Birth Strike

Baggly

Zorya wrote: »

Thanks Pter. Be sure I am capable of quite the opposite When you are carding me in the future I will remind you of this post

Looking......forward....to it....i guess

:pac::pac:

DEFTLEFTHAND

TomSweeney wrote: »

She is a lunatic, but we need more people like her, far far too many people in the world , and it's gonna go absolutely ****ing nuts in the next 50/100 years.

But then we hear that we need to import people from other regions to offset Europe's falling birthrate.

We can't have both.

Rubberchikken

some people will decide not to have kids. personally i admire them for making this decision and being comfortable stating it.
the world has no shortage of people already.

what type of reception would she have gotten if she'd said ill have as many kids as i possibly can and may need to sign on to support them.

Zorya

Rubberchikken wrote: »

some people will decide not to have kids. personally i admire them for making this decision and being comfortable stating it.
the world has no shortage of people already.

what type of reception would she have gotten if she'd said ill have as many kids as i possibly can and may need to sign on to support them.

How many of those people making a personal decision feel the need to start political movements? I don't have a problem at all with people not having children, many of my friends and family have made that choice but to elevate that choice to an ideology is problematic.
It is for one thing a biological imperative in the species to reproduce, it is hardwired in our evolutionary traits - to make a problem out of fundamental evolutionary activities is unwise to say the least. Anti natalism is a very nihilistic philosophy on so many levels.
Also to live with the level of fear and depression they describe is very unhealthy.

suicide_circus

i wonder will she accept the pensions and welfare benefits paid for by other peoples children when shes old?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It doesn't make a difference on a global level, obviously that's more a local issue. But to take one example, if you already have a desperate local shortage of a vital resource (in the case of Dublin, housing), then any form of population increase - be it indigenous reproduction or immigration - will cause a drop in quality of life per capita.

But when people are talking about a population growth crisis they're almost always talking about globally. There is no leftist hypocrisy in supporting immigration and also advocating for limiting population growth. Plenty of room within those two positions for hypocrisy, but they're not mutually exclusive views to hold.

I can see a glimmer of a point in the contention that it's impossible to be both a leftist and a globalist, but I think the ol globalisation battle has been fought and rather decisively won by neo-liberalism at this point, no sense living in the past.

Zorya wrote: »

I cannot answer that comprehensively, it's not something that I think about in relation to population, I also don't advocate for control of population as that is happening naturally.
The issue, or one of the issues I could see with unrestricted migration is the collapse of welfare states by being over-whelmed. People with lower education, language issues etc will not be able to take many jobs in a post-industrial economy and will need housing, health services etc., and it would take a long time to balance the welfare requirements with inward taxes, and unrestricted migration would put a serious strain on the set up.
I have also have a personal (and not economic) bugbear on this issue in that multiculturalism that does not require integration into the cultural, societal and civic ethos of the receiving country - which is what is called for generally - this means that cultural habits and ideas that are inappropriate in a secular liberal state may gain ground with unrestricted migration. Some migrants are coming from places where there are medieval ideas regarding women, gays, sex, etc, and I have no truck with cultural equivalence or relativism.
It is better to rise the tide on location, whereby education and opportunity and the emancipation of women will naturally curb the numbers of children per family, educate people for global jobs, and perhaps make those destitute parts of the world attractive for people to live in because they will thrive.

Integration vs multi-culturalism, added strain on soft and hard infrastructure etc are separate though related issues. I'm not far off your own views there at all, even so I've quite a few points of disagreement but I realised I was after typing a hee-yuge long post with nothing to do with the thread so sure look I might see you in one of the bajillion Muslims/migrants threads :pac:

Fr_Dougal

suicide_circus wrote: »

i wonder will she accept the pensions and welfare benefits paid for by other peoples children when shes old?

Won’t she have contributed herself throughout the years?

