Fertility Shock

Hobosan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Accurate description of your own post there really. What do you expect human civilisation should do? Regress to living in mud huts giving up all scientific, medical and technological advances we’ve made since the time when we lived in caves? Flintstones style?

Realistically, what do you imagine are the chances of that happening? What would be the point of passing on such a regressive philosophy to the next generation? We’re not destroying the earth, we’re adapting it to suit ourselves. The next generation will do the same thing, as generations of humanity have done long before you were ever even thought of.

To be fair, there are many among human civilisation for whom a mud hut would be a considerable step up.

Probably the worst part of human civilisation that the meagre safety net of a mud hut is forcibly denied to citizens. Tells you all you need to know.

paleoperson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Accurate description of your own post there really. What do you expect human civilisation should do? Regress to living in mud huts giving up all scientific, medical and technological advances we’ve made since the time when we lived in caves? Flintstones style?

Realistically, what do you imagine are the chances of that happening? What would be the point of passing on such a regressive philosophy to the next generation? We’re not destroying the earth, we’re adapting it to suit ourselves. The next generation will do the same thing, as generations of humanity have done long before you were ever even thought of.

Rubbish. The sooner people let go of the myth of continued progress the better.

If we had a low population and there was enough for everyone then you might well have a point. As it happens we don't, and people with mudhuts or animals who sleep in the trees have a much better life than a lot of poor humans in urban areas today.

sk8erboii

professore wrote: »

warlike honour cultures

hahahahhahahahahahahahhaha

BeerWolf

professore wrote: »

We are already well on the way to doing that. Problem is we are going to have a huge amount of old people and very few young people supporting them.

It's about time we started eating Soylent Greens.

professore

work wrote: »

Sorry but what is your point? The majority of OAPs function fine on their own and toward the end of life need help. I don't get your point?

"Toward the end of life" is 5+ years in many cases. Who is going to pay for them and provide them with care of there are no young people?

professore

Hobosan wrote: »

To be fair, there are many among human civilisation for whom a mud hut would be a considerable step up.

Probably the worst part of human civilisation that the meagre safety net of a mud hut is forcibly denied to citizens. Tells you all you need to know.

This is a rapidly decreasing part of human civilization. There is far less abject poverty than there used to be.

Edenmoar

We can’t just keep blowing up the population just to support old people. I doubt I’ll have kids but I fancy my chances looking after myself when I’m old as much as I can anyway. If a generation has to endure hardship in order to reduce the population then so be it. We’ve got through rationing and world wars and the bubonic plague. A few 80 year olds dying earlier than they would have or not having their nappies changed isn’t the end of the world, uncontrolled population growth could very well be the end of the world it’s looking that way. Anyway we might have robots to look after our old people in 50 years time.

super_furry

Would love to have a load of kids but financial realities of paying a mortgage and putting them through school and college mean that it probably won't even be more than two.

buried

professore wrote: »

This is a rapidly decreasing part of human civilization. There is far less abject poverty than there used to be.

Just because there is a decrease in abject poverty doesn't mean that there is a total increase in wealth for everyone in the other direction. Our whole way of life is at the whim of the money markets, and nobody trusts it. The market doesn't even trust itself.
The majority of people aren't living in mud huts but at the same time they are not living with any real degree of security for the future due to the chaotic nature of the money markets. There is no balance because there is no security. Everything is boiled down to greasy money, how much we are told there is, how much we are told there isn't, how much you need to have. It bleeds into everything and nobody trusts it, because you can't trust it, like all gambling it could fall on its ar$e at any moment.
This is the system of "control" and its a totally chaotic and alien system for the family based system of community based humanity has more than less always involved itself in. A lot of People these days don't feel secure for themselves, never mind adding a few more people into their immediate circle and have to try to secure those people for the future either.
Money and greed. Its a serious problem.

