It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Italy, the latest country to enter era of human extinction

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: stirling
Oh great .................we are going extinct because why....we cant afford to reproduce.......pretty lame excuse...


Lame excuse, but it is the reality of what has happened and is happening.

Look at it from the primary reproducer: females ... just as a female completes her education ... her career trajectory is hampered by having a child ... she gets little to no sleep for 5 months to a year at a minimum, ... grandparents often do not live close enough to give emotional or physical support ... the cost of having a child is very very high immediately ... day care center which is high quality is well over $1000 per month per child ... there is great fear among my daughters friends of the state ... Add up all of this in the early years, and why on earth would a woman want to double or triple or more the hassle, the economic impact, the emotional and physical toll, and fear of persecution by the state?


This is not only a female issue.

There are plenty of males such as myself who raised their children on their own for one reason or another.

In some ways, it could be even harder for males since we are not expected to miss work, mandatory child support not being enforced, not letting your daughter have overnight company because of fear someone may say something triggering a CPS investigation, etc.

Out of 100 people in my office, there are three of us who have raised our children that are now over 18 that did not receive the mandatory child support and experienced extreme basis for missing work to take care of our children.




posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DMFL1133

Excellent reply. You are correct, the male of the human species no longer has any reason at all to reproduce. Except for ego, which once they take on the role of a real man who takes responsibility for his children, tends to quash reproduction for ego issues.

Also, it is rare for a man to have a business to pass on to an heir, and little need for heirs or associates in a family owned business. Those are going the way of the dinosaur.

There is no longer a real reason for the modern male to reproduce, the cost is much steeper than the benefit to the male.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
fertility rates drop but not for everyone we started as a few what is the difference population increased because people live longer our population is blown up because of that, fertility rates will drop with more oldies floating about

why is everything always a problem either oh no too many people or oh know we are declining its not a problem ,also as stated earlier people are choosing not to have children the poor and unhealthy seem to be breeding fine i refer to the movie idiocracy
99% of statistics are bs too many variables and assumptions.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

i agree with you but you seem to think only women want children for the reason of having a child and men for ego or a trophy which is not true we want kids for many reasons believe it or not men have a maternal instinct also and some women do not



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMAMOG

There are many men with good "maternal"instincts, my son-in-law is one, he is a wonderful father.

However,

the reality is that by the time a child graduates high school over 75% of black children, and close to 50% of the rest of the children will have spent most of their lives without a father in the home.

Most of the children in the US are being taught by example that a father is simply a sperm donor who moves on once the children are born.

This teaches males that men only have children for the sake of saying their sperm made it to an egg and penetrated, ie their ego.


This is the message we are giving the majority of children in the US and in most developed countries and more and more in developing countries. It has become the human species message. Which does not bode well for the human species because it puts too much burden on the female whose reproductive urges can then be met by only having one child because the economic, emotional and physical toll is quite burdensome alone.

Also true that there are women with no reproductive urge. However, since men can not have babies, it is still incumbent on the female to have at least 2 children to stop eventual human extinction. This has been compensated for in the past with large families. Once the population begins its decline in less than 50 years, women having only one child or no children will begin to be a problem. No matter how nurturing and "maternal" men are. Women are still the only way to obtain children, at least for now.

In the current socio-economic climate, it has become quite difficult for women to bear more than one child, no matter how nurturing she is, and beyond 2 children nearly impossible for the majority of women who are left to raise children without extended family support, physical and emotional support from the father, and financial support because one average american salary is not enough to raise 2 children alone with daycare costs, etc.

So with current trends socio-economically, the human race is headed toward extinction. Children are becoming expensive and time consuming luxuries, now that they can be prevented from being born quite easily at all stages of pregnancy and prior to pregnancy. (again no judgement here, just unemotional fact)



edit on 8Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:01:35 -0600am21502amk150 by grandmakdw because: addition format



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

burden on the female lol courts favour women ,society favours women! ownership is never 50/50 the father is absent because the courts throw them out and and bleed them dry they have visiting rights which are mandated by the women whilst she sits at home looking after the kid poor old dad is flogging himself for a kid who he never sees

what is the incentive for men ?
oh thats right bragging rights to say our sperm got to an egg ! motives are varied but imo women know they have all the cards and have no respect or tolerance for the man and dispose of them willy nilly thats why more than half dads are not around, more than half mums are bullies.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

This is a self-correcting issue. If the population drops too low, the population will increase the birth rate. Right now there is a surplus of people without the jobs to fill them. Parents are probably not wanting to bring too many children into that mix. Such is the effect of economic uncertainty.

