Cops plowing into a crowd

[Dauntless]

Isn't all that supposed to be in your 'Wind, Solar, Nuke Mankind' knife fight? You can argue just as aimlessly here, but it should be on topic.

https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=6000

This thread sounds so privileged it's beyond. . . .

Which thread? Sounds like a lark :lol:

Oh right, that dumpster fire...

 

[goatman]

Or just fund women's education. It's the #1 way to reduce birthrates. Google Tostan and Camfed.

If birth rates don't fall below replacement levels, it doesn't matter how much education women get. There are still those who want to proliferate like stray cats, and they have to stop.

north american rates are already dropping. let the first couple minutes of this video explain the point im trying to make

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWT9zhKcuJo

 

[JackFlorey]

If birth rates don't fall below replacement levels, it doesn't matter how much education women get.

That's what I am saying. Educating women MAKES birthrates fall. Cause/effect.

 

[Balmorhea]

If birth rates don't fall below replacement levels, it doesn't matter how much education women get.

That's what I am saying. Educating women MAKES birthrates fall. Cause/effect.

And what I’m saying is that if the effect isn’t pronounced enough to result in declining population, it doesn’t fix the problem. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. But a more planned response can accomplish whatever reduction is necessary.

Fewer people means more economic resources per capita, which means more folks can get an advanced education if they want one. As it is, I think more people go to college than should, given that most are only in it for the credentials and not the education.

 

[JackFlorey]

And what I’m saying is that if the effect isn’t pronounced enough to result in declining population, it doesn’t fix the problem.

12 years of education brings the average children per woman below 2. That guarantees declining population.

https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/228/pdfs/female-education-and-its-impact-on-fertility.pdf

Fewer people means more economic resources per capita, which means more folks can get an advanced education if they want one.

All economic output comes, eventually, from labor. Fewer people = fewer economic resources.

 

[Balmorhea]

And what I’m saying is that if the effect isn’t pronounced enough to result in declining population, it doesn’t fix the problem.

12 years of education brings the average children per woman below 2. That guarantees declining population.

https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/228/pdfs/female-education-and-its-impact-on-fertility.pdf

Sure, for now. But fashions change. We’re at the point of needing measures that intervene before someone can choose to have half a dozen kids. As much as we need reduction in the educated portion of the population, we need reduction of the uneducated population at least as much.

Fewer people means more economic resources per capita, which means more folks can get an advanced education if they want one.

All economic output comes, eventually, from labor. Fewer people = fewer economic resources.

When the focus is more on productivity through automation than on contriving to employ a growing population, that will change too. But at least our physical resources footprint is likely to diminish with declining population, which is a good thing.

 

[JackFlorey]

Sure, for now. But fashions change. We’re at the point of needing measures that intervene before someone can choose to have half a dozen kids.

I completely disagree. It doesn't matter one bit if someone chooses to have half a dozen kids - as long as the AVERAGE birthrate per woman goes below 2.1. A woman can have 20 or 30 kids and again that doesn't move the needle, as long as the average is below that number.

As much as we need reduction in the educated portion of the population, we need reduction of the uneducated population at least as much.

Best way to do that is to move them from the uneducated column to the educated column.

When the focus is more on productivity through automation than on contriving to employ a growing population, that will change too.

Automation will massively increase the labor one person can do. But that labor will still form the basis of all our economic systems.

 

[markz]

You get free money for every child you have, and if your poor you probably get even more money.

Sure, for now. But fashions change. We’re at the point of needing measures that intervene before someone can choose to have half a dozen kids.

I completely disagree. It doesn't matter one bit if someone chooses to have half a dozen kids - as long as the AVERAGE birthrate per woman goes below 2.1. A woman can have 20 or 30 kids and again that doesn't move the needle, as long as the average is below that number.

 

[john61ct]

Some decent discussion points

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/31/fewer-people-or-less-consumption-the-population-debate

 

[JackFlorey]

You get free money for every child you have, and if your poor you probably get even more money.

You get a lot more "free money" if you never have kids. Believe me on this.

 

[Dauntless]

You get free money for every child you have, and if your poor you probably get even more money.

You get a lot more "free money" if you never have kids. Believe me on this.

Oh, Bill, on the one hand, NO QUESTION! But you have never worked with these welfare cases. Teenage girls have this 'Incomplete thinking,' the best I can think of to describe it. 'Oh, I get a few hundred a month if I have a kid? Ten kids gets me several thousand a month?' Some start figuring out the mistake after one or two, but there are those who KEEP GOING. I don't think it's a coincidence that these welfare moms with so many kids go to jail, not just for child abuse and shoplifting but other crimes. The mental problems that drive them to believe there's an answer in using more and more kids as a meal ticket (In the face of what evidence confronts them) grow worse under pressure.

I could start putting every news sound byte I find of a black leader talking about the problems these checks are causing in the black community. They refuse to come right out and give you the solution because you'll scream at him or her 'YOU'RE NOT BLACK ANYMORE!' And if you're Joe Biden you add "Come on, MAN!" (For Biden's entire lifetime it's been well known that shouting 'MAN' at a black man (Small case letters) is a taunt, as in 'You're not really a man.') But they come right out and tell you the black community had little teen pregnancy and largely two parent families before Big Welfare ramped up. As in most single mothers of minor children were widows, not much divorced and not much never married.

THAT is the real free money issue.

 

[Balmorhea]

You get free money for every child you have, and if your poor you probably get even more money.

You get a lot more "free money" if you never have kids. Believe me on this.

True. We still should tax, rather than subsidize, people who choose to have kids. The existing disincentives, though ample, are not enough.

 

[JackFlorey]

True. We still should tax, rather than subsidize, people who choose to have kids. The existing disincentives, though ample, are not enough.

I say just get the government out of it. None of their business.

 

[Balmorhea]

True. We still should tax, rather than subsidize, people who choose to have kids. The existing disincentives, though ample, are not enough.

I say just get the government out of it. None of their business.

Is that how you feel about other forms of pollution?

 

[JackFlorey]

Is that how you feel about other forms of pollution?

Nope. Pollution directly affects other people.

 

[Dauntless]

Getting back on topic. Although you sound like you agree with the movie, that the rioters should be scooped up into dump trucks and make them Soylent Green.

[youtube]wMe2hou_sgE[/youtube]