ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th May 2017, 06:58 PM   #81
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,518
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
For goodness sake, if the birth rate drops below replacement rate, as it soon will (it already has in many countries) total population will reduce. Eventually the human race will be a fraction of its size now. Some selfish people look forward to this. I don't. People planning to have children are doing the world a favour.
Seriously? Let's unpack this. When you say, "as it soon will" we are talking about 40 years and an additional 2.5 billion people on the planet. That's what slowing the increase means.

But then you somehow go from a slowing of the current trend (increasing population) to a birth rate less than replacement rate, skipping right past "stable" for some reason I can't fathom.

Worst of all, even with your predictions in play, we've only shifted the very situation I referred to - shifted it to our great grandkids. So it isn't us who look around and wonder at the falling numbers, fearful no one will support us in our old age, it's them. How exactly does this avoid the trap I mentioned?

Here it is again: Economies that depend on continuous growth, fueled by an ever-increasing population, are not sustainable.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 07:22 PM   #82
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,463
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Yes, you do, because YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY TO RAISE A CHILD.
Really? But then you say...

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
My only son turned 18 this year. We still have promised to get him through college, for which we have been saving since he was born, but I can tell you that on the day of his graduation, my standard of living will go way, way, up. Kids are expensive. The tax breaks don't come close to offsetting the costs. I'm not saying they should, but they don't.
...so you are paying.

Which is it?

On one hand you claim you dont have to pay, On the other hand you claim you have been saving since he was born.

It is unclear what your claim is.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 07:50 PM   #83
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,373
Paid Family Leave, to care for a newborn or sick relative?

Absolutely!!!!

Should be 20 weeks, not 6.

But 6 is a start.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 07:51 PM   #84
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,055
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Which is it?

On one hand you claim you dont have to pay, On the other hand you claim you have been saving since he was born.

The "you" in the first quote is referring to people who don't have children (specifically, desmirelle). Everything else is referring to Meadmaker's personal experience as a parent.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 07:57 PM   #85
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,445
Originally Posted by logger View Post
We've been doing it for centuries! We aren't socialists like your side.

What has changed? Oh wait, we're raising pussys now, I forgot. And why not when a person can get the government to steal it for them. Its thievery and the left as usual are thieves.
And get those kiddies to work. That coal aint gonna mine itself. #MAGA
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:19 PM   #86
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,655
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
How can that be selfish when it won't happen in the lifetime of anyone now living?
I'd argue that advocating policy settings which have the effect of limiting population growth (like no maternity leave, one child policies) is selfish.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:34 PM   #87
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,655
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Seriously? Let's unpack this. When you say, "as it soon will" we are talking about 40 years and an additional 2.5 billion people on the planet. That's what slowing the increase means.

But then you somehow go from a slowing of the current trend (increasing population) to a birth rate less than replacement rate, skipping right past "stable" for some reason I can't fathom.

Worst of all, even with your predictions in play, we've only shifted the very situation I referred to - shifted it to our great grandkids. So it isn't us who look around and wonder at the falling numbers, fearful no one will support us in our old age, it's them. How exactly does this avoid the trap I mentioned?

Here it is again: Economies that depend on continuous growth, fueled by an ever-increasing population, are not sustainable.
40 years is soon in terms of human history. The expected date of peak world population has been steadily coming down for a long time, and the best bet is that it will occur this century (nothing is certain, of course, but the trend is there). What makes you think that population will then stablise from then, when a downward trend is in place?

I don't want the whole world to look worse than Japan now.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:35 PM   #88
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,463
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I'd argue that advocating policy settings which have the effect of limiting population growth (like no maternity leave, one child policies) is selfish.
Those are not even remotely the same things.

Population growth. Once we hit 10 billion or so we will all die. we are toast.

What to do? Head in the sand? Or consider reality? Feel free to pick.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:43 PM   #89
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,463
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
How can that be selfish when it won't happen in the lifetime of anyone now living?
so your progeny can simply get lost because you care not a whit.

As a father of two weak and feeble chicks, I would encourage my daughters to do some nasty things. Including a rightly kick in the fork.

There is no level to which some people will not sink.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:53 PM   #90
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,518
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
40 years is soon in terms of human history. The expected date of peak world population has been steadily coming down for a long time, and the best bet is that it will occur this century (nothing is certain, of course, but the trend is there). What makes you think that population will then stablise from then, when a downward trend is in place?
I can't say, actually. All I can point out is that, 20 years ago (or so) the trend was in the opposite direction - meaning trends change. Is there reason to believe we have a solid prediction this time?