Feisar

buried wrote: »

Just because there is a decrease in abject poverty doesn't mean that there is a total increase in wealth for everyone in the other direction. Our whole way of life is at the whim of the money markets, and nobody trusts it. The market doesn't even trust itself.
The majority of people aren't living in mud huts but at the same time they are not living with any real degree of security for the future due to the chaotic nature of the money markets. There is no balance because there is no security. Everything is boiled down to greasy money, how much we are told there is, how much we are told there isn't, how much you need to have. It bleeds into everything and nobody trusts it, because you can't trust it, like all gambling it could fall on its ar$e at any moment.
This is the system of "control" and its a totally chaotic and alien system for the family based system of community based humanity has more than less always involved itself in. A lot of People these days don't feel secure for themselves, never mind adding a few more people into their immediate circle and have to try to secure those people for the future either.
Money and greed. Its a serious problem.

How do we get back to a resource based system though?

Edenmoar

Feisar wrote: »

How do we get back to a resource based system though?

We don't. Overpopulation and over consumption will lead to war and totalitarianism and probably billions dying. We are too greedy and short sighted. I really can't see it panning out any other way.

realitykeeper

professore wrote: »

Watching this on RTE it talks about the declining birth rate and then talks about the high cost of childcare as a problem and goes on about how the Nordic countries do it so much better. Its true they do it better BUT their birth rates are among the lowest in the world - predictably not mentioned in the documentary of course.

So nice as it is, it isn't the solution to plummeting birth rates.

What do the good people of Boards think the solution is? Or should we go extinct?

The solution is the same one I have mentioned time and again. We must pay ourselves less for so many reasons, not just because it will reduce the cost of services. When we pay ourselves less, we have less money to buy foreign goods and more need to make what we can ourselves. Sometimes, paying ourselves less might mean improvising, for example, instead of buying a nice vase made in Turkey, we might use the unusual bottle we were going to bring to the bottle bank.

Paying ourselves less means sorting rubbish by hand can be profitable and of course it deminishes the need for incineration. Paying ourselves a lot of money when we are not even running a budget surplus is not very bright. It is like house buyers using money borrowed from abroad to bid the same houses they collectively want to buy, higher.

The Irish minimum wage is a magnet which attracts unskilled migrants to this country and that brings us full circle. If we had lower childcare costs and more employment for low skilled Irish, we would have a higher birth rate.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How did you get from "we need to stop reproducing so much and allow the human population to massively decline" to "we should regress to the stone age"?

It's precisely so that future generations can continue to enjoy all of those incredible things we as a species have created, that we need to reduce the population going forward. None of them will matter much for quality of life if we reach a point in which there isn't enough space, food, water, etc to sustain a comfortable lifestyle for individuals, or when the environment has become too hostile to enjoy living in. All of these are problems which will arise in the event that we don't arrest the explosion in human population.

The simple maths of this is that the planet isn't getting any bigger, and therefore nor are the various fixed parameters in terms of what it can provide us with. In that scenario, an ever-increasing human population will eventually find itself having to divide those various pies into smaller and smaller pieces in order to survive. Food, water, land, fuel, raw materials, etc - the more these have to be divided up, the less each person gets. That should be obvious. I mean it's the same concept which leads to societies progressing from generally living in houses with private green space to generally living in high density apartment blocks - there stops being enough land for the former option to remain possible, and so the latter option is the only way forward.

Apply the same logic to resources such as food, water, electricity etc - which at the moment are not things we're capable of simply multiplying the way we're capable of multiplying our own population, without seriously f*cking up the environment in the process - and it becomes obvious why, over time, a higher human population must result in a reduced per capita quality of life.

Your logic only applies in a scenario where all countries are becoming overpopulated equally, and all resources are divided equally among all populations, and every country has the same standard of living. We know that is not the case in reality - we know that some populations have more resources than others, for example in the West we have a much higher standard of living than populations in sub-Saharan Africa where the population reproduces like rabbits and resources are scarce.

In reality, I don’t imagine those populations will listen to being told they have to reduce their numbers because they’re a disease on the planet. They reproduce in greater numbers in spite of the fact that they have less resources for exactly the same reasons as people living in poverty do in the West - to increase the chances that the next generation will lift them out of poverty by creating wealth and conquering their environment.