When enough of the population has died off and our labor market stabilizes THEN the birth rate will go up again. Strangely, we can apply the laws of supply and demand and see why your OP is what it is.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grandmakdw

This is a self-correcting issue. If the population drops too low, the population will increase the birth rate. Right now there is a surplus of people without the jobs to fill them. Parents are probably not wanting to bring too many children into that mix. Such is the effect of economic uncertainty.

When enough of the population has died off and our labor market stabilizes THEN the birth rate will go up again. Strangely, we can apply the laws of supply and demand and see why your OP is what it is.


I disagree, as long as having a child is a net liability all the way around, it will not self correct. Right now as it stands, having a child is an economic liability and extreme economic liability, a physical liability - in "ruining" a woman's body, in the lack of sleep, in the lack of energy the first years demand, a psychological liability where the parents must be constantly on-guard that the state will not choose to take the child away.

WIth the modernization on the march, there will not come a time when children will be an asset to the individual rather than a net liability. Now, society as a whole may begin a mass breeding program once babies can be totally grown outside the womb. But I don't foresee women choosing to have more babies on their own, unless we return to an agrarian society or the state forbids contraception and abortion (not going to happen)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMAMOG
a reply to: grandmakdw

burden on the female lol courts favour women ,society favours women! ownership is never 50/50 the father is absent because the courts throw them out and and bleed them dry they have visiting rights which are mandated by the women whilst she sits at home looking after the kid poor old dad is flogging himself for a kid who he never sees

what is the incentive for men ?
oh thats right bragging rights to say our sperm got to an egg ! motives are varied but imo women know they have all the cards and have no respect or tolerance for the man and dispose of them willy nilly thats why more than half dads are not around, more than half mums are bullies.


You are correct in all of your assertions, except for the more than half the mums are bullies. That is your exasperation and frustration talking.

If men had equal rights to the children, far fewer children would live in poverty than do now. In modern society you are correct that women are not better suited to raise children than men. That is one change that is way too slow to come.

Keep fighting for men's rights. Hope you have joined a group that fights for mens rights.

However, that said, in the current society, 75% of black men and nearly 50% of white men are raised to believe that a father is not necessary due to what courts and welfare have done to the family. These men are the majority and have never been taught to be nurturing or to value fatherhood. Leaving an unfair and unjust to all burden of raising children on women.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I disagree, as long as having a child is a net liability all the way around, it will not self correct. Right now as it stands, having a child is an economic liability and extreme economic liability, a physical liability - in "ruining" a woman's body, in the lack of sleep, in the lack of energy the first years demand, a psychological liability where the parents must be constantly on-guard that the state will not choose to take the child away.

WIth the modernization on the march, there will not come a time when children will be an asset to the individual rather than a net liability. Now, society as a whole may begin a mass breeding program once babies can be totally grown outside the womb. But I don't foresee women choosing to have more babies on their own, unless we return to an agrarian society or the state forbids contraception and abortion (not going to happen)


Again this is all a result of cost/benefit analysis. It isn't economically viable to have tons of kids right now because incomes are too low too support a 1st world lifestyle with tons of kids. This is due to the overabundance of the supply of labor. As people die off, and the birth rate stays down, the population decreases and the labor supply drops. This raises the price of labor, and it will keep raising until the birth rate goes back up.

Think about all the things that go into raising child. All of those things are costs. If you have a woman has the money to afford another child, they WILL have the child. As it stands now, the cost is too high versus the woman/couple's income. The family needs more income, it's just that simple.

It is simple economics here. The cost of children is too high, because the cost of labor is too cheap. Our population NEEDS to shrink to stabilize this market. Hence the self-correction. The rest of you post is a slippery slope fallacy.

