Humanity will survive people who can't afford having children not having them.
Do you think that when we lived in caves, this system existed? That if someone had a kid without enough food to feed it, the community would help?
No. They just fucking died.
Of course, we have moved on from that, but it doesn't mean we should be actively encouraging people to make poor decisions with the benefit of everyone else being on the hook.
Humanity will survive people who can't afford having children not having them.
Actually, it won't, since most countries are already beneath replacement. This may have worked when those who could afford had a lot of children, as opposed to now when they have few or none. Not now.
Do you think that when we lived in caves, this system existed?
Having children didn't cost as much in terms of both resources and opportunities when we lived in caves.
That if someone had a kid without enough food to feed it, the community would help? No. They just fucking died.
Someone doesn't know how tribal societies work.
Of course, we have moved on from that, but it doesn't mean we should be actively encouraging people to make poor decisions with the benefit of everyone else being on the hook.
Having children is a great decision. That is why they should be given money for it. You, being single, are making bad decisions, which is why you should be taxed for it. Right as rain.
Everyone's complaining about lack of work, rising prices of real estate and essentials. A lower population will fix that. The only reason the replacement rate is needed is because the welfare state is a Ponzi scheme that will collapse without it.
You, being single, are making bad decisions, which is why you should be taxed for it.
Putting your money in Dogecoin is a bad decision. Investing in airlines is a bad decision. Getting a payday loan is a bad decision. Staying single is the best way to accumulate riches. No dependents and total freedom to relocate...at least before the More Feminine Flu showed up.
Depends. Is your nicer car necessary for the survival of the human race, or is it an asset that rapidly depreciates?
Heh, last time you pulled this one, you ran away with your tail between your legs when I pulled out the statistics of lives births.
Humanity will survive people who can't afford having children not having them.
Do you think that when we lived in caves, this system existed? That if someone had a kid without enough food to feed it, the community would help?
No. They just fucking died.
Of course, we have moved on from that, but it doesn't mean we should be actively encouraging people to make poor decisions with the benefit of everyone else being on the hook.
Actually, it won't, since most countries are already beneath replacement. This may have worked when those who could afford had a lot of children, as opposed to now when they have few or none. Not now.
Having children didn't cost as much in terms of both resources and opportunities when we lived in caves.
Someone doesn't know how tribal societies work.
Having children is a great decision. That is why they should be given money for it. You, being single, are making bad decisions, which is why you should be taxed for it. Right as rain.
Everyone's complaining about lack of work, rising prices of real estate and essentials. A lower population will fix that. The only reason the replacement rate is needed is because the welfare state is a Ponzi scheme that will collapse without it.
Putting your money in Dogecoin is a bad decision. Investing in airlines is a bad decision. Getting a payday loan is a bad decision. Staying single is the best way to accumulate riches. No dependents and total freedom to relocate...at least before the More Feminine Flu showed up.
The only reason that people warn about population collapses is because the welfare state is a Ponzi scheme.