In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
nope i am considering trying to be consistent in estimation of the value of human life. And yes bot having future lives is not different from present lives ending.People who claim it is very important to protect current people alive (to the point that mandating hard sacrificies to others is correct) but then write that having fewer people around is good are in complete cognitiv
I think this is completely wrong. We should give some consideration to the quality of life for future people, but people who never come into existence can suffer no harm.
Personally though, I don't think it is important to "keep people alive" but without a pretty good quality of life. I think humanity would have been better off in the long run if Covid had just been allowed to take its natural course. It could have gone around the world very quickly and then die out, instead of gradually mutating so it eventually gets less severe but lasts forever.
And if there are fewer younger people available to provide healthcare to everyone in the future, I have absolutely no problem with healthcare rationing based on age and quality of life. No more expensive cancer treatments that allow an 84 year old to live another two years of mostly being sick. No extraordinary measures taken to save the lives of people over some cutoff age, like is now done for some people with a living will. That reminds me, I should really get myself one of those.
It's almost impossible for less people to be good. It could be "still ok" under the working age pop. not decreasing idea, but it would still be worse.Aside from the existence of economies of scale on the production side (which alone make it fairly impossible for life to be better in 5 billion people v 10 billion, as real unit production costs increase meaningfully), there are e
I’m just leaving open the possibility for some hypothetical situation, I don’t think we need to take the possibility that seriously.
nope i am considering trying to be consistent in estimation of the value of human life. And yes not having future lives is not different from present lives ending.People who claim it is very important to protect current people alive (to the point that mandating hard sacrificies to others is correct) but then write that having fewer people around is good are in complete cognitiv
How do you estimate your own life, seeing as how you contribute the square root of fukk all?
how are you paying for pensions and healthcare of old people given the current system, if very few new people are born?people who paid taxes for decades are worried they won't get their money back. People who like a cospicuous welfare state to exist to help elders are worried because it becomes impossible to have one.people who think high public debt is a problem are worried be
Technology
Just implement UBI or whatever. This boogeyman of “less fertility” isn’t scary in the slightest. Society can adjust to whatever it needs to if we simply let go of the idea that the solution must be profitable. We can find the money for a million other things, surely we can find it for sustaining a lower population count. It’s stupid to pretend that we NEED the population to sta
This.
nope i am considering trying to be consistent in estimation of the value of human life. And yes not having future lives is not different from present lives ending.People who claim it is very important to protect current people alive (to the point that mandating hard sacrificies to others is correct) but then write that having fewer people around is good are in complete cognitiv
Stop it .
U don’t value human much .
You are one of the most bloodthirsty people I ever met , ready to kill anyone without much reasons .
FWIW , the amount of people you wish to see dead and yet claim we need the population to grow is quite a paradox .
I’m surprised you don’t say a planet with 5 billions productive people is better then a planet with 5 billions productive people and 3 billions useless people ….
Ps: less people -> less ressources are needed.
Stop it .U don’t value human much .You are one of the most bloodthirsty people I ever met , ready to kill anyone without much reasons .FWIW , the amount of people you wish to see dead and yet claim we need the population to grow is quite a paradox .I’m surprised you don’t say a planet with 5 billions productive people is better then a planet with 5 billions productive people an
Looks like you all want to see some people dead.
Just implement UBI or whatever. This boogeyman of “less fertility” isn’t scary in the slightest. Society can adjust to whatever it needs to if we simply let go of the idea that the solution must be profitable. We can find the money for a million other things, surely we can find it for sustaining a lower population count. It’s stupid to pretend that we NEED the population to sta
Given that the USA is heading toward bankruptcy anyway, I see no problem with a $50K annual UBI per adult. Everybody will have money for a few years until the government goes busto.
And what must be done?
Make motherhood more compatible with modern life for educated, working, autonomous women. And that doesn’t happen by further limiting women’s freedoms.
Jal made the most obvious suggestion regarding subsidized child care. If society values a higher fertility rate, then society needs to catch up and ****ing help.
GDP: $30T
National Debt: $37T
A proverbial ticking time-bomb.
What's the evidence against bankruptcy?
Well the evidence against bankruptcy is that it we can't go bankrupt because the US literally issues its own currency. But obviously printing more than it takes in will lead to a whole host of issues. The ratio is high but it was worse during covid, even after Trump's record spending this year.
...I checked, its at 119% right now. Peaked at 132% in 2020. THat's what is was during WW2. Expected range by 2035 is 94%-134% (who the hell knows how they figure that one out)
...Japan is like 250% and it really doesn't matter.
I'm not here to quell your thoughts on the coming apocalypse but that particular time bomb has been ticking since before you were born. Your ticker, and mine, will likely explode well before this one does - and likely sooner if you fret over it.
This is why the right is correct (politically, not on principle) when it bans lab meat
Progressives have this tendency to go from making things “optional” to requiring them under penalty of law. As a result, Conservatives are preemptively banning things they know the Progressive Left would love to mandate if they ever had the chance to do so.
