> despite a poor background children can and do still excel
Only occasionally. And that does not justify raising children in a difficult environment!
> What do you want to do, sterilise the poor?
I agree that the parent phrased that post very poorly.
However many countries did a lot of effective work to prevent unplanned parenthood, including education and access to contraceptives and abortion rather than sterilization or punishment.
> even if they don't these children are often the backbone of our industry
This sounds like the world need enough desperate people to accept exploitative jobs or go to war and so on? I hope humanity can do better than that.
> For what it's worth, the motive to have children at all is entirely selfish and that should be fine.
I don't think "that should be fine". In the third world people are poor and produce children. Simply stopping doing so would be a fast way to reduce poverty (in my opinion even a necessity).
While I do, I don't think most of Western public policy does. It seems like we've fundamentally outsourced children to third world countries. Raising a child in any state is going to be much costlier than raising him/her in the Philippines for example.
When the children become economically valuable adults - or prove to have enough economic potential (say by being admitted into a university), they are imported into the West. In a very cynical way, this is sort of what immigration has become. Instead of tackling the issue of why people are not reproducing, public policy seems happier to drain the most economically useful citizens from other countries.
> Would you also say "shame on you" to anyone who procreates in a country with a lower standard of living than the wealthier countries on this planet?
I would not hesitate to do so to any parents that leave a perfectly functional society to raise children as subsistence farmers in an smog-choked, irradiated, arid clime. Opting to raise your children under worse conditions than those one grew up under, and has access to is despicable and selfish.
> So perhaps you need not only look at the children and instead try to improve the lives of the parents as well.
Clearly. It was other people who started suggesting that the children of poor parents should be forcibly put up for adoption. I can't fathom why anyone would think this is a good idea or even worth talking about.
>The government already heavily subsidises child-rearing
That 'heavy subsidy' doesn't even begin to cover the economical costs, let alone the crazy amount of work.
>I'm not sure if "children are our future" is our future. This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms.
What's the alternative? Hoping that the children of other countries will just work for your retirement out of the goodness of their heart? Well, maybe you're rich and invested in foreign markets so this isn't a worry for you, but for the vast majority of people this isn't an option.
> presumably you are making less money than those who can.
That’s a bit of a stretch, especially considering that I have specifically mentioned the fact that a lot of people don’t seem to care about their financial situation when having children. And then apparently it is “humane” to take other peoples resources by force through government to pay for their expenses. Who need these barbaric consensual charities anyway.
>False dichotomy. There is no possibility of a system between totalitarian child rearing by the state and a system rigged entirely and completely for the wealthy? Spare me.
The claim is that any such system would still have biases.
Though I would claim even The Giver is not truly equal as parents are still individuals with unique roles in society and thus what they impart on their children is still unequal.
So I would make a stronger claim. That level of equality is not physically possible.
We can make things more equal, but you get into the messy politics of who do we do it on behalf of (for example, why favor people living in the US over people not).
> I think the incentives could be fixed in a simple (not easy) way, by not letting childless people benefit from the safety net spanned by children of other people.
Yeah this is the only serious fix, but once childless people become a large % of the electorate (aka it's a real problem), they can vote against assuming responsibility for the problem they created... and your country is basically in an inescapable doom loop.
> There are a multitude of things you can do to reduce inequality at birth
The most egalitarian folks actually dream of a society where it would be forbidden to have your own children (since it's actually VERY unfair to pass your genes down to the next generation... Smart people get smart kids, that's furthering the gap of inequalities) and let the sacrosanct government take care of human race reproduction and ensure it's genetically fair.
> I will agree that it's a very unfortunately situation, but I'm not going to lower the standard of living of my own family that limits their chances of having their best life so as to provide for the child of a stranger who doesn't give the same care and thought to me and mine.
Where does this argument end? For example if you end up needing to live in a rest home and your family can't afford or refuses to take care of you, why should my tax dollars go to help you out? You should just be thrown out into the streets until you die to reduce the burden you put on society.
As many countries have justifiably chosen, they consider this to be an extremely barbaric approach.
> It's not even means-tested so they're literally taxing struggling workers to pay rich parents just for knocking out more babies.
I'm glad to inform you that besides struggling (child-free) workers there are also rich (child-free) workers. I'm sorry to inform you that besides rich parents there are also struggling parents.
> To phase this more accurately, the second CHILD is on their own. The first child, under your scheme, is educated and receives health benefits. The second child will receive no education and will have to suffer from any health ailments that they receive.
The current status quo is bad for our society. Someone mentioned that we need means-testing as a compromise between no social safety net and a social safety net for all regardless of income. What I am proposing is a radical heartless turn that creates two classes of people: the first-born.
I would like to remind you that a one-child policy is NOT my first preference. The whole thing goes away if we accept that we need to pay our share for the welfare of our children. Ideally, it won't come to this but if it does, I have faith that we will survive a shrinkage in population. It is the right thing to do (given the hand we are dealt).
> This had an unfortunate effect of creating a group of people who never worked and all they did was raise 3-5 children.
You dont seem to be aware that such programs are designed to have people raise such 5-6 children while doing nothing else in order to bump up the declining population. And if you think raising 6 children is not work... boy...
> that not having children (in the west) is a great way to reduce emissions.
Why in the west? The west is already doing their (our) part by not having enough children to replace the current people here.
The 'rest of the world' has too many children, in some places even too many to literally just feed. Why deal with the areas where couples have <2, even <1.5 children on average and not with areas where the numbers are 5 or even more?
Also, doesn't that mean that we should also stop immigration? Moving someone from a poor country to a rich(er) one means more emissions since they tend to consume more due to more money than in their originating country.
>Honestly, if you live in desperate poverty, why would you want to bring a child into the world knowing the amount of suffering that its is likely to live through?
Having children is a fundamental human activity. It gives people purpose, connection, novelty and a million other things I can't think of since I'm not a parent or a mother.
As you say, many poor people have many children. Perhaps you should look into what giving birth means to them rather than just assuming they're selfish idiots.
>"And frankly, I'm so sad that you really think that way. In my world, society is meant to support people in need."
And in my world, I have chosen to bear the responsibilities of taking care of the ones I love. Because they are the most important individuals to me, and my morals necessitate that I do not impose my will on others by virtue of the state.
>"Here's the thing: You cannot make sure that you can take care of a child's needs. You might be prepared to support a kid and looking forward to a family of three."
I get the general point you are making. And I fully agree with you. Unforeseen circumstances happen, and they can be unplanned for. However, in my comment I meant more in terms of general care, which is something that is sorely neglected in today's world where we all expect the state to foot the bill. I.e. Food, basic healthcare, education and safety.
I do my best to mitigate all of those. Life insurance, disability insurance, and unusual amounts of saving.
>"Actually, that's the only thing a state is good for. If it cannot provide that, why would you associate yourself with it in the first place"
Agreed. And yet it does not do that. And doubly-so, we are not calling the state out on it (referendum?). Yet we're perfectly content on espousing it as some sort of "ideal" to bash horrible free-thinking individuals with. As far as I am able to, I don't associate myself with the state. But we both know there is no place for us to go "across the border". It's either another state, a war-torn country (Somalia, etc), or inhospitable water.
>Do you want to live in a country where parents have to simply accept the death of their child because they can't afford a treatment?
I want to live in a country where people are responsible. The argument presented basically holds children hostage so the parents can live their lives free of trade offs between lifestyle and health, education, and etc. I fail to see why I should care more about my neighbor's child than my neighbors do.
It's not really that simple. Taking, by force, from Person A to raise Person B's children is complicated especially if you're worried about justness.
reply