Why does society encourage people to have so many children?

[hollowtip]

I was talking with my mom yesterday and we got in the discussion of how expensive it is to own a house. My brother is working a job that pays very well but since he is single and has no children, he cannot afford a more stable living arrangement due to him paying such high taxes.

We then go on to discuss how people that have children and get married have a lot of tax write offs and many of these families are receiving government aid in many other areas. Irresponsibility costs my responsibility and I don't really understand it.

So my question to you is this. Why are people for having children? I'm not against raising a family or anything, but I don't understand why there is such a push to over populate the United States (and many other countries for that matter) and raise health care costs and the burden on the middle class so high.

Okay this would have been more structured and gramatically correct, but I have work, so I had to just hurry and post this.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hollowtip on 2007-01-04 12:25 ]</font>

[Solstis]

I have no idea. Doesn't make too much sense, huh?

[Banish]

To live a happy life, and to make sure the human race doesn't die off. (I know, this is kinda obvious)

Maybe they like the experience of raising kids, I don't know http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_confused.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Banish on 2007-01-04 16:01 ]</font>

[Solstis]

On 2007-01-04 16:00, Banish wrote:
To live a happy life, and to make sure the human race doesn't die off. (I know, this is kinda obvious)

Maybe they like the experience of raising kids, I don't know http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_confused.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Banish on 2007-01-04 16:01 ]</font>


Diversifying the gene pool is nice, but most populations don't really need to increase (except in places like Italy).

Of course people want to raise kids, but it's weird that raising children is promoted so much.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-01-04 16:09 ]</font>

[Banish]

Also, some certain religions tell you to "replintish the world" http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif
Religous people, (i.e: Mormons, Christianity, Islamic?) would surely obey thair principles.

[KodiaX987]

Here goes a bunch of random sentences I strung together.

-That's nothing. Remember three or four generations back when women were kid-producing machines. My grandma on my mother's side had four children. My grandma on my father's side had ten.

-According to Christianity (lol christianity!) one must bear as many children as possible.

-Parents in general have an quasi-religious obsession with their kids having kids of their own, for a reason I never got to know. All I know is that whenever I say aloud that I don't plan on having any children, my mother gives me a scandalized look as if I had just become the devil impersonated. I can only guess having a kid is some sort of proof that you've succeeded in life and gives your parents a reason not to disown you, but don't take my word for it...

[DikkyRay]

On 2007-01-04 17:12, KodiaX987 wrote:


[quote]-That's nothing. Remember three or four generations back when women were kid-producing machines. My grandma on my mother's side had four children. My grandma on my father's side had ten.
yea. I remember hearing about people having an assload of kids


-According to Christianity (lol christianity!) one must bear as many children as possible.
Wow. You fucking bigot. Unless you actually are Christian (or any religion for that matter!) you should never reference ANYTHING ABOUT IT. That is not what its about douchebag.

[Cav]

Price in raising a child > money saved in tax write offs. Oh yea and Bush doesn't give half a **** (censored for the little ones >.>) about lower and middle class.

[Solstis]

On 2007-01-04 17:15, DikkyRay wrote:

On 2007-01-04 17:12, KodiaX987 wrote:


[quote]-That's nothing. Remember three or four generations back when women were kid-producing machines. My grandma on my mother's side had four children. My grandma on my father's side had ten.
yea. I remember hearing about people having an assload of kids


-According to Christianity (lol christianity!) one must bear as many children as possible.
Wow. You fucking bigot. Unless you actually are Christian (or any religion for that matter!) you should never reference ANYTHING ABOUT IT. That is not what its about douchebag.




With these rules, at least the japanophiles will never be able to talk about Japan again.

You know, I was really inspired after I saw the Dali Lam... oh, oops.

[ABDUR101]

It's a societal idealisation. You go through school, work into a career, get married, have children, and your children have children and so on. Personally, being the youngest of five and having helped raise all my neices and nephews(five nephews, two neices, ages 13-20) I really don't want anything to do with kids anymore. Unless I were in a relationship with a guy that had a kid or so of his own, other than that I really don't care about passing on my own genes. The pool needs cleaned anyway.