It will be interesting to see what the world economy looks like in 20 years time, especially considering the acceleration of automation in most jobs.

suicide_circus

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Won’t she have contributed herself throughout the years?

yes but thats not how it works in practice. the current workers pay the pensions of the previous generations. our prsi comtributions dont go into a vault waiting for our retirement day.

Yer Da sells Avon

professore wrote:

Sperm quality and consequently fertility has been on a steep decline for 30 years now.

Speak for yourself. Mine is of the highest quality.

As far as population control is concerned, an individual deciding not to have children is a drop in the ocean. If I was that way minded, I think I'd prefer to have children and do whatever I can to ensure that they're brought up to care about the environment and have a positive impact on the world. At the very least, they'd be likely to inherit my good looks.

suicide_circus

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

If I was that way minded, I think I'd prefer to have children and do whatever I can to ensure that they're brought up to care about the environment and have a positive impact on the world. At the very least, they'd be likely to inherit my good looks.

this is the problem. if the thinking people with climate change concerns etc dont have children, the next generation will be made up exclusively of people raised by those who dont think beyond their next bag of chips.

Ted Johnson

Virginia Breezy Police wrote: »

Genuine question because I feel like I'm missing something obvious, what is this connection between migration and global population that means you can't logically advocate for halting or reversing population growth and also advocate for unrestricted or nearly unrestricted migration? What's the difference between having 20 people in region A and 80 people in region B, and having 40 people in region A and 60 people in region B?

Ethnic groups will not allowed themselves to be replaced. It's beyond stupid trying to force plantations upon the peoples of Europe.

Gimme A Pound

Rubberchikken wrote: »

some people will decide not to have kids. personally i admire them for making this decision and being comfortable stating it.
the world has no shortage of people already.

what type of reception would she have gotten if she'd said ill have as many kids as i possibly can and may need to sign on to support them.

Well it's not like it can only be one or the other. I don't think it's admirable to have children or not have children.

Zorya wrote: »

How many of those people making a personal decision feel the need to start political movements? I don't have a problem at all with people not having children, many of my friends and family have made that choice but to elevate that choice to an ideology is problematic.
It is for one thing a biological imperative in the species to reproduce, it is hardwired in our evolutionary traits - to make a problem out of fundamental evolutionary activities is unwise to say the least. Anti natalism is a very nihilistic philosophy on so many levels.
Also to live with the level of fear and depression they describe is very unhealthy.

If the political statement was simply "I'm not having children" in and of itself, I'd agree. I think there is or was the "childfree movement" which just seems like "lady doth protest too much" carry-on. Fine, don't have children - no need for the big production. Nobody has ever given me or friends hassle for no children yet - a lot of the judgements people talk about are likely in their own heads.

But in this case, there is a specific reason for their choice - and one they feel so strongly about that they're compelled to spread the word. I don't think anyone who really wants a family will be put off though, nor will those who say "Yeah, good reason not to have kids" not be people who wouldn't be having children anyway.

NIMAN

Maybe we need to get all the medical research people, the surgeons, the nurses, doctors etc to stop discovering new ways of making us live longer?

If your time is up, its up. Off you go. No treatment for you my old bucko. Didn't you hear, the planet can't cope. You've had your turn.

You could say medical and technological advancement is killing the planet. Evolution isn't being allowed to happen.

BeerWolf

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe we need to get all the medical research people, the surgeons, the nurses, doctors etc to stop discovering new ways of making us live longer?

If your time is up, its up. Off you go. No treatment for you my old bucko. Didn't you hear, the planet can't cope. You've had your turn.

You could say medical and technological advancement is killing the planet. Evolution isn't being allowed to happen.

Nah, rather have less people but longer lives -- let's be like the Elves in LoTRs!

NIMAN

Tried listening to the video, but could only manage a couple of minutes of the 2 crazy people.

The planet is going to be around in 100, 200, 300 yrs, and there will be loads of insects and animals and humans on it too. They really are doomsday merchants, and I would honestly say there is a little bit of mild mental illness with these 2. They are like crazy conspiracy nuts, and to get so depressed about the world is irrational (imho).