One more thing, maybe this shrinking population issue will finally help correct our adoption problem.
edit on 16-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


While I disagree with you on some points.

I agree that the population needs to shrink, but no because of environmental reasons or because humans are a blight on the earth.

WIth the age of robotics upon us, there will be far fewer jobs for humans to do, at an accelerated pace. In the coming hundred plus years, robots will take over the vast majority of jobs that humans do, leaving more and more unemployed.

However, by the time more humans are needed we will have thoroughly condition people against having children.

We have been as a global community raising the stakes on having children and publicizing the joys of being childless and encourage total self absorption (just look around at everyone staring at a device and ignoring other humans). Robots will take the place of human companionship, and mass marketing will encourage it to a point where people will not desire the imperfect relationship with another human being.

I really do foresee the end of the human era, not within my lifetime or my grandchildren's lifetime, but soon in global terms.

We have thoroughly convinced each other that humans are a blight on the earth through extreme environmentalist and eventual extinction will be seen as a good thing.

We have also been convincing, and quite well, people of the high emotional, physical, and psychological toll that children take. Just ask a parent of a 6 month old with colic.

There will in my opinion, of necessity, come a time when robots will be raising and caring for the few humans they or the humans left alive need or want.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I started this thread to debunk the overpopulation myth.

I don't disagree that the population by necessity must shrink, but not for the reasons the overpopulation people do.

I also see human extinction as inevitable in global terms. I'm not making a judgement here, just looking ahead and see it will happen eventually.


I think it will happen because robotics will take away jobs
and the coming glut of jobs you forsee will never happen
eventually robots will be capable of doing nearly any job
a human can do and at much lower cost.

Humans will be conditioned, it has already started,
to see children as too high of an overall cost
to indulge oneself in more than 1 child per couple.

That is one reason I see the joys of homosexuality
being pushed in the media
an attempt to lower the population even faster
(no judgement at all on homosexuality here, so don't read any into it
but every TV show and movie has a gay couple in it who are far
happier than the heterosexuals)

That is also the reason that society has disenfranchised the males from their children
making it quite difficult for males to gain custody of children
even if they are economically better able to care for the children
and making it impossible to get assistance for raising a child if there is a male in the home.

Population will decrease, by necessity
but will never increase because
of all of the mental conditioning
that is going on -
and because automation
and robotics will due away
with 99% of all jobs.






edit on 9Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:34:32 -0600am21602amk161 by grandmakdw because: addition format



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

This is a big slippery slope fallacy. For one stupid people will always exist, and stupid people don't listen to cultural norms or use things like birth control because they aren't smart enough to always think through the repercussions of their actions. With a population of 360 million in the US, I think it is a little early to worry about human extinction even if the birth rate is low. For all you know, you are overreacting to a correction like I elaborated on. Instead you jump on the slippery slope that this is the beginning of the end for us.

While I agree that humanity will eventually disappear from our planet, I believe that it is more likely that this will be because we will combine with technology.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I started this thread to debunk the overpopulation myth.

I don't disagree that the population by necessity must shrink, but not for the reasons the overpopulation people do.

I also see human extinction as inevitable in global terms. I'm not making a judgement here, just looking ahead and see it will happen eventually.


I agree that overpopulation is a myth. I am aware that you could fit the entire population of the world comfortably in the state of Texas. I also agree that human extinction is inevitable. Nothing lasts forever, even matter. But linking these two certainties together with today's social issues doesn't mean that we are headed in that direction soon.


I think it will happen because robotics will take away jobs
and the coming glut of jobs you forsee will never happen
eventually robots will be capable of doing nearly any job
a human can do and at much lower cost.

Humans will be conditioned, it has already started,
to see children as too high of an overall cost
to indulge oneself in more than 1 child per couple.

That is one reason I see the joys of homosexuality
being pushed in the media
an attempt to lower the population even faster
(no judgement at all on homosexuality here, so don't read any into it
but every TV show and movie has a gay couple in it who are far
happier than the heterosexuals)

That is also the reason that society has disenfranchised the males from their children
making it quite difficult for males to gain custody of children
even if they are economically better able to care for the children
and making it impossible to get assistance for raising a child if there is a male in the home.