I'd highly recommend adoption, over merely having kids. As well, I think the world needs to take a stance, as a whole, on limiting the birth-rate and population growth, the world is only so big, and it can only suffer so much expansion. And to anyone who thinks "Oh well everyone should be free to do what they want, whether thats no kids or twenty", fuck you, how inconsiderate is that, to let everyone breed wrecklessly and haphazardly without thinking of the consequences on everyone else? The world can only handle so many people, and to be blunt, there are too many people as it is.

So, overall, dunno. I feel bad for people 200-300 years from now, the population growth is just going to be absurd if it goes unchecked. We certainly have no problem 'culling the herd' for animals because they become a nuisance in some areas(i.e. deer, etc), so why not put a limit on our own birthrate? Maybe we just need afew good global wars, we've certainly got the tech to clear out a nice amount of people in afew fell swoops.

[Fleur-de-Lis]

I'm not sure, but I could swear I remember reading that the average number of children born per household in several "developed" countries was down to around 1.5: wouldn't that mean that we are losing 0.5 people per household every generation? That doesn't sound to discouraging to me, but I might have gotten the figures wrong...

I have a lot of friends who are very decent people, and I hope they have children, because I'm of the opinion that the world is going to need good people more than ever in the near future (there's just too much going wrong with this world right now). I guess it's improper for me to say so, but I wish more of the people that did have children would work harder at raising them into human beings.

[KojiroAK]

One reason why parents want their children to have children, is because they want uphold the line.

In the German speaking countries around the Bodensee (Austria, Germany, Swiss) the children are needed to uphold the pensions.

Because the tendencies that are now there, are that in some years one person have to pay the pension for 2 retiree.
(wouldn't work well)

But therefore is see a problem, from what shell this children pay the pensions, if they don't have a job.
So i think it would be more important to stabilise the Jobs (in numbers AND income, because raised number of jobs with lesser incomes is worth nothing) and then take care of the children question.

[UnderscoreX]

Because your father's only legacy was giving you his last name.
How do you think he'd feel if you ruined it?!

[space_butler]

On 2007-01-04 17:15, DikkyRay wrote:



-According to Christianity (lol christianity!) one must bear as many children as possible.
Wow. You fucking bigot. Unless you actually are Christian (or any religion for that matter!) you should never reference ANYTHING ABOUT IT. That is not what its about douchebag.






so by your logic no-one can talk about anything, ever.

lol internet etc.


on topic: governments engourage it to get more voters or something? people like familys, and a government that supports them is more likley to get more votes. well, thats my idea of a political view on it...

what governments should really do is encourage the idea of the 'nuclear family', not just single mothers on council eststes.


and if there are no kids, whos going to pay the taxes to fund the pensions/healthcare/whatever of the parents when they retire/get old etc? http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[medusae]

what governments should really do is encourage the idea of the 'nuclear family', not just single mothers on council eststes.

The problem with the current government right now is that, basically, the government IS backing the idea of the "nuclear family." A little too much, in the case of the right-wing conservatives, and that is why homosexual couples in America have basically no rights as compared to heterosexual ones.

[space_butler]

On 2007-01-05 08:23, medusae wrote:

what governments should really do is encourage the idea of the 'nuclear family', not just single mothers on council eststes.

The problem with the current government right now is that, basically, the government IS backing the idea of the "nuclear family." A little too much, in the case of the right-wing conservatives, and that is why homosexual couples in America have basically no rights as compared to heterosexual ones.



the american government might, but blair and co really dont. single people get higher benefits, pensions etc.

[ABDUR101]

On 2007-01-05 04:05, UnderscoreX wrote:
Because your father's only legacy was giving you his last name.
How do you think he'd feel if you ruined it?!


If thats the one of the reasons my father had children, then forget him, yeah? All the same, he made his decision to have kids, I'm entitled to my decision not to. I was raised to decide whats best for me, not to do what my family wants.

[UnderscoreX]

Dude!
You're meant to be out impregnating some woman, not making decisions about your life.
Get busy.

[Jehosaphaty]

On 2007-01-05 12:41, UnderscoreX wrote:
Dude!
You're meant to be out impregnating some woman, not making decisions about your life.
Get busy.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're joking. Otherwise, you're a dumbass.

Good friend of mine and his wife desperately want to have children of their own, but so far medically they've had many, many problems. They attempted to adopt and it fell through in one fell swoop within hours of supposedly recieving the baby. Really makes me sad to see people just popping out kiddies when there are those who want them so badly, but can't for whatever reason. Laregly the adoption process is a piece of Bureaucratic shit.

