to provide you anything; only to avoid infringing on your pursuits of life and liberty.

And then I was trying to explain that multiple things that aren't generally considered are also necessary in child development?

Spoiler

If your reply was that, it should be left to parents. parents can't effectively provide education or vaccines when they have the perosnal liberty to think about cost effectiveness of their child's gains. Eg. Industrial revolution peasant children would be encouraged to take leave from school to help with home finances and take dangerous jobs.

If public schooling wasn't free and compulsory, I dont see why poor parents especially those with poor life choices would give their children adequate education. That's why state funds education and vaccines.

There is a certain level of state intervention required to ensure that the slowest link of next generation is not worst than this generation. But yes that level requires funding and mostly from those of society who are working well, paying taxes etc.

On the over population topic though.

I'm gonna start off with that I have no idea what the first great crossbreeding is.

But taking the terrible agriculture techniques as my point. As more and more people with terrible ideas about resource management appears. The effect they produce multiplies. In this example with terrible agriculture techniques.

The produce is small + use is big = not enough resources => blame overpopulation. This was your casestudy.

Or with innovative agriculture techniques(apply energy harvesting and stronger construction material etc. Everything that maximises any resources we have on earth)

The produce is enormous + use is big = enough resources => actually non sustainable but wont feel effects yet.

But if produce can no longer be maximised then as population grows.

Produce enormous + use massive? (Larger adjective please) = overpopulation.

There will be a point in which the USSR propanda theorised will happen. Killings bla bla bla.

Don't grab a pitchfork yet.

If everybody just uses enough resources to survive that limit will be far and beyond the current human population. As you implied.

Why I would call that overpopulation is a thing right now is due to wastage. (linking to my original point about slowest link of the generation)

Those who don't care or don't know about how they affect the world in first world countries can produce loads of waste due to the nature of Capitalist society in which they do whatever they want with whatever they earn. That wastage of food, energy resources etc. Increases the amount of use they require to live. And as more badly parented kids grow up this terrible resource management will continue, thus why I had said that state intervention is needed to ensure the slowest link does not become society's downfall.

Which drives the equation to equilibrium and beyond.

Edit: added spoiler tag cause its a bit long. Also please tell me if my points are incoherent ill try to rearticulate them, just wrote all my thoughts.

 

[ABCsOfLife]

Eh? Is it already April 1st?