I don’t even have to use countries in Africa as examples of an urban/rural divided society when here in Ireland we have an obvious urban/rural divide with one third of the population living in the capital city where there are the most resources, and the most opportunities, unevenly divided and distributed of course, and that pie you mentioned earlier as though we all get an equal per capita slice? That’s not current reality, is it?

The global issue isn’t a population growth or sustainability issue, it’s a distribution of wealth and resources issue, and that’s primarily due to how our wealth and resources are managed - they aren’t distributed equally. So when that poster implies that humans are an infection on the planet, not only are they being ridiculously dramatic, but there’s no nuance in their pronouncement - the reality is that some people are an infection on the planet, and some people are the treatment for that infection. Whichever you’re regarded as is simply a matter of perspective. I doubt for a second the same poster regards themselves as an infection on the planet. If they did, and they want other people to reduce the number of children they have to reduce the population on the planet, then it stands to reason that in order to reduce the population on the planet, they could easily do so by one at least, by starting with themselves.

zell12

Margaret Cash

Edenmoar

We, as Westerners, are consuming way too much. People think Ireland is underpopulated even though there's no trees or corner of the land that isn't a farm apart from a few national parks. Anyway we consume stuff from all over the planet, so it doesn't even matter where we live, people who are spending money on goods are draining the Earth of resources and contributing to deforestation and plastic in the oceans etc.
Currently we are like a cancer on the planet and I wouldn't feel too good about having children but that's just me and I think about these things a lot. Most people don't care.

Galwayguy35

The problem is it's the wrong people that are breeding.

In Ireland and other welfare states it's the scroungers that keep popping out kids who like their parents will add nothing and take everything from the country they live in.

And in places like Africa, India and South America it's the poorest people who for some strange reason keep having kids they can't look after.

super_furry

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The problem is it's the wrong people that are breeding.

In Ireland and other welfare states it's the scroungers that keep popping out kids who like their parents will add nothing and take everything from the country they live in.

And in places like Africa, India and South America it's the poorest people who for some strange reason keep having kids they can't look after.

We need to tax riding.

Edenmoar

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

And in places like Africa, India and South America it's the poorest people who for some strange reason keep having kids they can't look after.

They consume f*ck all though. I think I read somewhere that one Westerner consumes the same as 300 Bangladeshis or something like that. So really it's us who are the problem, not that lot.
They have lots of kids because of religion and lack of education and opportunities, travellers here in Ireland do the same for the same reasons I presume.

blackbox

professore wrote: »

"Toward the end of life" is 5+ years in many cases. Who is going to pay for them and provide them with care of there are no young people?

Someone who doesn't have children is more likely to have saved enough funds to pay for his or her own care.

topper75

mad muffin wrote: »

The documentary Idiocy talked about it 10 years ago.

I wanted to watch that but couldn't work the DVD player.

Demonique wrote: »

The world population is increasing not decreasing

You are correct: just because the fertility is falling in Ireland/Europe doesn't mean humanity shrinks.

The UN report there a few years back (2015, revised 2017) counted 1.2 billion on the African continent. Projection for 2050: 2.4 billion - A DOUBLING, a doubling ladies and gentlemen. But I hear you say that must be the extreme scenario - no ladies and gentlemen it is in fact the LOW variant scenario. Now I don't know how they calc this stuff - but it is the UN so carries at least some credibility. I don't know what agenda they would have.

Actual report: https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/
Punchier article: https://qz.com/africa/1016790/more-than-half-of-the-worlds-population-growth-will-be-in-africa-by-2050/

Humanity won't shrink at all - but it will change composition - by a lot.

Rapid population increase means trouble invariably. You see it in our own history (18th/19th century overpopulation mixed with monoculture =TNT). You see it in the middle east - Syria between the 60s and Arab Spring quadrupled. Loads of unemp young males. There is only one result and it is not peace.

Yes we will live in interesting times, there is no may about it.

mariaalice

Will people get off the world population bandwagon and go back to the issue in the documentary, I found it a bit upsetting I had my children young first one at 20 very little money etc, with the hind site of maturity I realise it was a privilege that is rapidly disappearing for a lot of people, the woman outside the creach nearly crying saying her children are in there for 50 hours a week and it is costing more than their mortgage.