[Cav]

Well, lets take it a step further. You're here posting on a forum about random things while children in Africa are starving!
If you want to always think about the one that is below you, you wouldn't ever do anything.

[ABDUR101]

The problem, baseline, is over-population. If there weren't so many people, there would'nt be so many people starving.

Answer: Lets start eating people.

[Cav]

Overpopulation? hardly. Why don't we take some of these corrupt government's money and spend it toward helping the people? oh wait the government won't allow for that, foiled again! The amount of corruption in nearly every government system leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sad to see so many people suffer because of certain greedy assholes, and there's nothing you can do (legally heh heh >.>).

[Garroway]

On 2007-01-05 14:53, Cav wrote:
Overpopulation? hardly. Why don't we take some of these corrupt government's money and spend it toward helping the people? oh wait the government won't allow for that, foiled again! The amount of corruption in nearly every government system leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sad to see so many people suffer because of certain greedy assholes, and there's nothing you can do (legally heh heh >.>).



What the hell are you talking about? It isn't the governments responsibility to feed the masses. In fact I'm enraged at the amount of my tax money that gets handed out in entitlements. If I want to feed the needy then I'll donate money to a local charity or I'll put in some time in at the city rescue mission. The government and my tax money is there to keep the roads in good repair, keep the police and firefighters paid, and keep a well trained and well equipped military.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

On 2007-01-04 12:18, hollowtip wrote:
I was talking with my mom yesterday and we got in the discussion of how expensive it is to own a house. My brother is working a job that pays very well but since he is single and has no children, he cannot afford a more stable living arrangement due to him paying such high taxes.

We then go on to discuss how people that have children and get married have a lot of tax write offs and many of these families are receiving government aid in many other areas. Irresponsibility costs my responsibility and I don't really understand it.

So my question to you is this. Why are people for having children? I'm not against raising a family or anything, but I don't understand why there is such a push to over populate the United States (and many other countries for that matter) and raise health care costs and the burden on the middle class so high.


Taxes suck ass for people married before the age of 25, as well. I haven't actually gotten any money back in a tax return ever since I got married. In fact, I've actually owed more. Taxes aren't friendly to anyone, really, regardless of their age and marital status. This is why larger numbers of government programs are a bad thing.

As for why people want to have children... That's just part of being human. We have a sex drive. We have a biological clock. We have a drive to mate, and a drive to produce offspring. It's not necessarily something that can be explained by reason, and it's stronger in some than in others. Asking why people want to have children isn't unlike asking why people eat, drink, breathe, defecate, get addicted to things, love eachother, and so on.

The biggest trouble is that the stupid breed far more than the intelligent, to the end result of, the gene pool has more stupid in it than brilliance.


On 2007-01-04 17:12, KodiaX987 wrote:
-According to Christianity (lol christianity!) one must bear as many children as possible.


That's not strictly true. In Genesis, when God created Adam and Eve, he told them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;" while some continue to follow this, other denominations say, "All right, we've already been fruitful, we've already multiplied, we fill the Earth, and shit, we've even subdued it. Let's move on to what's next, shall we?" In verity, it's an Old Testement rule, and it's often argued that the New Testement downgrades laws from the Old Testement to something more like, "general guidelines."


On 2007-01-05 08:23, medusae wrote:
The problem with the current government right now is that, basically, the government IS backing the idea of the "nuclear family." A little too much, in the case of the right-wing conservatives, and that is why homosexual couples in America have basically no rights as compared to heterosexual ones.


Homosexual couples get less rights as parents because (by the very nature of them both being of the same sex) two parents of the same sex can't provide role models for both sexes; the children end up having difficulty interacting with people of their parents' opposite sex when they get older, and that's a severe problem waiting to happen. I've no doubt that homosexual couples can provide a child all the love they may need, but despite what sounds most poetic, love just isn't the only thing children need.

Of course, if you're talking about homosexual couples getting married... Well, how many times can this argument be rehashed? Let's see... I think my favorite argument was, "No one is keeping homosexuals from getting married. Even two homosexuals can get married, so long as one is a man and the other a woman."

