patrick.net

New Renter says

Who said anything about eugenics? I'm talking about not encouraging this kind of behavior:

No one is talking eugenics here. Eugenics is pure evil. I'm talking about awareness and tax incentives to not have children. Right now we give tax breaks for having more children for heaven's sake. We need to talk to the Catholic and Mormon church about their policies too. They are great churches, but their more children "more jewels in the crown" ignorance needs to be addressed. Not everyone in those two churches agree with that archaic policy , but are afraid to speak out. It's the last real taboo subject. It would be nice to go about trying to reverse the problem through awareness and incentives now, instead trying to clean up with frightening laws when it's far too late; like China. Want to be India? Act like overpopulation is a fairytale, and sweep it under the rug, and we will be India soon enough.

hrhjuliet says

No one is talking eugenics here. Eugenics is pure evil.

Eugenics itself isn't inherently good or evil, it just is. The way eugenics was practiced in the early to mid part of the last century was based on political ideology and blatant quackery, not real science. The same argument can be made that because the Nazi party was "socialist" then all socialism must be evil.

An argument can be made that American style beauty contests have been a practice of eugenics.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/06/29/beauty-pageants-and-the-misunderstanding-of-evolution-meet-again/
Fun fact:

In organizing their eugenics program the Nazis were inspired by the United States' programs of forced sterilization, especially on the eugenics laws that had been enacted in California.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

(What was that saying about when you point a finger you have three pointing right back at you?)

Like it or not eugenics is still around in the form of genetic counseling and genetic research.

hrhjuliet says

We need to talk to the Catholic and Mormon church about their policies too. They are great churches, but their more children "more jewels in the crown" ignorance needs to be addressed.

Just to have them embrace (dare I say encourage?) birth control would be a huge step forward.

Accepting homosexuality would also be a big step.

New Renter says

hrhjuliet says

We need to talk to the Catholic and Mormon church about their policies too. They are great churches, but their more children "more jewels in the crown" ignorance needs to be addressed.

Just to have them embrace (dare I say encourage?) birth control would be a huge step forward.

Accepting homosexuality would also be a big step.

Exactly.

New Renter says

hrhjuliet says

We need to talk to the Catholic and Mormon church about their policies too. They are great churches, but their more children "more jewels in the crown" ignorance needs to be addressed.

Finally, a way to make use of my Catholic school education... Start with a rebuttal to the papal bull, Donum Vitae. You might get excommunicated, but it's worth a try.

I have to say, though, Nadya Suleman aside, I don't really see many of these big families anymore. At least not in the US.

If you look at population growth in the US, we're barely replacing ourselves. 2013, for example, had stagnant population growth.

A population in decline has its issues, too. Quebec province is a good example of that. At this time, the provincial government is so concerned about its rapidly declining population (and tax base) that its fully funding all reproductive treatments as one way to attract more residents, presumably from other nearby provinces. They are desperate for REs in Montreal and a lot of money is being thrown around to bring in qualified IVF professionals. They are quite serious about this.

Zero population growth should be the goal. When it comes to population, less is more in the long run in every issue you can think of except tax revenue. And when you get down to it, we would spend less taxes if we had less people, especially on fix it programs meant to help the environment or people affected by overpopulation.

turtledove says

I have to say, though, Nadya Suleman aside, I don't really see many of these big families anymore. At least not in the US.

Population is a global issue, not limited to the US. turtledove says

If you look at population growth in the US, we're barely replacing ourselves. 2013, for example, had stagnant population growth.

So what?

turtledove says

A population in decline has its issues, too. Quebec province is a good example of that. At this time, the provincial government is so concerned about its rapidly declining population (and tax base) that its fully funding all reproductive treatments as one way to attract more residents, presumably from other nearby provinces. They are desperate for REs in Montreal and a lot of money is being thrown around to bring in qualified IVF professionals. They are quite serious about this.

So they are right up there with Japan and Russia, nice!

Perhaps we can interest them in Nadya Suleman and her brood.

EDIT: The problem with such fertilization programs is it doesn't address the underlying problem for the fertility drop. In Japan its the workload and xenophobia, in Russia its malaise and culture of alcoholism. If those problems aren't fixed then all you get is mass emigration of those kids to greener pastures and you are just left with more depressed alcoholics.

marcus says

No, they have to work 40 years to get 100%. And in most the country that's about 55K at this point. Sure, in major cities, NY, Chicago, LA, SF top final pay is clser to 75K, and it takes them 10 to twenty years to work up to that level.