The pressure to have a career, get a masters, find a long term home is forcing people to put off having children.

I wonder if it is an urban thing though because anyone I know married with children in their twenties lives more rural, have traditionally female jobs and a supportive wider family.

mariaalice

Plus with the economic system we have, we need a young population feeding into the system more people paying in than taking out at the moment its five workers to one retiree but will change to two worked to each retired person and that is a problem for society.

Saying change the system is not an option its does not work like that.

buried

Feisar wrote: »

How do we get back to a resource based system though?

Probably have to wait for a 2 mile wide asteroid to belt into the planet or something like that. It won't change, there is no way back, it has gone too far.

paleoperson

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The problem is it's the wrong people that are breeding.

In Ireland and other welfare states it's the scroungers that keep popping out kids who like their parents will add nothing and take everything from the country they live in.

And in places like Africa, India and South America it's the poorest people who for some strange reason keep having kids they can't look after.

This is an insanely offensive and disgusting thing to say.

Once you start going down this road of "the wrong people breeding" you are automatically talking about eugenics.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We’re not destroying the earth, we’re adapting it to suit ourselves.

Spoken like a true-blue christian fundie climate change denier.

Those melted polar icecaps will be great.

Who needs cities on the coastline, anyway?

Hotblack Desiato

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is why the endless growth model is totally unsustainable. At some point, some generation is going to have to face up to this, so it may as well be ours. The planet cannot sustain an indefinite expansion of human population.

But what about all those souls in heaven waiting to be born?

Huh? Huh?

It's our duty to breed as much as possible because god said so in a big book.

paleoperson

Hotblack Desiato shut the **** up. You're not doing any favours for anti-overpopulation by claiming it's all due to christian religion, it has nothing to do with christian religion, you're just acting like a clown.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Spoken like a true-blue christian fundie climate change denier.

Those melted polar icecaps will be great.

Who needs cities on the coastline, anyway?

Eh? The earths climate has been changing for billions of years. We have cities on coastlines because some bright sparks decided to put them there, and now we already have humans working on alternative locations as well as humans coming up with ideas should those alternative locations be unsuitable for human habitation in spite of our current technology.

Cities on coastlines I’ll admit seemed like a good idea at a time when international trade was a sea-faring endeavour, now we can trade internationally from the comfort of our office desks while those people we call engineers and scientists do their thing.

Hotblack Desiato

paleoperson wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato shut the **** up. You're not doing any favours for anti-overpopulation by claiming it's all due to christian religion, it has nothing to do with christian religion, you're just acting like a clown.

I suppose you never heard of "go forth and multiply", then.

Or the catholic church's efforts in preventing the availability of contraception in Africa

So you're ignorant as well as abusive. Nice...

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? The earths climate has been changing for billions of years.

Zzzz.. nobody is saying it hasn't, but if you want to go down this route, how about correlating climactic changes in the past with mass extinction events?

We're taking the stored carbon of millions of years and releasing it back into the atmosphere in only a couple of hundred years. It has to have an effect and it is having an effect. If you want to fool yourself into thinking that these effects will all be benign or all be surmountable then grand, keep on fooling yourself, but this sh*t has consequences.

"adapting the planet to suit ourselves" - such complete and utter delusion.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I suppose you never heard of "go forth and multiply", then.

Or the catholic church's efforts in preventing the availability of contraception in Africa

So you're ignorant as well as abusive. Nice...

Throughout human history the mantra of any social group has been to go forth and multiply their numbers? That includes people who advocated culling populations to decrease their numbers in the hope of increasing their own number by virtue of the fact there was less of the offending social group in society. That’s hardly a new concept either.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Zzzz.. nobody is saying it hasn't, but if you want to go down this route, how about correlating climactic changes in the past with mass extinction events?

