this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
1301 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
6037 readers
3009 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think this is where a lot of modern civilization is falling apart at. If you want population replacement and growth, you actually have to make it advantageous to have children, and at appropriate age for your society and culture. The GOP thinks they can do it by destroying reproductive rights, civil rights, and marriage laws, if they harm women enough they'll HAVE to be baby makers! Dehumanized baby factories! And even conservative voters are fighting against it, because it's insane and it's against our current culture. It has to work for everyone. It would be more intelligent to create free childcare, better pregnancy and birth leave for both parents, and child tax credits. They could use WIC to absorb the cost of having a child and public education sooner with preschool. If people are hopeful their children will have high education access and a stable life they will be a lot more likely to have kids. Being horrified that your children will live in a fascist theocracy and intentionally kept uneducated and poverty stricken, they might actually voluntarily avoid sex to not have kids.
What if we don't want infinite growth? What about stability? Or (gasp) a population reduction so we don't destroy the planet. Have less babies. Feed the ones we have. Educate them.
Sure, easing into a deflating population over several hundred years is fine but tanking it and ending up with a society having to support a vastly older population ain't easy either. Better for governments to provide positive reasons to have children but there's zero chance of that.
We won't starve our old people, there's plenty of wealth to go around, it's just that a tiny portion of the population has stolen it all. Maybe even the average person will have to make some sacrifices if birth rates don't stay at a certain level but our lifestyles are hugely inflated compared to even 50 years ago.
We can live sustainable lives with a reducing population, our productivity per capita is higher than it's ever been, we're all just seeing so little of it.
Instead of Musks and Bezos, instead of all of our creative minds working in advertising and finance, instead of 10 different streaming services, we can have a good quality of life for everyone.
Our economy being efficient is the biggest lie. The economy is only profitable, and it only has good outcomes when those outcomes are aligned with profit. It's time for a new economy that serves the people
Our government has no issue going into debt for anything and everything they want, aside from social services. The whole concept of a younger generation having to take care of a growing older one means nothing to me. If they care, they can shift their priorities on reckless spending. If they don't (they dont) then the population can take to the streets and demand they start caring.
We're going to run into a crisis within our life time whether we like it or not. Within 10-20 years, possibly longer if legislation somehow hampers it, pretty much the entire working class will be unemployable because machine labor will be cheaper and more readily available than any human. Yes, some people will still have jobs, but not the working class.
Long before we have a crisis of too many elderly for the working to care and provide for, we are going to have a crisis of not enough jobs paying a liveable wage for one, let alone a family, because corporations are going to be able to replace large swathes of their workforces with machines that cost less to maintain per unit than minimum wage, so why would they ever hire a person?
I just have to pont out, If you have to have a job, you are working class. It doesn’t matter if it’s a well-paying automation job, you are still working class.
Technically yes, as there are many definitions. But practically, no. Tthe commonly accepted and popular definitions break down with the working class being those without college degrees, those who'se living expenses and day to day expenses is most if not all of their income, where another common definition specifically list unskilled labourers, artisans, outworkers, and factory workers as working class.
My understanding is that it's more about where people get their wealth and income. Working class primarily gets it from labour. Middle class has a mix of capital and labour income. And upper class / capitalists get it mostly from capital.
Degrees and jobs align with those but don't define them, as far as I understand it.
Then again in my mind the only distinction worth a damn is "contributor" and "parasite" and so we're all working class and we should see ourselves as aligned against the individuals and families who have enough wealth that generations of them will never need to work a day in their lives.
I don't buy this. What will really happen is that the value of anything AI can produce will drop to near zero, this freeing up money to spend on things only humans can provide. And if you think AI can literally do anything a human can? Well at that point, using that AI should be incredibly illegal, as you're just enslaving a digital person.
Maybe we'll end up with a weird economy where everyone is employed as teachers, caretakers, mentors, life coaches, fitness instructors, physicians, and any other job that people really would prefer to interact with a human while interfacing with.
Would you let your child be taught by an AI teacher? Not worried about what type of sociopathy that might introduce? No, there are many jobs, specifically those around the growth, development, maintenance, and improvement of human lives that will always be preferable to be done by actual humans. Humans can do the human work, and we can slough the drudgery off to the machines.
Both arguments are valid. Less children, better education and growth perspectives = better humanity. And still there are some sick fucks down voting. Which shows how fucked we are.
Propaganda is a heck of a thing.
I personally think reproductive rights are human rights, every adult should have total personal control over their reproductive choices, I don't think people who chose to have kids should be punished for the choice, and I don't think people who do not wish to have children should be likewise punished for not doing so, nor forced in any way or manipulated into having children. I agree that there has to be a lot of improvement for kids who are here right now. That's an important problem you have to solve first if you want to encourage your population to grow, the outcome must be good now.
I mean yes, children should be an affordable option and please take my tax money to make it practically free. But also I think a lot more people don't want children than is generally assumed it expected. Just lots of societal pressure pushing vulnerable people to make a decision that's not necessarily in their best interest.
It's a deeply felt personal choice, I don't think people should be manipulated or pressured into it, only that the cost at the very least be at zero so that people can choose based on what matters, their own personal views, and not in their ability to pay for every aspect of a child's life.
Let's not pretend the GOP are doing it for the good of humanity....
For most of history it wasn't advantageous to have children. People just didn't have many options, and we were used to babies dying all the time so if we wanted any help in our old age we had to have enough to survive into adulthood.
Where do you base this information from?
E.g. people who had a farm or crafts/trade business usually had children to help and later take over the business. Having children to help at old age is mentioned by yourself.
Sounds quite advantageous to me. Especially when labor is more physically demanding or you need enough people to maintain security like for traders etc.
It's the reason my grandfather is one of five brothers and seven kids in total. It's the reason my great-grandfather was the eldest of seven, and my ex-MIL was one of 11 children. They lived on farms and it was a lot cheaper to force your kids to do work than to hire farmhands.
I don't see where anyone should give two shits how many babies other people are having for their own benefit/detriment.
Macro economics, you need a growing population to do capitalism at all. You can't have a shrinking consumer base.
Also. If you want to even make it a choice people CAN make, you need to equalize it. We currently punish people for having kids by a upsetting margin, at the very least it should be the same difference, you choose to have a kid, you get appropriate services to make that process at the very least, not a clear negative in all regards.
Thirdishly we are currently getting a very low level of education for our population as a whole, and that's a BIG problem when you chief exports and economy are build on innovation in computer science, physics, and petrochemicals, we need a population with the education to work and move forward or we fall behind and that's it. We actually need a highly educated population of we intent to progress as a society with our without capitalism.