615
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
615 points (98.0% liked)
News
36031 readers
516 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As someone who chose not to have kids, I still support special PTO and medical leave for people who decide to have kids.
The population is aging where I live, and I would like to incentivize people to make future tax payers and future people that I can pay to wipe my ass when I’m old.
The next generation is an investment in my future wellbeing even if I didn’t have kids.
Do you really think it is 40 hours of leave for prenatal appointments, or even long parental leave that is stopping people from having kids? No, it's expensive childcare, unaffordable healthcare, low wages, low time off generally, as well as a garbage world that seems to be circling the drain due to climate change and pollution. My workplace actually does already offer 40 hours for prenatal care along with 12 weeks paid leave after birth, and I still have zero intention of having kids. I don't make enough money anyway, and even then, I don't want them to have to live in a climate change hellscape.
And I personally think we are overpopulated and declining population would be good. How cruel to think people should have kids just so those kids can wipe our ass in the future. In fact, when the times comes that I can't wipe my ass, I hope we have options, because I would choose euthanasia.
Again, that is not to speak against paid parental leave. But everybody gets sick. Everybody gets burned out. Have time for everybody.
It’s not for encouraging people to have kids.
It’s for the people already pregnant to not fucking die or have a miscarriage due to being unable to go to necessary regular prenatal checkups.
I was responding to someone that said "I would like to incentivize people to make future tax payers" so yes, some people think this is to encourage people to have kids.
We make it unnecessarily difficult to have children, we don’t give them sufficient opportunity to survive and grow into their potential, but the long term population trend is looking grim.
Yes, let’s start removing the obstacles that block having children. Yes, let’s put some effort into helping them survive. Yes. Let’s give their parents a way to have them cared for while they earn a living. Yes, let’s give them a better education to grow into their potential. Yes, let’s set up the safety nets so a treatable Illness doesn’t make them fall out of society and splatter onto the rocks
OK.
In reality, this is to prevent pregnant people and infants from dying.
Ok, so I am not allowed to respond to other people?
And why can't we help all people, including pregnant people and infants?
Sure, there are a lot of things that discourage people from having kids. This is only one factor but let’s start with one factor: I’ll also support the next.
I’ve already had my kids, not as many as I wanted due to starting late, but I love them like crazy. I also see the long term trend of population decline and am very concerned about society’s future. I’m all for giving future parents benefits that I never had, future children more chances to survive and grow into their potential
The point is, it won’t move the needle, and lots of us don’t think the merely should move up. Continued population grown is what concerns me, which is what is actually happening (no decline). We can’t just keep moving earth overshoot day up.
You need to take a closer look at the long term population data. Sure, some of places that can least afford it continue to grow unsustainably, but essentially all developed countries have a birth rate below replacement levels. We’re still growing because previous generations are still with us, but as the bubble passes, we’re all on track for serious declines, if nothing changes. I’m all for making changes now while they’re insignificant.
Note the US is also on this track for sudden population decline but is still growing due to immigration. For all you who want to restrict immigration more, this is our future, this is what will keep us from declining like most of Europe and Asia. Immigration also should be encouraged
Population decline is now a similar place that climate change was in the 1970’s. We know what’s going on and it’s not too serious yet, but some of us are sounding an alarm. do we have the foresight to address it while it’s easy or are we going to wait until it’s critical/irreversible?
We literally had half the number of people on this planet 50 years ago. We had one quarter less than 100 years ago. The problem is overshoot, not too few people now. Serious decline is what we need.
malthusianism is next to eugenics
I disagree. You honestly think we can keep growing to eternity?
>You honestly think we can keep growing to eternity
I didn't say that
I don’t say you did. Just following your logic. And you agree we cannot grow forever. So when should we stop? You think we can’t stop now without dire consequences. But some future generation has to. So, who gets to face the consequences that you want to avoid for yourself?
>You think we can’t stop now without dire consequences
I didn't say that
That seems to be what you are saying.
literally putting words in my mouth. what I'm saying is that malthusianism is next to eugenics.
>some future generation has to
not necessarily
Why not?
technological advanced are unpredictable. we could develop something that brings about effectively the end of scarcity.
>who gets to face the consequences that you want to avoid for yourself?
you're making assumptions
I’m all ears
all I want to avoid is eugenics. I don't know what vague"consequences"you're referencing.
I’m not advocating eugenics. Where did I say only certain people should reproduce and others shouldn’t? Who is putting words into people’s mouths now? I’m done with you.
I'm pointing out that malthusianism is next to eugenics.
>I’m done with you.
thank God
>Just following your logic.
wrong
Feel free to explain. You say population decline (something which has yet to start) is a major problem that needs reversed, correct? So we need to grow faster? But you admit we can’t grow forever. So when should we stop growing?
>You say population decline (something which has yet to start) is a major problem
I didn't say that at all.
>you admit we can’t grow forever.
I never said that.
So which is it. You said the same thing when I asked if we can keep growing forever.
I suspended judgement on both those claims
don't be petulant