Personally, I have no problems with having a legal union defined for homosexual couples (after all, if a gay man wants to include his life partner in his work's insurance package, the way a straight man includes his wife, I think it should be done), but the legal arrangements built into it need to be designed for gay and lesbien couples, not heterosexual couples.

[ABDUR101]

If a village can only produce so much food in a given amount of time each year from the surrounding area, then the village must keep their numbers set and not fuck like rabbits, increasing their population beyond what the local environment can support.

It's common sense, if your village can only support 30 people, and you have 50, 80, or 100, you're going to have starving children. Overpopulation is the issue. The problem is, if there's a food shortage in one area, you can just go somewhere else to get food, whereas tribes will maintain borders, so if you are regulated to a set area of land, you can ONLY have so many people within that area of land, otherwise there's a strain on everyone.

Thus, for much of the 'civilized' world, such as america where all the food is shared, easy access to traveling to other areas, etc. there aren't many people starving, other than due to negligence. Concerning the children starving in africa, again, overpopulation. Too many people, not enough food production; common sense would be to stop populating.

Everyone thinks you can just throw money at a problem to fix it. Sure, bandage it up, until the population grows again to uncontrollable levels, but you're not fixing the root of the problem; population.

[Cav]

Well, I'm going to assume you're talking about USA since your narrow tunnel vision doesn't allow you to see other country's problems. America doesn't have this problem quite to the extent of other countries (even though it has screwed alot of vietnam vets into homelessness, which if it is the government's fault for the problem they should fix it), but since you decided to say where you think tax money should be spent lets take a look into each.

Roads in good repair? maybe in rich/middle class place, go drive down a street in a poor neighborhood and tell me it's in good repair (better have nice shocks)

Police? Of which many are asses and just looking to meet their quota of tickets, rather than justice. (Actually the government helps set them up by having all speed limits 10-15 mph under what the road's "safe" speed is. http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-slmatr.html and http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html if you care to read)

Firefighters? Well there's nothing I can honestly say here, they do their work.

Military? Yes we keep a well trained and equipped military while equally screwing over poor and middle class families for the military budget, go bush! We can use this military to defend liberty while gaining control of the 2nd highest producer of oil in the world (of course we can't go for #1, because they are our buddies) I have 3 friends who went to the military and fought in iraq, each of them came back the same (losing many friends, and wondering why we are in iraq). Osama even said he would stop all terrorist attacks against US if we just pulled out of the middle east.

Hey but you can be glad the richer people are paying a higher percent of taxes than you to support the US. Oh wait they don't because our tax curve favors the rich, yay!

[Cav]

On 2007-01-05 15:41, ABDUR101 wrote:
If a village can only produce so much food in a given amount of time each year from the surrounding area, then the village must keep their numbers set and not fuck like rabbits, increasing their population beyond what the local environment can support.

It's common sense, if your village can only support 30 people, and you have 50, 80, or 100, you're going to have starving children. Overpopulation is the issue. The problem is, if there's a food shortage in one area, you can just go somewhere else to get food, whereas tribes will maintain borders, so if you are regulated to a set area of land, you can ONLY have so many people within that area of land, otherwise there's a strain on everyone.

Thus, for much of the 'civilized' world, such as america where all the food is shared, easy access to traveling to other areas, etc. there aren't many people starving, other than due to negligence. Concerning the children starving in africa, again, overpopulation. Too many people, not enough food production; common sense would be to stop populating.

Everyone thinks you can just throw money at a problem to fix it. Sure, bandage it up, until the population grows again to uncontrollable levels, but you're not fixing the root of the problem; population.



If only the problem was as clear cut as this, the factor you forget is that people want money, and people in power have the ability to get this money while screwing over a nation. Corruption is a large part of the problem and the laws aren't going to change to solve it anytime soon, because the ones making laws are the ones benefitting.

[roygbiv]

On 2007-01-05 15:40, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:

Homosexual couples get less rights as parents because (by the very nature of them both being of the same sex) two parents of the same sex can't provide role models for both sexes; the children end up having difficulty interacting with people of their parents' opposite sex when they get older, and that's a severe problem waiting to happen. I've no doubt that homosexual couples can provide a child all the love they may need, but despite what sounds most poetic, love just isn't the only thing children need.



Yeah... this is a poor argument since the same criteria would grant single parent families less rights as well.