Quote:
I don't want the whole world to look worse than Japan now.
Me either. I'm looking for a graceful escape. I just don't see how, yet.

What is predicted for the Japanese? If they aren't big on immigration to boost population, they might have a saving throw through diversification - use your money to go global and feed the resources back to home base.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:21 AM   #91
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,843
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
You're an incredibly self-centered individual, you know that? I understand that it's general human nature, to an extent, but try thinking about this: when the new parent returns to work, your workload returns to normal, but theirs increases.

So??? If I decide to do charity work, my workload increases. You keep speaking like having a child is a disability

Quote:
Not only do they have the responsibility of their work, they now have the responsibility of taking care of the life they brought into the world.
Yes, that they brought into the world. Because they decided they wanted a baby. This isn't some, big, altruistic, let's populate the world thing. This is a desire fulfilled. Somebody wanted a baby to please themselves, to follow their own biological urges. To cause themselves to be happy. A baby/chid is a luxury item. So *********** what if a new parent is having to work hard at home.


Quote:
Some of you are acting like a reasonable maternity/paternity leave policy is an invitation for abuse, as if people are going to start pumping out babies in order to avoid work and "steal" money, because you seem to be implying that being a parent is such a sweet gig that comes with absolutely no burdens whatsoever.
And you're acting like being a parent is something people do out of social responsibility, which is isn't.



Quote:
I don't even have children, and no desire to have children (because I know I'm not up to the task), but I understand that the continuation of our species is no walk in the park for those who, either by choice or accident, take up the responsibility as best they can.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:33 AM   #92
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,655
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post

And you're acting like being a parent is something people do out of social responsibility, which is isn't.
You say this with such certainty. It's not as simple as you say. People have children for a range of reasons. Biological imperative is one, but this doesn't fully explain things like surrogacy for gay people.

Yes people want to have children for the joy (and pain, and expense, and disappointment, etc etc) of having children. but there is also the desire, indeed demand, to further the human race. This is what we were evolved to do. Having kids for the sake of having kids.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:55 AM   #93
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,999
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
This seems like it would be a decidable issue. We've had paid maternity leave in some sectors for awhile (policies vary). Find companies with and without paid leave. Get as many variables to line up (salary, type of job, etc.) as possible and compare the children produced. Do the kids do better or not?

If there isn't enough data there, look at beneficiaries of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - that gets us back 20 years (although not paid leave). How did those kids do?
Seems like a reasonable idea, although it is very difficult to implement, and even more so to implement accurately.

I don't know how many papers by sociologists you've read, but in my experience, the summary section of many of them can be stated as:

"The research conducted gives strong support for our preconceived notions, but more funding is needed to verify the result."

One of the problems is that even defining "do better" is almost impossible.

Another possible approach is to compare societies where paid family leave is mandatory to those where it is not. Do businesses or taxpayers in those societies consider it a significant burden? Do people, with or without children, think it contributes to their quality of life, positively or negatively? The OP asserts that "all other developed countries" have this. If he's right, then it seems like it probably isn't a huge problem, because all other developed countries seem to be getting along just fine.

I do agree that, to the extent possible, scientific measurements and real data are better than speculation. Gathering and analyzing that data could be tricky, but it seems like a worthy endeavor.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:04 AM   #94
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,999
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yes, that they brought into the world. Because they decided they wanted a baby. This isn't some, big, altruistic, let's populate the world thing. This is a desire fulfilled. Somebody wanted a baby to please themselves, to follow their own biological urges. To cause themselves to be happy. A baby/chid is a luxury item. So *********** what if a new parent is having to work hard at home.
This is just horribly wrong. A baby is not a "luxury item". It's a human being. During infancy it has needs. When it grows to adulthood it is your neighbor.

Whether that baby was brought into the world by choice or by chance, it's a human being. If it came by choice, whether or not the parents still desire the same choice, the baby is a human being. It isn't an item of any sort.

That knowledge, all by itself doesn't do anything to inform us about what constitutes wise social policy regarding babies, parents, and the economic consequences of policies associated with them, but any analysis that treats a child as something in the same category as a vacation or a wide screen tv is just doomed to failure.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.