Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Less Than 30% of Americans In Their Early 30s Have A Child

Swabbie said:
Yes, they objectively are. As societies fall below replacement level i.e., age, they become far more susceptible to collapse. An excess of aged, non-producing people will strain a society, always. There is a reason that more primitive societies would often kill their elderly in harsh times.

And, no, I said that was just my experience with who I have personally interacted with. I clearly stated as much.
Click to expand...
I understand this and believe this is the general idea behind promoting procreation at high rates. Though that model stems from something other than valuing the individual beyond their means to contribute to the hive mind.

Right now, the only argument I hear for procreation is labor. You can argue the population only ever got this big because of labor demands. If automation is on the horizon, who are we replacing?

It's only natural that if our technology is going to replace over half of the jobs available now, then maybe we shouldn't be building towards that future detriment. The best thing we can do is change how we value each human. Because right now we don't give a damn about one another enough to truly warrant an argument that people should keep reproducing at high rates.
 
Last edited:
Loneshot said:
I understand this and believe this is the general idea behind promoting procreation at high rates. Though that model stems from something other than valuing the individual beyond their means to contribute to the hive mind.

Right now, the only argument I hear for procreation is labor. You can argue the population only ever got this big because of labor demands. If automation is on the horizon, who are we replacing?

It's only natural that if our technology is going to replace over half of the jobs available now, then maybe we shouldnt building towards that future detriment. The best thing we can do is change how we value each human. Because right now we don't give a damn about one another enough to truly warrant an argument that people should keep reproducing at high rates.
Click to expand...

It is not a hive mind, if you wish to live in a society you should contribute as a society's members contributing is what maintains the society. That is the contract you sign. We do not live in bubbles and, when living as a member of a civilization, we are highly dependent upon one another. The balancing of the individual vs. the group and vice versa is the ultimate challenge that civilization faces.

Ever since the industrial revolution began, there have been those who think this means people will no longer be necessary, but, as we see now, that has not turned out to be the case. What you are envisioning is a post-scarce world and whether or not that is even possible is still up for debate. When new tech comes, it has most always created new jobs. Also, we do not live in a unique time of empathy scarcity. The morality of reproduction is for you to decide for yourself as morality is completely subjective but there are objective truths that are not affected by this.

I don't care to suggest that everyone should be required to reproduce. I do not have kids and there is a very real possibility that I will never have kids. I simply understand that I will not have contributed in that way to the society that I find myself a part of.
 
Last edited:
The Lonious Monk said:
Again, rich people not hoarding shit won't solve all the world's problems. Climate change will still be an issue. Nonrenewable resources won't magically renew again just because we become more efficient. And again, the problems that might be solved temporarily will eventually become problems again as the population grows.

Also, I don't think you know what eugenics means.
Click to expand...
I meannnnn...... climate change and nonrenewable recourse issues can be traced right back to greedy rich people. Sure climate change would still be happening, but it would be no where as bad now if wealthy manufactures, shipping magnates & oil tycoons didnt purposely roadblock all environmental acts to stop excessive pollution.
 
Swabbie said:
Yes, they objectively are. As societies fall below replacement level i.e., age, they become far more susceptible to collapse. An excess of aged, non-producing people will strain a society, always. There is a reason that more primitive societies would often kill their elderly in harsh times.

And, no, I said that was just my experience with who I have personally interacted with. I clearly stated as much.
Click to expand...

If the only way you can find to contribute to society is having a kid then you've got a pretty bleak outlook on living. And your experience is your own...but it's still wrong as unless you are that person then you really don't know the why behind them choosing to not have kids at a certain point. So assuming all it's due to not wanting to give up things like vacations and expensive cars is most likely a stretch.
 
BlackRain said:
If the only way you can find to contribute to society is having a kid then you've got a pretty bleak outlook on living. And your experience is your own...but it's still wrong as unless you are that person then you really don't know the why behind them choosing to not have kids at a certain point. So assuming all it's due to not wanting to give up things like vacations and expensive cars is most likely a stretch.
Click to expand...