But hey, just my opinion.

NIMAN

Pter wrote: »

Finally, the justification i was looking for!

Well just don't wash your hands after you pee, and you'll not waste any water.

Simple.

Zorya

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Usually when I ask friends who have kids why they decided to have kids, the response is ‘sure who’s going to look after me when I’m old?’

Yeah let’s overpopulate the planet so your kids can visit you in your nursing home.

Must admit in almost 30 years of having had children that thought has literally NEVER crossed my mind. Nor have I ever heard it from any of my friends, but then maybe we are hardy folk who plan on going into the woods when old age dawns. I hope my children are having a good time and do not feel bound to me in my old age. There used to be a grotty old nursing home on the road to Dublin from here - The Omega, it was cheerfully called :rolleyes:, what a name for an old folks home - and my oldest from the age of about 8 or 9 used to say whenever we passed it, tha's where Mammy and Daddy are going when we don't want them, which would start a cheer in the back seat of Omega! Omega! from the others. :pac:

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe we need to get all the medical research people, the surgeons, the nurses, doctors etc to stop discovering new ways of making us live longer?

If your time is up, its up. Off you go. No treatment for you my old bucko. Didn't you hear, the planet can't cope. You've had your turn.

You could say medical and technological advancement is killing the planet. Evolution isn't being allowed to happen.

Yes, I was looking up population growth and it is actuallyboth the longevity as a result of improved health care and the drop in infant mortality that is most contributing to growth, not some frenzied breeding by the masses. And the drop in infant mortality is what is directly causing people in all parts of the world to have fewer babies. There is an innate intelligence in the species that seems to be forgotten.

wakka12

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe we need to get all the medical research people, the surgeons, the nurses, doctors etc to stop discovering new ways of making us live longer?

If your time is up, its up. Off you go. No treatment for you my old bucko. Didn't you hear, the planet can't cope. You've had your turn.

You could say medical and technological advancement is killing the planet. Evolution isn't being allowed to happen.

People arent living that long, life expectancy is still only early 80's

Anyway, its good that people live longer lives, they have more experienced and knowledge to teach younger people and can work for longer. The more new children there are and the higher death rates the more learnt knowledge is lost and needs to be taught anew

conorhal

Miley Scarce Spirits wrote: »

If the political statement was simply "I'm not having children" in and of itself, I'd agree. I think there is or was the "childfree movement" which just seems like "lady doth protest too much" carry-on. Fine, don't have children - no need for the big production. Nobody has ever given me or friends hassle for no children yet - a lot of the judgements people talk about are likely in their own heads.

But in this case, there is a specific reason for their choice - and one they feel so strongly about that they're compelled to spread the word. I don't think anyone who really wants a family will be put off though, nor will those who say "Yeah, good reason not to have kids" not be people who wouldn't be having children anyway.

Just when you thought that vegans were the most insufferable group of moral grandstanders, this crowd has just casually said 'hold my beer vegans....'


What are the chances that these same cat ladies will be bitching about the struggles and expense of IVF to anybody that will listen a decade from now.

Dravokivich

wakka12 wrote: »

People arent living that long, life expectancy is still only early 80's

Anyway, its good that people live longer lives, they have more experienced and knowledge to teach younger people and can work for longer. The more new children there are and the higher death rates the more learnt knowledge is lost and needs to be taught anew

More of us are getting there. It wasn't too long ago when a high amount of kids would be dead before puberty.

Annasopra

Zorya wrote: »

This seems to me to be neurotic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KASFz2k0WKA

To be living in such fear, to be so daily depressed - anti-natalists wouldn't be much fun as flatmates, I think.

Some of the forced birthers around would be even worse flatmates

Zorya

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Some of the forced birthers around would be even worse flatmates

Eeeeewww. What a horrid phrase.

DEFTLEFTHAND

El_Bee wrote: »

Wow, that's so fcked up. Fewer white babies more immigrants.

What a creepy publication.