Population will decrease, by necessity
but will never increase because
of all of the mental conditioning
that is going on -
and because automation
and robotics will due away
with 99% of all jobs.


You know what is going to throw a monkey wrench into your prediction? When we colonize space. Once we can move into space, spread out further, and take our needed resources from dead bodies in space instead of living things, humanity will surge back.

Also again, you aren't thinking about how humans are slowly going to combine with technology. Evolution is a strange thing and adding technology to the mix is going to make it MUCH more efficient.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then we actually agree in the end

human extinction is inevitable in global terms

due to technological advances



We just need to stop pretending there is an overpopulation problem

and acknowledge the depopulation

and attempt manage it so it will cause the least harm to the remaining humans, as long as there are humans.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then we actually agree in the end

human extinction is inevitable in global terms

due to technological advances


No I agree that human extinction is inevitable, but I don't make predictions on what will cause it.



We just need to stop pretending there is an overpopulation problem


Keep in mind, there may not be an overpopulation problem per say, but there is CERTAINLY a dwindling resource problem.


and acknowledge the depopulation

and attempt manage it so it will cause the least harm to the remaining humans, as long as there are humans.


Depopulation doesn't harm the remaining humans... It only harms potential humans.
edit on 16-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I don't think there is a dwindling resource problem at all, that is what the overpopulationists claim,

in actuality with the start of depopulation

the resources will outlast human beings.

Accessing the resources, ie food, may be more difficult with the dwindling numbers of humans, but actual resources will
be there.

There will be no potential humans, humans who are not born are not a factor in being harmed.



edit on 9Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:49:36 -0600am21602amk161 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Krazysh0t


While I disagree with you on some points.

I agree that the population needs to shrink, but no because of environmental reasons or because humans are a blight on the earth.

WIth the age of robotics upon us, there will be far fewer jobs for humans to do, at an accelerated pace. In the coming hundred plus years, robots will take over the vast majority of jobs that humans do, leaving more and more unemployed.

However, by the time more humans are needed we will have thoroughly condition people against having children.

We have been as a global community raising the stakes on having children and publicizing the joys of being childless and encourage total self absorption (just look around at everyone staring at a device and ignoring other humans). Robots will take the place of human companionship, and mass marketing will encourage it to a point where people will not desire the imperfect relationship with another human being.

I really do foresee the end of the human era, not within my lifetime or my grandchildren's lifetime, but soon in global terms.

We have thoroughly convinced each other that humans are a blight on the earth through extreme environmentalist and eventual extinction will be seen as a good thing.

We have also been convincing, and quite well, people of the high emotional, physical, and psychological toll that children take. Just ask a parent of a 6 month old with colic.

There will in my opinion, of necessity, come a time when robots will be raising and caring for the few humans they or the humans left alive need or want.




I would love to see a robot thread a needle, weed a garden, tie a shoelace, paint a window frame, re wire a car, check a spark plug, change a fuse in a plug, change a bicycle inner tube, put a patch on my fishing waders, lay a tile paturn, lay a table, cook a three course meal...



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMAMOG

This is an absolute load of woman hating tosh.
The reason children are brought up without fathers is because men walk away.
Only in a minority of cases is it because a woman prevents a man from seeing his children
It just doesnt make sense, why would you want to shoulder the entire burden of raising kids when you could share it with the father so you can have some free time.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I don't think there is a dwindling resource problem at all, that is what the overpopulationists claim,


There is always a dwindling resource problem. Resources aren't infinite. The problem MAY be overstated, but it certainly IS dwindling and will bottom out eventually.


in actuality with the start of depopulation

the resources will outlast human beings.


Got any mathematical models or sources to corroborate this, or is this blind conjecture?


Accessing the resources, ie food, may be more difficult with the dwindling numbers of humans, but actual resources will
be there.


Why? What makes you say this?


There will be no potential humans, humans who are not born are not a factor in being harmed.


In that case, no one is harmed from a dwindling population.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join