Tell that to someone else. My neighbor, retired LAUSD teacher, has a 6 figure pension with healthcare. Great guy, down to earth, didn't whine about housing, just bought where he could afford.

Now on the other hand, I do see some people who have a fit every time they can't buy into Beverly Hills with their 40k salary.

turtledove says

A population in decline has its issues, too. Quebec province is a good example of that. At this time, the provincial government is so concerned about its rapidly declining population (and tax base) that its fully funding all reproductive treatments as one way to attract more residents, presumably from other nearby provinces. They are desperate for REs in Montreal and a lot of money is being thrown around to bring in qualified IVF professionals. They are quite serious about this.

But I remember about 10 some years ago, we were mostly concerned with overcrowding. That has it's problems too. Finite resources, can't really sustain reasonable living standards for everyone. China and India are dirt poor for that reason, they got too many people there.

New Renter says

Population is a global issue, not limited to the US.

Except people in other countries don't pay into our system. If we don't have enough domestic population to replace ourselves, the younger domestic generations will have ever increasing burdens.

turtledove says

New Renter says

Population is a global issue, not limited to the US.

Except people in other countries don't pay into our system. If we don't have enough domestic population to replace ourselves, the younger domestic generations will have ever increasing burdens.

Immigration can take care of that. Immigrants can pay into the system from day one instead of day 6570.

FortWayne says

China and India are dirt poor for that reason, they got too many people there.

And it makes life cheap.

It makes life unbearable for the majority in every historical place of overpopulation. In some over populated areas humans live like abandoned dogs living in their own urine. Keep it up America. Keep having those babies, six to every couple.

New Renter says

Immigration can take care of that. Immigrants can pay into the system from day one instead of day 6570.

Honestly, I don't understand this line of thinking. The feelings that drive people to have children aren't something that can be dictated by a computer. Having children is an incredibly moving experience for many people. What right do we have to deny parenthood to succeeding generations? Do you really think their instinctive desire to feel a child in their arms, or a baby move inside them, is something that can be met by immigration reform?

I get so much joy from my kids. I loved being pregnant. It was the closest thing to spiritual I've ever been. I think you underestimate the depth of feeling attached to it. With respect to the pursuit of happiness, I just don't think it's interchangeable with immigration.

hrhjuliet says

Keep it up America. Keep having those babies, six to every couple.

But this isn't true. Americans are not having six children per couple.

Bubbabear says

Teachers are the symbol of the American middle class: theyre educated, theyre crucial to society, they help mold the future of America.

Your entire premise is wrong. Teachers are everything that's wrong with America. They teach because they couldn't do anything else, and they are just babysitting kids until they can collect fat pensions and drink Mimosas all day on a beach. Teachers should be paid like McDonalds' workers, and live in a trailer in the bad part of town, not get airs they are middle class like a Realtor(tm) or something.

Amidoingitrite?

Vicente says

Amidoingitrite?

Do you know a teacher? I do.
She is probably too moral.
She works many more hours than she is paid.
She truly is shocked at how little some students know.
She tries to make the difference she can.

David9 says

Vicente says

Amidoingitrite?

Do you know a teacher? I do.

She is probably too moral.

She works many more hours than she is paid.

She truly is shocked at how little some students know.

She tries to make the difference she can.

I wanted to be a teacher my whole life. I subjected my younger brothers to games of "school" for many years. Unfortunately for me, I had to depend on corporate sponsorship to fund my post-secondary education... which meant I didn't have much of a say in my area of study. That said, seeing the light go on behind a child's eyes and knowing you had something to do with it is a profound accomplishment. In many cases, teachers provide the parenting that kids aren't getting at home. They deserve more respect than they get.

Unfortunately, people read stories that talk about these staggering pensions. In most cases, it's the administrators, not the teachers, who are benefiting from these rich pensions.

(NR, before you pull up some post where I mention that I grew up with a cardiologist and come to the conclusion that something doesn't add up with how my college was funded, I will clarify right now... They divorced when I was sixteen. Since my mother's job skills were limited to marrying well and he was not my legal father, I was on my own at 18.)

turtledove says

That said, seeing the light go on behind a child's eyes and knowing you had
something to do with it is a profound accomplishment.

Or being told you have made a difference in their life.

turtledove says

New Renter says

Immigration can take care of that. Immigrants can pay into the system from day one instead of day 6570.

Honestly, I don't understand this line of thinking. The feelings that drive people to have children aren't something that can be dictated by a computer. Having children is an incredibly moving experience for many people. What right do we have to deny parenthood to succeeding generations? Do you really think their instinctive desire to feel a child in their arms, or a baby move inside them, is something that can be met by immigration reform?

