It's a sucky job, tbf.
Advertisement
by Lady Victory » Sat May 08, 2021 5:42 pm
Major-Tom wrote:I don't understand why people are frustrated about a low birth rate in general. I was under the impression that slower growth rates in a country plagued by skyrocketing home prices, overcrowded cities, and an overburdened social security system was a good thing? Kinda helps a lot of our problems to keep our numbers down, so to speak.
by Lady Victory » Sat May 08, 2021 5:44 pm
North Washington Republic wrote:Stellar Colonies wrote:There's a difference between debating the ethics of being childless and debating societal/economic/political problems which negatively influence the ease of having children.
Yeah, I’m not going to justify being childless, it goes double for childless people telling me that I should have children.
And that’s all I’m going to say about my personal life regarding my choice not have children.
by Major-Tom » Sat May 08, 2021 5:45 pm
Lady Victory wrote:Major-Tom wrote:I don't understand why people are frustrated about a low birth rate in general. I was under the impression that slower growth rates in a country plagued by skyrocketing home prices, overcrowded cities, and an overburdened social security system was a good thing? Kinda helps a lot of our problems to keep our numbers down, so to speak.
The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.
by North Washington Republic » Sat May 08, 2021 5:55 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Lady Victory wrote:
The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.
Sure, but paradoxically, historically higher population growth helped (but certainly did not fully contribute) to a lot of those issues we're seeing today, especially on the environmental side of things. It's a weird game of cause and effect continually swapping places.
Where we're at now is sustainable growth-wise, our Medicare/Medicaid is in dire financial straits, social security is a ticking time bomb, the real estate market is inaccessible because there aren't enough homes to sell to people, etc etc. We can more easily slow the tide on these things with a lower level of population growth.
by Neutraligon » Sat May 08, 2021 6:20 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Lady Victory wrote:
The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.
Sure, but paradoxically, historically higher population growth helped (but certainly did not fully contribute) to a lot of those issues we're seeing today, especially on the environmental side of things. It's a weird game of cause and effect continually swapping places.
Where we're at now is sustainable growth-wise, our Medicare/Medicaid is in dire financial straits, social security is a ticking time bomb, the real estate market is inaccessible because there aren't enough homes to sell to people, etc etc. We can more easily slow the tide on these things with a lower level of population growth.
by Senkaku » Sat May 08, 2021 6:22 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Lady Victory wrote:
The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.
Sure, but paradoxically, historically higher population growth helped (but certainly did not fully contribute) to a lot of those issues we're seeing today, especially on the environmental side of things. It's a weird game of cause and effect continually swapping places.
Where we're at now is sustainable growth-wise, our Medicare/Medicaid is in dire financial straits, social security is a ticking time bomb, the real estate market is inaccessible because there aren't enough homes to sell to people, etc etc. We can more easily slow the tide on these things with a lower level of population growth.
by Eahland » Sat May 08, 2021 7:04 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Lady Victory wrote:
The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.
Sure, but paradoxically, historically higher population growth helped (but certainly did not fully contribute) to a lot of those issues we're seeing today, especially on the environmental side of things. It's a weird game of cause and effect continually swapping places.
Where we're at now is sustainable growth-wise, our Medicare/Medicaid is in dire financial straits, social security is a ticking time bomb, the real estate market is inaccessible because there aren't enough homes to sell to people, etc etc. We can more easily slow the tide on these things with a lower level of population growth.
by Kowani » Sat May 08, 2021 7:41 pm
NCAA president Mark Emmert told the New York Times this week that he would recommend that the college sports' governing body approve new rules that would allow student athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses "before, or as close to July 1."
Driving the news: New laws that let student athletes in some way profit off their names, images or likenesses are set to take effect in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and New Mexico on July 1. Other states have passed similar laws that are scheduled to take effect next year.
The NCAA is considering a proposal that would allow student athletes to earn money for social media endorsements and to get paid by many private companies who use their names, images and likenesses, per the Times. Some restrictions would apply.
The NCAA postponed a vote on the proposal in January after the Trump administration raised antitrust concerns, the Times reported.