Likewise even straight marriages can fail that criteria as well. For most of my life my parents were effectively seperated, to the extent that I don't think I had a real conversation with my dad until after I was in college. Did it make me have problems dealing with guys later in life? Hardly...
Do people REALLY believe that humans are that fragile?
I mean if you look at what makes a person, it isn't like we are living in a bubble and the only thing we have to go off of is our parents. Kids are exposed to roll models in so many different areas of their life nowadays that it seems silly to assume that they only have their parents to go to for figuring out their place in life.

And then there is the practical side of the whole debate which people tend to forget. Gay marriage doesn't matter. Not having it isn't going to stop gay couples from adopting/having children. Not having it however will make it somewhat harder on them to have children, but it is certainly not going to act as a barrier to anything. I know kids my age who were raised by gay parents. They are more normal /well adjusted than I am. But what is annoying/sad is that those families get screwed out of a lot of benefits that married couples get access to.

[hollowtip]

There is nothing wrong with a couple wanting to have a child, it's just the fact that people are so irresponsible and self-absorbed that they forget the burden they may be putting on their children and society because of their lack of planning and understanding of bringing a new life into this world.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a $30,000 combined income between a couple will not be sufficient enough to set up 3-4 children for future success, Yet everyday children are born to families within these conditions.

And although high taxes and welfare costs to our nation as a whole is a byproduct of people being unable to support their children, the lack of protecting a child (throughout his/her 18 year cycle) from the harsh financial realities of life is the most disappointing aspect of this whole issue.

The idiot mentality of "we're going kids no matter what... and a lot of them" has been ingrained in our social fibers and is constantly being reinforced by the media, government and friends and family.

Unfortunately, old religious beliefs exacerbates this issue.

I actually found and article that almost aligns perfectly with my beliefs about children, and I encourage you to read it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2097913/

I'll be posting my thoughts on poverty and distribution of taxes later today (Cav).



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hollowtip on 2007-01-07 02:06 ]</font>

[KaFKa]

Last I checked, All minorities (both Homosexual and race-based) were on the upper hand in everything to do with professional living. From college to schooling.

Also, on the topic the OP brought up, its true that families with children have it easier tax-wise. But the reason being that, as said earlier, the cost of a child > the reduced taxes. The government realized that a long time ago and implemented measures to make living with children financially bearable.

[medusae]

Of course, if you're talking about homosexual couples getting married... Well, how many times can this argument be rehashed? Let's see... I think my favorite argument was, "No one is keeping homosexuals from getting married. Even two homosexuals can get married, so long as one is a man and the other a woman."

Personally, I have no problems with having a legal union defined for homosexual couples (after all, if a gay man wants to include his life partner in his work's insurance package, the way a straight man includes his wife, I think it should be done), but the legal arrangements built into it need to be designed for gay and lesbien couples, not heterosexual couples.

Yeah, sorry, I was going a little bit off-topic and looking at the gay marriage issue as a rights issue. I didn't even want to go into the parenting issue.

The biggest problem with the current US government's mentality toward gay marriage isn't just that they don't have the rights to tax benefits, insurance, etc., but that partners in a homosexual couple don't even, singularly, have the same legal rights as a partner in a heterosexual in most states.

Example: If a man had a wife that suddenly fell seriously ill and had to be cared for in a hospital, he would be able to visit his wife, consult with her doctors, and (this is the big one) be able to make serious medical conditions, were she without a will/legal documentation or ability to communicate her wishes.

In many states, partners in a homosexual couple, especially those not considered under commonlaw, wouldn't have these same rights. IMO, this is pretty messed up.

(Sorry for getting so off-topic.. and also, since it's four in the morning and I've been packing for uni all day, sorry if this is barely understandable. :)

[Solstis]

Those statistics might be skewed. As far as homosexuals, statisticians assume (correctly) that the majority of homosexuals (males) in the US will be white (being the majority). Statistically, white males have the highest median income. However, that does not actually take into account homosexuals that are actualy out of the closet, in which case the numbers probably would change.

Also, professional living =/= domestic living, and civil unions would be a domestic issue. Not every homosexual is a white, male, professional.

I do understand the tax benefits given to those with children, but not why people want to have a lot of children (and why systems seem to support that), like the OP was saying.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-01-07 07:23 ]</font>

[etlitch]

Move to china. Problem solved(at least almost.)