We're taking the stored carbon of millions of years and releasing it back into the atmosphere in only a couple of hundred years. It has to have an effect and it is having an effect. If you want to fool yourself into thinking that these effects will all be benign or all be surmountable then grand, keep on fooling yourself, but this sh*t has consequences.

"adapting the planet to suit ourselves" - such complete and utter delusion.

Of course it has consequences, and seeing as humans have for at least thousands of years been able to overcome and adapt their environment, I see no reason for thinking that we couldn’t possibly do the same as we have always done. I don’t imagine for a minute the environment will be the same in a thousand years as it is now, but I suspect that humans will still be populating the planet in even greater numbers as the developed world becomes even more technologically and economically advanced, and the developing world looks a bit like our world now.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Throughout human history the mantra of any social group has been to go forth and multiply their numbers?

True but now on the planet as a whole we've become far too good at it. Something has to give.

That includes people who advocated culling populations to decrease their numbers in the hope of increasing their own number by virtue of the fact there was less of the offending social group in society. That’s hardly a new concept either.

Yup. plenty of that in the bible too.

Sephiroth_dude

paleoperson wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato shut the **** up. You're not doing any favours for anti-overpopulation by claiming it's all due to christian religion, it has nothing to do with christian religion, you're just acting like a clown.

Mod

Less of the personal abuse please

Keep it civil please

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it has consequences, and seeing as humans have for at least thousands of years been able to overcome and adapt their environment, I see no reason for thinking that we couldn’t possibly do the same as we have always done.

Apart from that we're looking at a rapidity and extent of change unprecendented in human history. Be grand :rolleyes:

You know, while we eventually decide how we're going to deal with the problem we've already created, maybe in the meantime we should try to stop adding to the problem as much as we are currently doing?

Palming all this off as "we are adapting the planet to suit ourselves" and "the climate has always been changing" is not only naive but dangerous. It's also the sort of weaselly language favoured by the big corporate AGW denialists.

I don’t imagine for a minute the environment will be the same in a thousand years as it is now, but I suspect that humans will still be populating the planet in even greater numbers as the developed world becomes even more technologically and economically advanced, and the developing world looks a bit like our world now.

Optimistic, to say the least.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Optimistic, to say the least.

Optimism is what drives us forward as a species, it’s the basis upon which we take risks - sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don’t, but the one thing that is absolutely guaranteed is that a pessimistic outlook on life never achieved anything.

Force Carrier

In the not to distant future most of the work in western society will be done by machines or AI. This further underlines the issue of what to set the population number at. There will be no necessity to have people to work. It will be a purely social decision. As will having children and families. At the same time we may be able to greatly extend the duration of human life. Through medical advances and through the integration and merging of technology and machinery into the human body.

paleoperson

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I suppose you never heard of "go forth and multiply", then.

No, I have never heard that in my entire religious upbringing growing up. Not once was I ever advised that we should have plenty of children, never. I only ever heard that online by people like yourself. You're taking one thing in the entire bible out of context when there was a lack of population and applying it to life today. You're no better than the bible-thumpers and the people who do take one thing out of the bible and use that as their basis for behaviour that way yourself.

Being against contraception has nothing to do with wanting to overpopulate Africa, that's why they preach abstinence instead. Noone has ever in the history of the church (in reasonably modern times) advised Africans to keep having children. So stop trying to intentionally misrepresent them. It's a fantasy you're engaged in.

I'm atheist and I'm totally against overpopulation. I have never had anything but positive experiences from my religious upbringing, I like religious people most of the time and I'm sick of this sort of nonsense. It's nothing but pure hate and lies. And what does it solve, like what good does it do you to talk like this? Maybe some religious people are for overpopulation but most are not. Unless you're talking about a very small fraction of people, it has NEVER been held as a religious value to overpopulate. Very, very far left individuals are often very, very dismissive of overpopulation concerns as well. So just stop with your hate against a particular group of people which has NOTHING to do with this subject. Tired of the religious-bashing hobby.

gargargar

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Optimism is what drives us forward as a species.

I would categorise ignoring the threat of climate change as blind optimism. We have only had heavy industry for the last 100 and odd years. To go back beyond that is foolish.

