Sadly, when it comes down to it, children are necessary for society to function long-term. They are the people who will be financing and effecting your retirement, at least in a well-functioning society. I think it is a sound policy to make sure people can have children without any unnecessary suffering, there’s plenty of necessary suffering in there already.
How many humans should we aim to have, long term? 20 billion? 50 billion? We’re already on track to reach 10 billion in the next 25 years.
I believe that as a society, we should have a long-term plan and a goal for our species’s population count, because simply offering incentives for continued growth in order to continue funding generational gaps in our pyramid scheme of social welfare is untenable. Ultimately we will reach the logistical capacity of a functional welfare state, to say nothing of all the other problems.
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. Continuing to fixate on short-term problems like bridging a generational gap—which incidentally we’ve survived many times in anthropological history—by continuing policies with long-term ramifications is not a good plan.
At some point we need to come to terms with the fact that continuous population growth is not tenable. Whether the population cap is 10 billion or 100 billion, the fact of the matter is that we will eventually hit it. We can’t keep procrastinating because we’re unwilling to resolve the challenges you’ve mentioned in a more effective manner.
Call me an optimist, but if we’re unable to change our habits as a species, perhaps a well-needed revolution will kick us into action.
We probably won’t ever hit 11 billion contiguous humans. At least not without colonizing Venus. The birthrates worldwide are dropping quickly, and every time another country passes through the Industrial Age, into the Modern Age, their birthrates fall off a cliff. I suspect we will eventually stabilize around 9 billion people, which is a few billion lower than the maximum projected sustainable population of The Earth.
Nah, human fucking can’t be stopped but even if 99% of the human race was sterile for a geneation the earth would still have more humans left on it than the vast majority of recorded history.
Modern nations should be supporting population declines.
Investments should be made into research grants for recovery of our finite resources like phosphorus and pooling a fund for rising welfare costs, NOW. Instead, these subsidies are achieving the exact opposite.
Good luck, humans of 2100!
Signed, A human that elected to not have children from 2025
Let’s face it, in neoliberal democracies we barely think past the next quarter. Next election cycle at the most!
I would love a government with a long term outlook rather than one that is concerned only with getting re-elected or failing that getting a cushy job with one of their “donors” after they leave office
I agree with this in the basis of the thought. But depending on the social security in various countries there are groups that abuse this help. So I’m hoping that loopholes are plugged at the same time.
That kind of thinking is what stops the US from implementing any kind of decent social programs. If your first concern is ppl taking advantage of it you’re not really concerned with helping ppl
I’m not from the US… Not by far. Where I’m from many people abuse the system by having an exorbitant amount of children (10+), get free kindergarten care, extra money, don’t work, don’t contribute to society, steal, cause issues, etc.
Yeah, when I support a social program, it’s with the knowledge and acceptance that some abuse will occur. It’s just that I think, despite the abuse, the upside is still a superior outcome to not doing it at all. Maybe one day we’ll rebuild the cultural fabric to the point where people don’t feel so desperate they immediately exploit any crack in the system regardless of the risks or long-term outcomes. With changes in culture and wealth distribution worldwide, I believe global prosperity is absolutely possible.
I can’t imagine welfare of any kind is more abused than the process by which the US government farms things out to private companies. If the poor are suckling at the teet of the welfare cow, then private industry is the wolf ripping it’s head off. Just look at the clusters of contractors that show up like flies on shit any time the money faucet is opened.
Yeah, I want my neighbors to have heat in the winter, food when they lose their job, and universal childcare. If I have to pay a few extra bucks a year for that it’s better than pouring it into the rest of the money-holes in Washington DC.
OP mentions being from another country. I don’t have a ton of experience with countries commonly regarded as corrupt, though I did go to Nigeria once; money flows >>differently<< there. But there’s also a stronger social fabric. I don’t know if I could vote for any tax when there is suck a blatant track record of shady dealings (though it’s arguable we’ve all been doing that). It was fascinating and I hope to go back some day.
Anything to help people that want to have children is good.
Given how overpopulated the planet is, I’m not a fan
It’s the planet’s own fault for allowing life in the first place
I mean there is only one planet we know of that has life, why shouldn’t it be infested with it
nah, disagree. not anything.
That seems somewhat unfair towards people with other interests who aren’t being subsidized.