Your post makes it sound as if you're living in a "social"(read: kommunist)place.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: etlitch on 2007-01-07 10:17 ]</font>

[xxTrystanxx]

It seems like some of the replies may have lost the point the OP was making. Or, maybe I'm not fully understanding the issue at hand. Are we specifically discussing having LOTS of children... if so, let's define "lots"... merely more than one? more than three?

It sure seems like most of the folks replying wish to merely criminalize anyone who MIGHT want to have a child. You blindly assume that most people just wake up one day, turn to their partner and say "Let's get ourselves a baby!" I can't exactly explain to you what DOES drive people to have children... but I'll be the first to tell you, it's definitely not for the tax deduction. But at the same time, I don't regret it.

The other assumption that seems to be made often in this discussion is that the only people who SHOULD be having kids are people who are making lots and lots of money. Some people seem to think that the only burden having a child brings is a financial one. But it's a lot more than that. Sure, maybe some of you (speaking only to those who don't have children) have had pets, maybe have cared for/selected care for sick relatives and friends.... but there is a great emotional toll in having a child... Just the thought that you are completely and solely responsible for the health and welfare of a human being is daunting enough, for even those of ample means.

Ironically enough, it seems to be the ones who have more than enough income who choose to have either no kids, or maybe just one child, and then lavish that child with objects rather than love. I'm not saying that the opposite can't happen, or that having just one child is bad, because it certainly isn't. My point is, I guess, that it takes more than just having money to decide whether to have children or not.

Now I know what you're thinking... "What? Your fiance only make a bit over minimum wage and you only work part-time! You guys shouldn't be having a kid!" I'm not currently on welfare, but during the period where I had to be out of work right before my son was born, I did have to apply for food stamps. I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I am an american citizen, and I pay taxes into these social programs so that they are there if/when worse comes to worst. I do wish that perhaps the programs, especially welfare (which provides cash benefits, at least in my state food stamps and cash benefits are two separate programs.) were redesigned a little bit to help people who help themselves. I do not wish to see programs that help people abolished however, because sometimes things do happen to people who otherwise are capable of supporting themselves.

[Kent]

My grandparents on my father's side, had... Two kids. And lived on a farm.

My grandparents on my mother's side, well... There are way too many people in that freaking house, come the holidays. Irish Catholics, by the stereotype.

Here's an idea: Since there's apparently some sort of problem with keeping people in prisons in the US, how about we use them to supply food to starving countries - at least, the ones on Death Row. Might not be enough for them, but it's a start. Since crime rates are so high, and our government is, like, totally not strict enough already, we'll just adjust what death penalties can be issued for (I'd say any sort of discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation, regardless of organization, would be a good start), and things will fill out quickly.

Then convince our buddies across the world that we're right or we get to nuke you.

Bam. Four problems solved: Overpopulation, starvation in third-world countries, discrimination, and prison space issues.

[Blitzkommando]

There was a book about getting rid of all discrimination. It ended up that everyone was of the same race, the same colored hair, and all looked the same except for one thing: eye color. Thus eye color became the discriminating factor with the blue eyed people battling over supremacy with the brown eyed people. People, humans, without meaning to find the thing that is different between themselves and others as a way of telling them appart. It doesn't matter how small the difference is, it will be noticed.

The best way to combat racism, sexism, and any other kind of ism that is deemed socially, morally, ethically, or otherwise wrong is through stamping out what causes all of those nasty isms in the first place: ignorance. Be it through school education, home education, or any other form of education it can be done and it has proven to work. The problem is that it becomes a tangled political mess in the end because everyone has their foils about education in itself in the first place. The other problem is that it becomes socially mandated and controlled. (Every Soviet citizen will learn Russian as the primary language and learn about Russia first and foremost to bring allegience to the country rather than the religion, family, or other traditional values, essentially to create a monotonous, robotic society with a form of nationalism that is yet unmatched except by other similarly constructed dictatorships of the past.)