Diceicle

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The solution to a plummeting birth rate is obviously to encourage people to have more children, by the State introducing incentives for them to do so.

Currently, that’s just not happening at the level it needs to happen, as more and more people are simply more interested in supporting their own lifestyles as opposed to imagining they have any obligation to the State to have more children.

Viktor Orban has a plan to tackle Hungarys birth-rate:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/to-boost-birth-rates-hungarys-prime-minister-offers-zero-taxes-for-families

One eyed Jack

gargargar wrote: »

I would categorise ignoring the threat of climate change as blind optimism. We have only had heavy industry for the last 100 and odd years. To go back beyond that is foolish.

Couple of things to clear up here - HD regarded my view that the human species adapt our environment to suit ourselves as naive, in spite of the fact that’s exactly how we have evolved and how civilisations have evolved and civilisations have fallen throughout human history.

I see no reason to think we won’t do the same again as we have done throughout history. The civilisation that will fall is the one that imagines they’re doing future generations a favour by having less children (where they expect future generations to come from if not from themselves, is anyone’s guess, but sure ignore that!), and those people who imagine they’re doing the planet a favour by disposing of their plastic Evian water bottle in a socially responsible fashion (I’ll leave vegans and EV drivers alone, Christ knows they have it hard enough :pac:).

The point I’m making is precisely because we now live in a world where we’ve had the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and now the technological revolution, and there have been naysayers and doomsayers in each revolution, and human society has evolved each time, you’d think the naysayers and doomsayers would have learned by now that their efforts are futile (I’m being kind), but no, they’re still bleating about the end of human civilisation being nigh and the death of the planet. Why? Because they’re optimistic in one sense at least that at some point in the future they’re sure to be proven right.

At that point they’ll be able to say to what’s left of humanity “I told you, I warned you, but you didn’t listen”, and it’s that optimism in hoping one day they will be able to say that, which drives them.

topper75

paleoperson wrote: »

This is an insanely offensive and disgusting thing to say.

Once you start going down this road of "the wrong people breeding" you are automatically talking about eugenics.

Right so we don't want eugenics.

But is there an any acceptable alternative to letting it all play out laissez faire and see more of this:

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/addicted-baby-born-every-three-days-910068.html

professore

paleoperson wrote: »

No, I have never heard that in my entire religious upbringing growing up. Not once was I ever advised that we should have plenty of children, never. I only ever heard that online by people like yourself.

Ah you were raised protestant then?

Hotblack Desiato

paleoperson wrote: »

No, I have never heard that in my entire religious upbringing growing up.

Strange. It's a very commonly known phrase (and a euphemism for f..k off, to boot!)

Not once was I ever advised that we should have plenty of children, never. I only ever heard that online by people like yourself. You're taking one thing in the entire bible out of context when there was a lack of population and applying it to life today.

But it's still RCC policy today. Our birth rate was way above other European countries until quite recently. They kept contraception here illegal for decades and still tell their followers it's a sin. They're doing all they can to restrict the availability of contraception in the developing world and telling their rather more impressionable followers there that it's a sin. More souls for Jeebus appears to be the only criterion

You're no better than the bible-thumpers and the people who do take one thing out of the bible and use that as their basis for behaviour that way yourself.

Somehow pointing out the RCC's policy and actions in the world today, which are directly relevant to the topic of this thread, and the damage and human suffering they cause makes me a bad person. Uhuh.

Being against contraception has nothing to do with wanting to overpopulate Africa, that's why they preach abstinence instead.

If abstinence worked, then we would never have needed to invent contraception. Not even the priests can practice what they preach

jim-mcdee

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Lots of thirty somethings have a future of loneliness, regret and despair to look forward to...not all but lots.

An extremely narrow minded comment. Avoidance of the above, must be the worst reasons in the world to decide to have children. Also, having kids are in no way guaranteed to avoid that. My wife worked in the home care industry. More than a few elderly clients that were filled with the above after being practically abandoned by their children, who are happy to pay for their care, but never visit.

professore

jim-mcdee wrote: »

More than a few elderly clients that were filled with the above after being practically abandoned by their children, who are happy forced to pay for their care, but never visit.