I get so much joy from my kids. I loved being pregnant. It was the closest thing to spiritual I've ever been. I think you underestimate the depth of feeling attached to it. With respect to the pursuit of happiness, I just don't think it's interchangeable with immigration.

It's not about denying anyone the right to have children, at least not yet. The countries forced into these terrible laws no longer had the luxury to be philosophical about it. That's the trouble, we like having children, but having too many makes the children born into the overpopulated environment a living hell. Like I said, It's the last real taboo subject. It would be nice to go about trying to reverse the problem through awareness and incentives now, instead trying to clean up with frightening laws when it's far too late; like China is forced to. Having children can not be all about the parents pleasure or ego. I am a parent and my concern is the world my great grandchildren will live in, not in my personal pleasure.

BTW, almost the same situation in college fell on my head. My parents even used my college fund to pay their divorce lawyers. My scholarship dictated I study science, but I loved ballet, so I took dance as my second major. So, I understand, people have to know the whole story before they judge.

hrhjuliet says

It's not about denying anyone the right to have children, at least not yet. The country tries forced into these terrible laws no longer had the luxury to be philosophical about it. That's the trouble, we like having children, but having too many makes the children born into the overpopulated environment a living hell. Like I said, It's the last real taboo subject. It would be nice to go about trying to reverse the problem through awareness and incentives now, instead trying to clean up with frightening laws when it's far too late; like China is forced to. Having children can not be all about the parents pleasure or ego. I am a parent, and my concern is the world my great grandchildren will live in, not in my personal pleasure.

But our population growth is stagnant, yet you advocate for people (in the US) having fewer children than they are having now. Are you suggesting this because you want to allow room, here in the US, for global population balancing?

Based on your other posts, you seem rather conservative in, for example, your tax ideology. A population balancing plan seems contrary to some of your very own ideas.

If you aren't advocating population decline for the purposes of population balancing but, rather, to have greater domestic resources then you will run into the problem of seriously burdening the younger generations with the support of the older generations. Again, this seems contrary to what I perceive your economic stance to be.

The burden would not last, but the lasting benefits of open space, a cleaner environment, more resources and better quality of life would. How is this outlook contrary to my former posts?

I would advocate all countries have less children. With medical advancements we may be able to prolong life for twice the expectancy, then what? Move to another planet?

hrhjuliet says

The burden would not last, but the lasting benefits of open space, a cleaner environment, more resources and better quality of life would. How is this outlook contrary to my former posts?

The "jojo" thread about baby boomers, for example. I gathered from your posts that you feel burdened by choices made by the previous generation who now want us, a much smaller generation who is a victim of the mess the baby boomers benefited from, to pay for it. By reducing our productive-people numbers even further, we'd create a similar situation for entirely different reasons. But I doubt those generations of young adults would care why we did it. They won't care that we weren't aiming to hurt them. The impact will hit them, nonetheless.

*** tangent**** Did you ever see a show called "dinosaurs?" It was from a while back. They had "flinging day." On "flinging day," they would toss their old off of a cliff. See, so all kinds of options for population control... (totally kidding.)

It's not a pretty fact, but we most reduce the amount of people. That's never going to be a popular view, but if you look down the road, science, philosophy and prayers won't save us in the end. In about five generations you will be applying to have a third, and then the government is in control. Better to create awareness now and support people who choose not to have children, not give tax breaks to people with children, support gay marriage plus gay parents adopting and give more social support to important roles in a child's life; like aunts, uncles and cousins who choose not to have their own offspring.

hrhjuliet says

I would advocate all countries have less children. With medical advancements we may be able to prolong life for twice the expectancy, then what? Move to another planet?

Believe it or not, in many areas of the world, fertility rates are declining. In some places, quite sharply. Premature ovarian failure is occurring more and more. Sperm counts are going down. My husband would know about this more specifically. If you're interested, I'll ask him to point me in the right direction on Medline for the peer-reviewed stuff.

turtledove says

he "jojo" thread about baby boomers, for example. I gathered from your posts that you feel burdened by choices made by the previous generation who now want us, a much smaller generation who is a victim of the mess the baby boomers benefited from, to pay for it. By reducing our productive-people numbers even further, we'd create a similar situation for entirely different reasons. But I doubt those generations of young adults would care why we did it. They won't care that we weren't aiming to hurt them. The impact will hit them, nonetheless.