Emmert told the Times that NCAA officials have been in touch with the Justice Department about the concerns. “We need to get a vote on these rules that are in front of the members now,” Emmert said. If approved, the new rules could take effect Aug. 1.
But, but, but: Even if the NCAA approves the new rules, the NIL debate is expected to rage on since the proposed guidelines "differ in some respects from the new state laws, which themselves are far from uniform," the Times noted.
Some NCAA officials "have urged Congress to set a coast-to-coast standard to override a blur of state laws," the Times added.
by San Lumen » Sat May 08, 2021 9:00 pm
by San Lumen » Sat May 08, 2021 9:06 pm
by Kilobugya » Sat May 08, 2021 11:49 pm
North Washington Republic wrote:The world is overpopulated and less people having kids is a good thing for the planet’s survival.
by Kilobugya » Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Major-Tom wrote:I don't understand why people are frustrated about a low birth rate in general. I was under the impression that slower growth rates in a country plagued by skyrocketing home prices, overcrowded cities, and an overburdened social security system was a good thing? Kinda helps a lot of our problems to keep our numbers down, so to speak.
by Kilobugya » Sat May 08, 2021 11:59 pm
North Washington Republic wrote:Because childless incels like be edgy and tell other people to have children.
by The Black Forrest » Sun May 09, 2021 12:03 am
Kilobugya wrote:North Washington Republic wrote:Because childless incels like be edgy and tell other people to have children.
I'm arguing that we should have policies to encourage people having children, especially by removing blockers such as job instability, too high working hours or too expensive childcare, but I'll never tell to one individual person or couple what they should do.
by The Rich Port » Sun May 09, 2021 12:16 am
Stellar Colonies wrote:Twitter seems to be freaking out over this:
US birth rate falls 4% to its lowest point ever (BBC)
U.S. birthrate falls to its lowest level in decades in wake of pandemic (Washington Post)
U.S. Birthrate Fell By 4% In 2020, Hitting Another Record Low (NPR)
by The Alma Mater » Sun May 09, 2021 12:27 am
Kilobugya wrote:North Washington Republic wrote:Because childless incels like be edgy and tell other people to have children.
I'm arguing that we should have policies to encourage people having children, especially by removing blockers such as job instability, too high working hours or too expensive childcare, but I'll never tell to one individual person or couple what they should do.
by Page » Sun May 09, 2021 1:11 am
Kilobugya wrote:North Washington Republic wrote:Because childless incels like be edgy and tell other people to have children.
I'm arguing that we should have policies to encourage people having children, especially by removing blockers such as job instability, too high working hours or too expensive childcare, but I'll never tell to one individual person or couple what they should do.
by Vassenor » Sun May 09, 2021 1:19 am
Page wrote:Kilobugya wrote:
I'm arguing that we should have policies to encourage people having children, especially by removing blockers such as job instability, too high working hours or too expensive childcare, but I'll never tell to one individual person or couple what they should do.
I'm for unconditional guarantee of everyone's survival needs, but some people will still choose to not procreate. If I was offered a million dollars I still wouldn't do it. And I have various reasons for that from my genetics being full of cancer and addiction, to me not liking the direction the world is going and not wanting to bring a kid into it, but most of all for me it's just that the responsibility would break me and it would ruin my life and my kid's life, I have anxiety, depression, and very low stress tolerance.
by Ifreann » Sun May 09, 2021 4:57 am
by Picairn » Sun May 09, 2021 5:41 am
Ifreann wrote:The world is not remotely overpopulated, we already grow enough food for twice the population we have now.
by Borderlands of Rojava » Sun May 09, 2021 5:42 am
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sun May 09, 2021 5:55 am
San Lumen wrote:https://apnews.com/article/bo-dog-dies-barack-obama-michelle-sasha-malia-ba1efd4aab088e01f448252c1da394e4
Former President Barack Obama’s dog Bo died Saturday after a battle with cancer.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Lagene, Plan Neonie, Stellar Colonies, Tarsonis, Uvolla
Advertisement