The Latest Thing: Saving the World by . . . Having a Lot of Kids?

12 kids, that just about $100,000 a year in extra govt handouts in FL. Cha-Ching!

 

They used to call them "Catholics."

 

When my newlywed and I held our post-wedding celebrations in Taiwan, all the family and dignitaries who spoke mentioned the importance that we have many children, as doing so would contribute to the community. The Taiwanese might have been out in front of the population lag, which I hear about much in the education world.

With decreased birthrates in the U.S. (is it similar in other high devel nations?), P12 and postsecondary funding will be at increasing risk in the years to come. As chemgator notes, global resources are finite, so a little "downsizing" might not be an overall bad thing. In the relatively short term, though, certain industries will suffer and suffer big. Small universities have been shutting their doors. I bet the number of universities in the U.S. will reach a point to where there are half compared to the number in today's existence.

 

And that would still be more than the number of legit colleges. Higher education is too much of a racket

 

I'd rather humanity go extinct than go through the teen years another 10 times. Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.

 

You know chem, I’ve learned there is a very interesting debate on overpopulation among scholars. One group views people as consumers of resources and therefore, like you, sees a smaller population as ideal. The other side views people as producers of resources and therefore sees a larger population as ideal.

It might sound strange that people can be producers of resources, but ideas can be powerful commodities. Indeed, the view of this second group has been vindicated in several arenas. Eg I think about my grandparents’ tomato farm in New Jersey, which they sold in the 50s. Back then, Jersey was just covered with farms, hence the “Garden State”. Going to the suburban site of their farm today, you’d never know it was there. And this is the story all over, farms converted to neighborhoods, suggesting that we are growing less food but have more mouths to feed. And yet, Publix never runs out of tomatoes.

Indeed, ideas are at the center of all the problems we face, from education to inflation to climate change. This isn’t to say that ideas must always win. The real question is this: As population size increases, does the rate of increase in intellectual capital outpace the rate of decrease of natural resources? I am not sure, but the idea people have a better argument than it seems at first blush. After all, asking the people of 1900 to predict and solve the problems we have today would be a comical enterprise, and the people of 2150 would probably think the same of us trying to solve their problems.

 

There are too many things in life that are out of balance, debates that are owned by a tyranny of the majority dictated by dominant genetic traits and tribal instincts rather than yin to the yang. Introverts are weird. Be fruitful and multiply, dammit! Sustaining just will not do. Sure government is full of corrupt scumbags, but the idea of them actually planning something evil is unthinkable.

I give you anti-natalism.

The Case for Not Being Born

 

Elon Musk is really into this

 

The Malthusian overpopulation fear is clearly bunk, and 'we' probably do need to have more children for a number of reasons, but the incentives are not there for people economically or socially in many cases. Low birthrates incentivize a bunch of stuff people obviously fear for dubious or legitimate reasons, whether its increased immigration or automation. In general though a "younger" society has more reason to fight for the future it wants. Look around at the politics of old people railing against the dying of the light.

 

Once all wage and hour laws are overturned by the GOP, they want cheap labor for their 7-days a week sweatshops. Once the low paid immigrants are shipped out, Kinsley and Justin from the lower classes will be up hammering shingles on roofs and working in the country club kitchens for 14 hours a day.

 

Had not heard of this group per se but I had heard of the Quiverfull people who base their philosophy of producing large families on biblical scripture. I’m certain i dont have what it takes to raise that many kids - or arrows for the Lord as they might say.

Quiverfull - Wikipedia
Quiverfull is a Christian theological position that sees large families as a blessing from God.[1][2][3] It encourages procreation, abstaining from all forms of birth control, natural family planning, and sterilization reversal.[4] The movement derives its name from Psalm 127:3–5, where many children are metaphorically referred to as the arrows in a full quiver.

Some sources have referred to the Quiverfull position as providentialism,[5] while other sources have simply referred to it as a manifestation of natalism.[6][7]

 

We have some Quiverfull extended family. They look down on us for being selfish and only having five kids. Interesting times.

 

Heck. My oldest turned 20, but for a minute I had 3 teenagers at the same time.

I dont want one nore teenager at the moment, much less 10.

 

Three teenagers at once is bad mental health planning my friend. My youngest is currently employed by some Soros-like figure testing our limits of sanity for scienctific purposes and laughs.

 

It was only 6 months (that we had 3), although the 20 year old is living back home for the summer and is getting an apartment just down the street so I have a feeling we will still be feeding her often. She has started to outgrow the teenage drama though.