Sadly, when it comes down to it, children are necessary for society to function long-term. They are the people who will be financing and effecting your retirement, at least in a well-functioning society. I think it is a sound policy to make sure people can have children without any unnecessary suffering, there’s plenty of necessary suffering in there already.
deleted by creator
How many humans should we aim to have, long term? 20 billion? 50 billion? We’re already on track to reach 10 billion in the next 25 years.
I believe that as a society, we should have a long-term plan and a goal for our species’s population count, because simply offering incentives for continued growth in order to continue funding generational gaps in our pyramid scheme of social welfare is untenable. Ultimately we will reach the logistical capacity of a functional welfare state, to say nothing of all the other problems.
deleted by creator
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. Continuing to fixate on short-term problems like bridging a generational gap—which incidentally we’ve survived many times in anthropological history—by continuing policies with long-term ramifications is not a good plan.
At some point we need to come to terms with the fact that continuous population growth is not tenable. Whether the population cap is 10 billion or 100 billion, the fact of the matter is that we will eventually hit it. We can’t keep procrastinating because we’re unwilling to resolve the challenges you’ve mentioned in a more effective manner.
Call me an optimist, but if we’re unable to change our habits as a species, perhaps a well-needed revolution will kick us into action.
deleted by creator
I’m confused about your comment. Can you elaborate?
We probably won’t ever hit 11 billion contiguous humans. At least not without colonizing Venus. The birthrates worldwide are dropping quickly, and every time another country passes through the Industrial Age, into the Modern Age, their birthrates fall off a cliff. I suspect we will eventually stabilize around 9 billion people, which is a few billion lower than the maximum projected sustainable population of The Earth.
Nah, human fucking can’t be stopped but even if 99% of the human race was sterile for a geneation the earth would still have more humans left on it than the vast majority of recorded history.
Modern nations should be supporting population declines.
Investments should be made into research grants for recovery of our finite resources like phosphorus and pooling a fund for rising welfare costs, NOW. Instead, these subsidies are achieving the exact opposite.
Good luck, humans of 2100!
Signed,
A human that elected to not have children from 2025
deleted by creator
Let’s face it, in neoliberal democracies we barely think past the next quarter. Next election cycle at the most!
I would love a government with a long term outlook rather than one that is concerned only with getting re-elected or failing that getting a cushy job with one of their “donors” after they leave office
I agree with this in the basis of the thought. But depending on the social security in various countries there are groups that abuse this help. So I’m hoping that loopholes are plugged at the same time.
That kind of thinking is what stops the US from implementing any kind of decent social programs. If your first concern is ppl taking advantage of it you’re not really concerned with helping ppl
I’m not from the US… Not by far. Where I’m from many people abuse the system by having an exorbitant amount of children (10+), get free kindergarten care, extra money, don’t work, don’t contribute to society, steal, cause issues, etc.
Are you familiar with the term “anecdote”?
Yeah, when I support a social program, it’s with the knowledge and acceptance that some abuse will occur. It’s just that I think, despite the abuse, the upside is still a superior outcome to not doing it at all. Maybe one day we’ll rebuild the cultural fabric to the point where people don’t feel so desperate they immediately exploit any crack in the system regardless of the risks or long-term outcomes. With changes in culture and wealth distribution worldwide, I believe global prosperity is absolutely possible.
I can’t imagine welfare of any kind is more abused than the process by which the US government farms things out to private companies. If the poor are suckling at the teet of the welfare cow, then private industry is the wolf ripping it’s head off. Just look at the clusters of contractors that show up like flies on shit any time the money faucet is opened.
Yeah, I want my neighbors to have heat in the winter, food when they lose their job, and universal childcare. If I have to pay a few extra bucks a year for that it’s better than pouring it into the rest of the money-holes in Washington DC.
OP mentions being from another country. I don’t have a ton of experience with countries commonly regarded as corrupt, though I did go to Nigeria once; money flows >>differently<< there. But there’s also a stronger social fabric. I don’t know if I could vote for any tax when there is suck a blatant track record of shady dealings (though it’s arguable we’ve all been doing that). It was fascinating and I hope to go back some day.
This policy that would help hundreds of millions of people could potentially be abused by thousands!
Those who advocate means testing deserve nothing at all
It might help someone I don’t like!
deleted by creator