In the end though, when you have people perverting religions (Islam, Christianity both Protestant and Catholic, Hinduism, Shintoism, and just about any other religion) where nobody except the practitioners of the said religion must be allowed to live unless they adopt the said religion you won't solve anything. And, seeing that even after you do that, if you are somehow able to eliminate those people, you will just have new things to pervert, such as unwavering nationalism, ethnocentrism, racial supremacy, fanatical devotion to something as stupid as a corporate entity, and infinitely more things to become a devoted fanatic to you simply can't elimiate conflict from the human race. That's because, as thousand's of years of history has already proven, conflict is an integral part of humanity. We fight over anything, just look at sports fanatics shooting each other and murdering each other at games, people being shot for Playstations in parkinglots, being shot for money, booze, food! Humans are not much different from animals in this respect, we just have developed intelligence to fight on an infinitely larger subject matters (rather than food, mates, and territory we fight on those and everything else).

There's a saying, "You can take the dog out of the fight but you can't take the fight out of the dog." That is a single sentence that can describe the past, present, and future of mankind. So long as there are two people standing on this earth it will be wrecked with fighting, even if they loved one another more than life itself.

As for taxes, considering the average persons in the industrialized world pays over 20% of their wages to taxes (It's closer to 40% in the United States today and nearing 80% in Sweden and 25% in Japan just for a few examples) there is really nobody that has benefit of low taxes and even fewer that get full benefit of the taxes they pay in the first place. Even with the so-called 'tax benefits' of married couples and couples (married or not) with custody of children are low enough that the increased taxes they pay for purchasing all of the necessary goods and services (food, clothes, larger cars, more gasoline, more aspirin, etc.) they end up paying more than a single person just through the amount paid for sales tax, and likely property tax to allow for the larger home to meet the family's needs.

[Cav]

On 2007-01-07 18:52, Kent wrote:
My grandparents on my father's side, had... Two kids. And lived on a farm.

My grandparents on my mother's side, well... There are way too many people in that freaking house, come the holidays. Irish Catholics, by the stereotype.

Here's an idea: Since there's apparently some sort of problem with keeping people in prisons in the US, how about we use them to supply food to starving countries - at least, the ones on Death Row. Might not be enough for them, but it's a start. Since crime rates are so high, and our government is, like, totally not strict enough already, we'll just adjust what death penalties can be issued for (I'd say any sort of discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation, regardless of organization, would be a good start), and things will fill out quickly.

Then convince our buddies across the world that we're right or we get to nuke you.

Bam. Four problems solved: Overpopulation, starvation in third-world countries, discrimination, and prison space issues.



I would be for this, but the republicans would die before this ever passed >.> maybe if we ate them too...

[Uncle_bob]

On 2007-01-07 21:17, Cav wrote:
I would be for this, but the republicans would die before this ever passed >.> maybe if we ate them too...



That's why you're not a politician

[hollowtip]

On 2007-01-07 13:44, xxTrystanxx wrote:
It seems like some of the replies may have lost the point the OP was making. Or, maybe I'm not fully understanding the issue at hand. Are we specifically discussing having LOTS of children... if so, let's define "lots"... merely more than one? more than three?

Lot’s of children. Lots of children to me is >=3. This is just my opinion of course, but I don’t think that’s an unreasonable definition of what could be considered having a large nuclear family.


[b]It sure seems like most of the folks replying wish to merely criminalize anyone who MIGHT want to have a child. You blindly assume that most people just wake up one day, turn to their partner and say "Let's get ourselves a baby!" I can't exactly explain to you what DOES drive people to have children... but I'll be the first to tell you, it's definitely not for the tax deduction. But at the same time, I don't regret it.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have children. The problem is that society deemphasizes overall child welfare while glorifying the self-fulfillment that a baby can provide for a couple.

I also don’t blindly assume that people choose to have children in such a sporadic manner, but I will assume that the average individual (from late teenage years on) that wants to have children will not be deterred from that decision in any way shape or form. It’s this selfish mindset that I am detesting, and it’s frustratingly compounded when multiple births occur that feature irresponsibility under this mindset.


[b]The other assumption that seems to be made often in this discussion is that the only people who SHOULD be having kids are people who are making lots and lots of money. Some people seem to think that the only burden having a child brings is a financial one. But it's a lot more than that. Sure, maybe some of you (speaking only to those who don't have children) have had pets, maybe have cared for/selected care for sick relatives and friends.... but there is a great emotional toll in having a child... Just the thought that you are completely and solely responsible for the health and welfare of a human being is daunting enough, for even those of ample means.