Fixed that for you. On another note, some posters on here are delusional in thinking they will be certainly fit and healthy, will have bags of money and won't need any care in their old age.

Dream on ! I don't think they have any idea how much it costs to fund 20 years of retirement.

Others are delusional that getting married and having kids is a way around this. Loneliness is't a reason to have a family - in many cases it's actually more isolating for both men and women as you can't easily socialise with people at the drop of a hat.

paleoperson

professore wrote: »

Ah you were raised protestant then?

No, Catholic. To very catholic parents and one of my aunts was a catholic nun. Catholic religious class in school. Catholic sermons every Sunday growing up. If there were ever the slightest value placed in populating by Catholics I would have them. Priests aren't even allowed to reproduce by definition.

It was never, never, never said to me, including in religious class, or ever a thing I heard at all until the internet.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Strange. It's a very commonly known phrase (and a euphemism for f..k off, to boot!)

I don't know what you're smoking.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But it's still RCC policy today. Our birth rate was way above other European countries until quite recently. They kept contraception here illegal for decades and still tell their followers it's a sin. They're doing all they can to restrict the availability of contraception in the developing world and telling their rather more impressionable followers there that it's a sin. More souls for Jeebus appears to be the only criterion

That's contraception, that has nothing to do with wanting people to multiply. The teaching of the catholic church has always been that sex outside of wedlock is a mortal sin.

I agree that abstinence doesn't work. I'm not saying I agree with the catholic church or even saying their teachings aren't stupid. What I am saying is that it has never been a religious thing to give birth to a lot of children in Ireland, I have never heard it at all apart from online.

scamalert

jim-mcdee wrote: »

An extremely narrow minded comment. Avoidance of the above, must be the worst reasons in the world to decide to have children. Also, having kids are in no way guaranteed to avoid that. My wife worked in the home care industry. More than a few elderly clients that were filled with the above after being practically abandoned by their children, who are happy to pay for their care, but never visit.

Exactly knowing someone who worked in home care is a cruel joke, those parents who raised their kids couldn't be arsed once they parents get old to look after them never mind visiting is like once a year just to see if they still breathe.


if people make rational decision that its to expensive or they might not be able to provide fully and decide not to have kids all the better no one should dictate on someones choices.

Hotblack Desiato

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't know what you're smoking.

Ah so you're back to attacking the poster rather than the post, I see.

That's contraception, that has nothing to do with wanting people to multiply.

Genuine LOL at this :pac:

I'm not saying I agree with the catholic church or even saying their teachings aren't stupid. What I am saying is that it has never been a religious thing to give birth to a lot of children in Ireland, I have never heard it at all apart from online.

I can remember when married couples with no kids were looked on with something close to suspicion by some, or even couples with "only" two kids after a few years - this was when contraception was illegal and the one and only reason it was illegal in Ireland was because the RCC wanted it to be.

If you don't agree with their actions or teachings then why attack people who question their actions and teachings...?

paleoperson

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah so you're back to attacking the poster rather than the post, I see.

No I am not attacking the poster pal. I would be attacking the poster if I said something like your job is only such and such or you are a drug user so your point is invalid. I am saying here I have no clue what you're saying and that I think it's nonsensical and cannot fathom how you come to it, that is attacking the post.

I have no idea what you mean by "back to attacking the poster" either because I don't recall anything like attacking a poster in this thread.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I can remember when married couples with no kids were looked on with something close to suspicion by some, or even couples with "only" two kids after a few years - this was when contraception was illegal and the one and only reason it was illegal in Ireland was because the RCC wanted it to be.

If you don't agree with their actions or teachings then why attack people who question their actions and teachings...?

Because people like you are always spewing such vile hatred and outright lies about good people, many of whom are now dead.

It's bull****, the whole thing you brought up is bull****. Nothing about catholicism belongs as part of this conversation unless if you're talking about an indirect effect on Africa. Both nuns and priests are strictly forbidden from reproducing. So enough with your bull****.