[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / cyoa / doomer / hybrid / leftpol / mde / vichan ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: e82cc19d9e7e54b⋯.png (643.09 KB, 480x726, 80:121, e82cc19d9e7e54b1ff38b8d1bc….png)

 No.96703

I've been looking into the topic of demographic transition and i've come to a confusing conclusion. Demographic transition shifts the reproduction process from (almost) uncontrolled one that allows an addition in working power and long-time security to a norm of having few children that are vigorously taken care of, with high amount of resources put into their future and development so they can be successful in their lives. Does that mean that with greater quality of life and longer life expectancy there's even less incentive to have children and that having them can negatively impact not just theirs but your own success? That way with further technological progress there's one logical conclusion to civilization development - achievement of immortality and rejection of breeding as a survival mechanism. But how will it be resolved until then? We already have a society in which it's easier to be productive and achieve success without burdening yourself with children, and it seems that this correlation will become even stronger. How will it be resolved so that society doesn't destroy itself before it removes this shameless dependency? Will it devolve into a previous stage every time or will transition slow down until technological progress allows it?

 No.96709

The coming collapse of the welfare state (especially pensions) will necessitate a return to stronger families and local communities. Children are the best way to achieve security in old age.


 No.96710

>>96703

No matter what is done technological progress won't be hampered. Gene modification, longer life spans, automation, possibility of AI singularity will all likely happen in this century. I have no fucking clue what incentives there will be to create children in the future. It'll be interesting to see the philosophy that arrives in the next few decades


 No.96740

>>96703

as egoist-individualist i dont want to have children


 No.96794

The birth rate is dropping because we're being taxes three times more than china and both wife and husband are working multiple part time jobs. It's impossible to raise a child in that environment, and although human instinct wins and a few are born, it is never a good environment.

In fact the kid's day:

8 hrs sleep

1 hrs parents

8 hrs state mandated brainwashing officer

4 hrs state subsidized nanny

2 hrs state controlled media

1 hrs parents

And on top of that the government takes ONE THIRD TO ONE HALF of the parents income. Half the parents income is just needed for self-sufficiency, the remainder is budgeted for children. So if the government takes one third in taxes, how can the parents raise two or more kids?


 No.96797

>>96709

when will the collapse happen?


 No.96802

>>96794

>Half the parents income is just needed for self-sufficiency, the remainder is budgeted for children

Big brain math. How did you come up with that? Projected your poorfag example onto other people?

>how can the parents raise two or more kids?

They don't, you gay faggot. Instead, they enjoy the successful life and advantages of modern medicine that extend their lives. That's called demographic transition but a degenerate retard can't comprehend it and so will sperg about "social responsibility to breed". Really, how much more of a gay leftist faggot can you ever be?


 No.96803

>>96802

>advancing your genetic interest is spergy and leftist

lolbertarians


 No.96804

>>96803

Most people here aren't libertarians. He might be, but he said "degenerate retard" so I'd reckon he's from /pol/ like most of you. Keep pretending everyone who thinks differently than you is retarded, though.


 No.96809

>>96803

>genetic interest

>AKA a way to calm your fear of death by ignorance and stupiding, as well as being a literal animal.

"Genetic interest" is as much bullshit as "class interest", and you're a spergy leftist that can only use ad hominem because you're too dumb ans scared to accept reality.


 No.96822

>>96802

>whoa that guy is uncovering our plan

>and speaking about children in a positive way!

>SHUT

>IT

>DOWN

Hello hebrew.


 No.96827

>>96822

>ur a jew

Nice argument. Come when you have mental capacity for a better one.


 No.96830

To calrify: it's an economic question, retarded fags like this biblethumping monarcuck can breed as much as they want and die alone. What i was asking for is what economic incentives can having a child in a society as or more modern as ours have? There's no bigger resource, energy, nerve and life drain than having children and to take care of many you basically have to sacrifice your life for them. So, the question is whether a society where the best-performing, most rational, successful and skillful people are going to have few, if any children destined to have a negative selection take place until the moment its members reach immortality, or are there any rational(that means "so that my genes remain" doesn't count, as this is the position of an animal) incentives to have children that at least in some way compensate for economic disaster they are or some mechanism similar to demographic transition that would keep people improving despite above reasons, like longer life and better medicine? Someone mentioned that kids are a way to secure your future and would be a better mean to do so without welfare state but i don't really see how financially destroying your life for the opportunity to be betrayed, kicked out or whatever is better than actually taking care of yourself by having enough passive income to retire later without any kids.


 No.96841

>>96827

this xD




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / cyoa / doomer / hybrid / leftpol / mde / vichan ]