I disagree. We would be ensuring a better future for the next generations, not burdening them. Productive people is relative. Part of the reason that there is so much unemployment is that we are making our personal productivity as humans obsolete. There will not be enough jobs for everyone, or enough space. Also, the planet can run out of resources. We could even hit mass food shortages long before that.

turtledove says

hrhjuliet says

I would advocate all countries have less children. With medical advancements we may be able to prolong life for twice the expectancy, then what? Move to another planet?

Believe it or not, in many areas of the world, fertility rates are declining. In some places, quite sharply. Premature ovarian failure is occurring more and more. Sperm counts are going down. My husband would know about this more specifically. If you're interested, I'll ask him to point me in the right direction on Medline for the peer-reviewed stuff.

Most people already know about this, and I believe it's for the good of the future. See above post. I know it's a horrible truth, and I hate that we have come this far, but the truth just the same. There will be hard choices to make in the next few generations, but we must do what is right for the generations we will never even set eyes on.

turtledove says

New Renter says

Immigration can take care of that. Immigrants can pay into the system from day one instead of day 6570.

Honestly, I don't understand this line of thinking. The feelings that drive people to have children aren't something that can be dictated by a computer. Having children is an incredibly moving experience for many people. What right do we have to deny parenthood to succeeding generations? Do you really think their instinctive desire to feel a child in their arms, or a baby move inside them, is something that can be met by immigration reform?

I get so much joy from my kids. I loved being pregnant. It was the closest thing to spiritual I've ever been. I think you underestimate the depth of feeling attached to it. With respect to the pursuit of happiness, I just don't think it's interchangeable with immigration.

Its simple, you have a choice:

1) Have a lot of kids with most dying before they reach puberty. (as was true for most of human history)

2) Die yourself at a relatively younger age (e.g. Logan's run)

3) Have just enough kids to keep the population steady and enforce laws stating such. (e.g. China)

4) War. (e.g. again most of human history)

5) Move to less desirable locales (e.g. Alaska, Siberia, Antarctica, Sahara)

This is not emotion, just math. If you don't wan to deny procreation to others don't have more than a replacement number of children yourself.

turtledove says

Believe it or not, in many areas of the world, fertility rates are declining. In some places, quite sharply. Premature ovarian failure is occurring more and more. Sperm counts are going down. My husband would know about this more specifically. If you're interested, I'll ask him to point me in the right direction on Medline for the peer-reviewed stuff.

That may be but the OVERALL population is still growing and that is what matters.
turtledove says

(NR, before you pull up some post where I mention that I grew up with a cardiologist and come to the conclusion that something doesn't add up with how my college was funded, I will clarify right now... They divorced when I was sixteen. Since my mother's job skills were limited to marrying well and he was not my legal father, I was on my own at 18.)

Furthest thing from my mind. I know a few people who grew up in privileged homes but life took an altogether different course. When we have that brownie party I'll tell you about a few.

New Renter says

The kids I knew who went to Bellarmine, a very expensive private Jesuit college prep school did not turn out well.

Bellarmine is not "expensive" relative to other area private schools, which is typical of area religious private schools. It's half the price of College Prep. It is probably slightly more expensive than private schools in certain other cities, but the top private schools in the Bay Area are significantly more expensive than private schools in many other cities. It's also all-male, which also confounds things.

hrhjuliet says

Our worst and most threatening problem, and yet the biggest taboo to talk about. There is not one issue at the root of more problems, and yet people are usually so defensive I never hear it discussed.

This is a very good point. A lot of people are shitty parents. There is also a huge cultural divide between low income/low education people and high income/high education people regarding marriage and kids.

Low SES/low education people tend to think of kids having nothing to do with getting married. Marriage is for when you're "settled down," and kids don't require you to be "settled down." Kids are not seen as something that could be an impediment to living your life and doing what you want.

High SES/high education people tend to think of the two as correlated. Marriage is generally what you do to have kids. Kids are seen as a responsibility, and properly raising them requires you to cut back a bit on wantonly doing what you want and putting in the effort.

In addition, the latter group tends to get married later, tends to get married in higher numbers now, and tends to have fewer kids, and tends to be older when they have those kids. All of this means that the kids are better off, and often in 2-parent families where both parents are working, so the families also tend to be higher income. The trend only seems to be accelerating, and there is a racial divide here too.

corntrollio says

New Renter says

The kids I knew who went to Bellarmine, a very expensive private Jesuit college prep school did not turn out well.

Bellarmine is not "expensive" relative to other area private schools, which is typical of area religious private schools. It's half the price of College Prep. It is probably slightly more expensive than private schools in certain other cities, but the top private schools in the Bay Area are significantly more expensive than private schools in many other cities. It's also all-male, which also confounds things.