You are reacting to things I never said. I never said having children was the only way to contribute to society. And, again, I said that I was only speaking about my experience with regards to the situations of those that I know. I find it fascinating that you can so strongly state that I am wrong about the people in my life. I can assure you, I am making no assumptions about their finances. I did state that this was just my experience, leaving the door wide open for others to have experienced different.
 
Golan said:
In a perfect world, I’d love to have kids, man. As it stands, though, life is rough. Having a kid would make my life infinitely worse.

On the flip side, I’m worried about what my life will look like when I’m my parent’s age. I see the way I’m able to help my folks, and realizing I'm not going to have that kind of help when I’m their age is scary af. 🫤
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm kinda going through the same thing now.

Not really in terms who would take care of me, but me being the same age now..............as my parents were when I was 14.........is something that's hard for me to wrap my head around.
 
Swabbie said:
I have never met a person who said they didn't want kids because they couldn't afford them actually be unable to afford them. They just don't want to give up their 6 expensive trips a year, overpriced car lease, and 6k a month condo in the hip part of the city.

That is just my experience, though. I absolutely wanted to have children. As much as we probably don't want to admit it, childless people who are able to reproduce but choose not to are drags on a healthy and functioning society.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of truth to what you said.

However, the people you talked about are the very ones who probably shouldn't have children.

Ironically, as selfish as their reasons seem for not wanting children, it's really not selfish at all since they're being honest with themselves.

Mainly because, if they prioritize that over having children, they probably wouldn't be good parents to begin with.


Also, with everything going on in today's society.......inflation, high cost of rent/housing, etc........I can understand why some people wouldn't want to take on an additional burden.
 
Loneshot said:
Right now, the only argument I hear for procreation is labor. You can argue the population only ever got this big because of labor demands. If automation is on the horizon, who are we replacing?

It's only natural that if our technology is going to replace over half of the jobs available now, then maybe we shouldnt be building towards that future detriment. The best thing we can do is change how we value each human. Because right now we don't give a damn about one another enough to truly warrant an argument that people should keep reproducing at high rates.
Click to expand...


Claws ding ding clip.gif
 
BlackRain said:
If the only way you can find to contribute to society is having a kid then you've got a pretty bleak outlook on living. And your experience is your own...but it's still wrong as unless you are that person then you really don't know the why behind them choosing to not have kids at a certain point. So assuming all it's due to not wanting to give up things like vacations and expensive cars is most likely a stretch.
Click to expand...
Yeah. This is what I agree with.

There are PLENTY ways to contribute to society without having children. Anyone that performs civil service is doing that: police (most times), doctors, teachers, sanitation workers, etc.

Contributions to society means either helping maintain the level of quality of that society or improving it. I don’t see how someone achieves that just by having offspring, especially if said offspring turns out to do NOTHING by lower their community.
 
deadeye said:
There's a lot of truth to what you said.

However, the people you talked about are the very ones who probably shouldn't have children.

Ironically, as selfish as their reasons seem for not wanting children, it's really not selfish at all since they're being honest with themselves.

Mainly because, if they prioritize that over having children, they probably wouldn't be good parents to begin with.


Also, with everything going on in today's society.......inflation, high cost of rent/housing, etc........I can understand why some people wouldn't want to take on an additional burden.
Click to expand...

lol Shit has always been going on though. If humans only procreated at times when it was most opportune for parents, our species would be extinct.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
lol Shit has always been going on though. If humans only procreated at times when it was most opportune for parents, our species would be extinct.
Click to expand...

This is true but we're also at a time where people thankfully are taking more discernment in who they have kids with and when due to those outside factors. As society evolves so will people's reasons for choosing or choosing not to have kids.
 
You can take offense to a true statement, it does not make it any less true - no matter how many people you have feeling offended with you.

And again (the amount of time I've spent having to say this is insane), I never said having children was the only way to contribute to society. But if you do not have children, you will always wind up consuming more than you have put in. Bad parents are, again, not the norm. The norm is parents raising children to adulthood, or at bare minimum those children reaching adulthood in some way, where they begin to contribute to society. This repeats, preferably at a level where more people are being born than they are dying. This allows for younger generations to replace older ones at at least a 1:1 scale to continue pushing society forward. The less this happens, the less productive a society becomes because the dwindling youth becomes ever more stressed to not only maintain society but also to care for the aged, non-producers.

