3d ago

sigh

You're viewing a single thread.

146 comments

Resources aren't evenly distributed naturally, some area may not have enough resources.
It takes more resources to get more resources, we may be measuring 30% of total resources, but not 30% of resource capacity.
I'm fine with population control, but it should be implemented willingly at an individual level, and pushed via education and community acceptance. I catch a small amount of flak for not having kids, but wife catches a lot more.
- Not sure what you're trying to say, but the paper assumes current population trends and means 30% of currently available resources in 2025 would be enough to give everyone a decent living standard (DLS) in 2050. We have everything we need to do this right now.
- A replacement birthrate leads to a more stable society. The elderly who are unable to work and ill need to be cared for. If ever fewer young and able people have to take care of ever more elderly, it won’t have a good outcome. Not having children of your own is being a burden on society.
  
  Not having children of your own is being a burden on society.
  damn, don't replace anti-natalism with forced natalism. Thanks.
  
  No force involved. Lots of people are drags on society in different ways without that being illegal.
  
  Friend, social pressure is a form of coercion.
  
  A replacement birthrate leads to a more stable society
  Only if you assume that the amount of production for a hour of labor stays the same. Workers today accomplish much more in a given time period than workers 65 years ago. The problem is that value is horded instead of being made available to the people that created it.
  
  Feeding an elderly person, washing them, changing their diapers takes the same amount of time as it did 150 years ago. Due to better health care and longer lives, the total cost of elderly health care and pensions eat up a lot of that productivity gain.
  
  That's certainly not true. We now have washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, kitchen machines, gas or electric stoves, food delivery services etc. All this makes carrying for others easier. Plus being more efficient at paid work could be translated into less working hours, thus more time to care for others instead of more money captured by capitalists.
  
  Nope. Absolutely wrong. You can cook food faster than you could 150 years ago using microwaves, induction cook tops, non-stick pan and other advancements in kitchen tech. Modern care aids reduce the time it takes to wash a person, and allows them to wash themselves much later in life before they need partial or full assistance. Modern adult diapers come off easier, seal better, and absorb more, so they have fewer blow-outs and it takes fewer wipes to clean up a person.
  Edit: let's also add that better productivity in other areas enables fewer people do more work, which (should) free up a larger portion of the population for elder-care.
  
  You realize 150 years ago was the year before the telephone was invented, right? Most houses didn't even have electricity back then.
  I was an in-home caregiver before COVID, and we certainly didn't have to warm water on a wood fired stove to bathe the clients with. I didn't have to scrub the laundry with a washboard, we had a laundry machine. I could call 911 without interrupting CPR, which wouldn't have been possible even 50 years ago.
  
  If ever fewer young and able people have to take care of ever more elderly, it won’t have a good outcome.
  It takes fewer resources to care for elderly than raise children. Not raising a child means there's a surplus to care for the elderly. Then the elderly die leaving more surplus behind. It's not only a theoretical based on money but we have all of history that shows this truth. For example WW2 killed the most productive members of society leaving only the elderly to be cared for. The result was a global economic boom.

146 comments