Bellermine IS a college prep:

http://www.bcp.org/

This was also over 25 years ago. I did not say it was a top school, just very expensive. Of course I was comparing it to public schools and ANY private school is going to be very expensive compared to those.

New Renter says

Eugenics itself isn't inherently good or evil, it just is.

Yes. A saner form of eugenics might be something more along the lines of attenuating for disadvantageous genes or genetic mutations. Think anti-dysgenics.

Of course, then we lose our Stephen Hawkings. Scratch that!

New Renter says

Bellermine IS a college prep:

That's not what I meant. Bellarmine is $17,475/year and is not that expensive compared to several top Bay Area non-religious schools:

http://www.bcp.org/admissions/tuition-and-financial-aid/index.aspx

College Prep is $35,410/year:

http://www.college-prep.org/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.aspx

Head Royce is $35,455/year for high school (cheaper for elementary/middle):

http://www.headroyce.org/page.cfm?p=2261

Athenian is $33,516/year for high school (cheaper for middle):

http://www.athenian.org/tuition-financial-aid

Menlo School is $37,850/year:

https://www.menloschool.org/admissions/tuition-and-financial-aid.php

If you think Bellarmine is expensive for the Bay Area, you don't know expensive.

In any case, hard to compare all-boys Jesuit to other schools -- it's a confounding factor.

JodyChunder says

New Renter says

Eugenics itself isn't inherently good or evil, it just is.

Yes. A saner form of eugenics might be something more along the lines of attenuating for disadvantageous genes or genetic mutations. Think anti-dysgenics.

Of course, then we lose our Stephen Hawkings. Scratch that!

ALS did not make Hawkings a genius, it just imprisoned him to a wheelchair. Screening is just the first step, the second will be genetic repair. Over time this will maximize any potential benefits and minimize detriments. Think sickle cell anemia - have one affected chromosome and you have some protection against malaria but have both chromosomes and you're screwed. Nature decided this was a worthy tradeoff. I think we can do better.

corntrollio says

New Renter says

Bellermine IS a college prep:

That's not what I meant.

So you meant a brand name, not the definition. Got it

I never said it was the most expensive, nor the best. I just pointed out that buying your kid an expensive-compared-to-a-perfectly-good-public-school does not buy success.

corntrollio says

Bellarmine is $17,475/year

corntrollio says

If you think Bellarmine is expensive for the Bay Area, you don't know expensive.

I've paid more for daycare than that.

New Renter says

ALS did not make Hawkings a genius, it just imprisoned him to a wheelchair.

Just for interest: Hawking's wife's autobiography and a book out called "When the Body Says No" make a pretty good case for his ALS being a crucial part of genius. Given his personality and history before the extreme onset of the disease, people close to him described the ALS as giving him permission to live in his head. Both are very interesting reads.

hrhjuliet says

New Renter says

ALS did not make Hawkings a genius, it just imprisoned him to a wheelchair.

Just for interest: Hawking's wife's autobiography and a book out called "When the Body Says No" make a pretty good case for his ALS being a crucial part of genius. Given his personality and history before the extreme onset of the disease, people close to him described the ALS as giving him permission to live in his head. Both are very interesting reads.

Interesting, just as Einstein's job at the patent office gave him little else to do but develop his theories:

https://www.ige.ch/en/about-us/einstein/einstein-at-the-patent-office.html

ALS seems a bit extreme though, maybe Hawking would have done just as well in a well paid but otherwise under demanding job.

I would have thought that too, especially being a former professional ballet dancer; I can't imagine wanting to live without the use of my body. I'm not sure I have the strength for ALS, and I have a scientific mind, and it still seems like hell. On the other hand, hearing about his life and how he saw life and bodily functions as a burden, it starts to make a little sense. The book was a pretty interesting read all around. It's not a page turner like Brian Greene or Orson Scott Card, but it's fascinating just the same. (:

hrhjuliet says

I would have thought that too, especially being a former professional ballet dancer; I can't imagine wanting to live without the use of my body. I'm not sure I have the strength for ALS, and I have a scientific mind, and it still seems like hell. On the other hand, hearing about his life and how he saw life and bodily functions as a burden, it starts to make a little sense. The book was a pretty interesting read all around. It's not a page turner like Brian Greene or Orson Scott Card, but it's fascinating just the same. (:

Makes one wonder how many Einsteins and Hawkings we have waiting just to be discovered in our penal system...

Oh dear, that's funny...and not at all funny at the same time.