This is fact. It is not an indictment of anyone, society is a construct and not a natural phenomenon so whether it survives or collapses is dependent on those taking part.
 
BlackRain said:
This is true but we're also at a time where people thankfully are taking more discernment in who they have kids with and when due to those outside factors. As society evolves so will people's reasons for choosing or choosing not to have kids.
Click to expand...

Sure, like I said before, I encourage people to have no or fewer kids. I think people just tend to exaggerate how bad things are now. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of shit going wrong nowadays, but if you live in the Western world, you're still probably living in the best general period in human history. I mean, you don't have to worry about a band of rogues coming to sack and pillage your whole neighborhood or having everyone you know die from some disease that could be cured in two days by antibiotics.
 
Swabbie said:
I'm curious, why? Sorry if I overlooked your explanation before.

I do not care that others do not have children. I only wish people were more honest about what that meant in the grand scheme of it all.
Click to expand...

I just think the world would be in a better place with fewer people. There's nothing good about 7 billion people existing at one time, and virtually every problem we face as a society would be less of a problem if there weren't so many of us. Sure, fewer greedy rich assholes would help too, but if we somehow didn't have either of those root causes we might be living in a paradise right now.
 
Swabbie said:
You can take offense to a true statement, it does not make it any less true - no matter how many people you have feeling offended with you.

And again (the amount of time I've spent having to say this is insane), I never said having children was the only way to contribute to society. But if you do not have children, you will always wind up consuming more than you have put in. Bad parents are, again, not the norm. The norm is parents raising children to adulthood, or at bare minimum those children reaching adulthood in some way, where they begin to contribute to society. This repeats, preferably at a level where more people are being born than they are dying. This allows for younger generations to replace older ones at at least a 1:1 scale to continue pushing society forward. The less this happens, the less productive a society becomes because the dwindling youth becomes ever more stressed to not only maintain society but also to care for the aged, non-producers.

This is fact. It is not an indictment of anyone, society is a construct and not a natural phenomenon so whether it survives or collapses is dependent on those taking part.
Click to expand...
What you're talking about is an accelerated situation though. If a small percent of gen x and millennials don't have kids then it's not going to harm society
 
mike030270 said:
What you're talking about is an accelerated situation though. If a small percent of gen x and millennials don't have kids then it's not going to harm society
Click to expand...

No, it's speaking of a trend and its consequences. As recently as 2021, Pew Research showed 44% of non-parents younger than 50 reporting they were not too or not at all likely that they will have children. That, coupled with the thread you are in, should be enough to dissuade you from the notion of a small percent.

Is there consequences of this? Yes, absolutely. I simply think it'd be best for us to acknowledge that, wherever we may fall on the support scale. As I have said, I don't have any strong emotions about the choices of others. I just find it childish to act as if things do not have consequences.
 
Last edited:
The Lonious Monk said:
I just think the world would be in a better place with fewer people. There's nothing good about 7 billion people existing at one time, and virtually every problem we face as a society would be less of a problem if there weren't so many of us. Sure, fewer greedy rich assholes would help too, but if we somehow didn't have either of those root causes we might be living in a paradise right now.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I can't say I disagree in a way. I don't know what that would look like, though. I mean, less people across the board or less people from certain areas?
 
The Lonious Monk said:
Sure, like I said before, I encourage people to have no or fewer kids. I think people just tend to exaggerate how bad things are now. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of shit going wrong nowadays, but if you live in the Western world, you're still probably living in the best general period in human history. I mean, you don't have to worry about a band of rogues coming to sack and pillage your whole neighborhood or having everyone you know die from some disease that could be cured in two days by antibiotics.
Click to expand...

It's all relative and in context. Yes living in the western world now is better, but that doesn't mean that people aren't still struggling to provide for themselves. So many see adding on someone else who literally depends on you for their life as something they cannot take on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top