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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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 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.
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
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.
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...
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,
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.