I understand the immense amount of resources that are required to rear a child, but securing the financial demands for providing shelter, food, a stable house, social activities and educational opportunities (elementary school to college) are the most important and should be satisfied before a couple should even consider having a baby. Also, it’s a lot easier to measure the needs of a child from a money perspective then it is from an emotional or intangible one considering each person is born with unique personality traits and vulnerabilities.


Ironically enough, it seems to be the ones who have more than enough income who choose to have either no kids, or maybe just one child, and then lavish that child with objects rather than love. I'm not saying that the opposite can't happen, or that having just one child is bad, because it certainly isn't. My point is, I guess, that it takes more than just having money to decide whether to have children or not.

Believe me, I think the worst thing a couple can do is spoil their children. Not only are they depriving them of defense mechanisms for dealing with certain disappointments and learning experiences, they are also stunting their development in being self-sustaining. I’ve lived in some poor and better off situations, and it’s helped me see a lot of this first hand from acquaintances and friends.


[b]Now I know what you're thinking... "What? Your fiance only make a bit over minimum wage and you only work part-time! You guys shouldn't be having a kid!" I'm not currently on welfare, but during the period where I had to be out of work right before my son was born, I did have to apply for food stamps. I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I am an american citizen, and I pay taxes into these social programs so that they are there if/when worse comes to worst. I do wish that perhaps the programs, especially welfare (which provides cash benefits, at least in my state food stamps and cash benefits are two separate programs.) were redesigned a little bit to help people who help themselves. I do not wish to see programs that help people abolished however, because sometimes things do happen to people who otherwise are capable of supporting themselves.

The welfare system is a great system for those who use it properly, and not as a permanent crutch. I don’t have any problem with people who are progressive and don’t rely on the system as a solution to their lifelong irresponsibility.

I’m not going to judge you or anything, but I do have one question for you. Why didn’t you and your partner just take a wait and see approach to having children?

[Cav]

On 2007-01-07 21:37, Uncle_bob wrote:

On 2007-01-07 21:17, Cav wrote:
I would be for this, but the republicans would die before this ever passed >.> maybe if we ate them too...



That's why you're not a politician



And here I was thinking I wasn't a politician because I wouldn't feed into corporate campaign sponser's bs in order to get them to vouch money for me or that most of the American public doesn't do much if any research into elections of anything into government position.

Thank you for helping me see the light that I'm not a politician because I support cannibalism of soon to be wasted meat to help world hunger!

[xxTrystanxx]

On 2007-01-08 03:29, hollowtip wrote:
I’m not going to judge you or anything, but I do have one question for you. Why didn’t you and your partner just take a wait and see approach to having children?


Not sure I understand quite what you mean by the "wait and see" approach...

If its any consolation, my son was not planned. He was a result of the 1% ineffectiveness of birth control. Not that we were taking preventative measures because we didn't WANT kids, but because, for the reasons you stated previously, we wished to be in a more stable financial situation. But, when we found out, we sat down and planned out what needed to be done and took care of it.

I don't usually bring my personal views on religion into conversations like these, but being pagan, I am a firm believer in fate. I do believe there's a reason why things happened as they did. If you want to call that a "wait and see" approach, so be it.

[Alisha]

im the oldest of 7 children. my dads generation had 6 kids,my grandmas had 8. all 3 generations made it work. to me having such a large family is very enjoyable(except on christmas when i nearly go bankrupt) and gives a tight knit support network. if i was in a position to do so i would want to have a large family to because it has been such a positive experience for me throughout my life.

[zanotam]

we are so totally screwed at this rate lol. Happened to the dudes on easter island and it'll happen to us.
Guide to screwing your descendants over:
1. Over populate beyond the ability of the environment to produce naturally. CHECK!
2. Over populate just because you like having sex and don't understand that theres no such thing as safe sex. CHECK!
3. Screw over the environment and use it and abuse it. CHECK!
looks like we're on the road to a happy canabilistic warrior society http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Scejntjynahl]

Use condoms.

[zanotam]

idiot condoms only have an aproximate 95% chance of working lol silly http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Cav]

On 2007-01-11 18:27, zanotam wrote:
idiot condoms only have an aproximate 95% chance of working lol silly http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif



99%' but obviously 0% is a better gamble.

[zanotam]

well it varies its closer to 87%/98% but ya you get hte point which is waht matters.