For example, 89% of Ivy League grads want to strictly ration gas, meat, and electricity to fight climate change. Conservatives look at this and correctly deduce that these people will eventually mandate lab grown meat as a substitute for regular meat if they ever have the ability to legally force this on normal people.
https://x.com/ChristianHeiens/status/196...
/
So the basic idea is our political enemies are immoral monsters hellbent on using violence against us, and in favor of their own political goals, every time they can. STARTING FROM THAT, pragmatism requires to do a lot of stuff that under basic rightwing pro freedom principles you woulnd't want to do, because you are under constant threat of violence by the opposing side.
If banning lab meat in several states delays lab meat development (because of reducing markets, harder financing and so on), it makes it harder for the left to mandate it (or to make real meat prohibitive in cost through regulatory violence) when they have the power to do it.
Basically in politics when you are in an existential fight against enemies that hate you and your values, and who you know will use and abuse power every time they can against you, you have to act differently than you would if those enemies didn't exist.
That's survival 101 and an actual working theory of power. And yes the other principles do take the back seat, because the overaching principle is to survive against your enemies, then you can discuss the rest.
Well the evidence against bankruptcy is that it we can't go bankrupt because the US literally issues its own currency. But obviously printing more than it takes in will lead to a whole host of issues. The ratio is high but it was worse during covid, even after Trump's record spending this year....I checked, its at 119% right now. Peaked at 132% in 2020. THat's what is was d
Should use held by the public (which is lower), the actual nominal debt is completly irrelevant outside of debt ceiling technical considerations. There is a portion of federal debt which is owned by other branches of gvmnt basically, that's not "debt" in any actual sense other than technically.
This is the current situation
So the stock of debt while high, isn't particularly problematic and plenty of places have higher amounts and can survive them.
Problem is the trend is terrible. You are setup to shot in debt as a % of gdp dramatically at every crisis, because you don't reduce it after a crisis. When things go decently (like currently) well debt as a % of gdp should decrease several points per year.
That's to make room for inevitable increases with crisis. If you run a 5%+ deficit when things go well it means that in a crisis you run 10%+ potentially for multiple years, and that's while nominal gdp grows less (because of the crisis) or even goes down.
That's terrible.
And also, the trend in expenses is just that they will grow higher than revenue structurally (because of old age entitlements mostly) and that's even worse.
So while bankruptcy isn't on the map any time soon, growing significant problems linked to a very deteriorated fiscal position will cause meaningful decreases in the quality of life (they already do). Rates for example currenlty are higher than they would otherwise be if the USA had to spend far less in interest payments (because it would mean lower deficits which would mean lower inflation which would have allowed quicker rate reductions)
meanwhile in california
If banning lab meat in several states delays lab meat development (because of reducing markets, harder financing and so on), it makes it harder for the left to mandate it (or to make real meat prohibitive in cost through regulatory violence) when they have the power to do it.
Given Islam is currently the sacred cow of the progressive left, occupying the highest spot on the grievance pyramid; I dont really see the banning meat thing happening, as Muslims will not allow it and the left will bend to their will.
As our Muslim population increases and their demands increase, more likely we just make all meat Halal and start banning pork like UK is doing. And even though Halal slaughter isn't particularly humane (neither is our factory farming, so I am not going to take any moral high ground here) due to their lower rung on the grievance pyramid animal rights groups wont say a thing.
It’s like you’re not getting it.
In a world where women are the sole deciders for having children, you must create a world where having children is a desirable choice.
Discussing anything else is just going backward and that’s pointless.
That is exactly what traditional patriarchal societies are. Women really have no other options, so they have children. Now the real question is whether we can build a equitable society where women have choices, and they still choose to have children. And that I really dont know given our physical and psychological hard wiring. Obviously, technology could be the big game changer, if we could ever get to the point where babies can be incubated artificially the first 10 months of their lives instead of in their mother's womb.
That is exactly what traditional patriarchal societies are. Women really have no other options, so they have children. Now the real question is whether we can build a equitable society where women have choices, and they still choose to have children. And that I really dont know given our physical and psychological hard wiring. Obviously, technology could be the big game cha
i think the answer is no (without high religiosity), and Scandinavia proves that.
whatever crossnerd thinks is making american women hold back from having children given options, well it must be happening in Scandinavia as well MORE, because Scandinavia native women are having fewer children than American natives.
so, sorry if I don't buy for a second the obvious implicit accusation that lack of childcare, gender equality and so on are the cause of the drop in natality.
they get free pre-k12, a ton of welfare, mandated paternity and maternity leave, easy access to part time jobs if they want those, they graduate with 0 student debt, and so on and on *and they still don't have children*.
Given Islam is currently the sacred cow of the progressive left, occupying the highest spot on the grievance pyramid; I dont really see the banning meat thing happening, as Muslims will not allow it and the left will bend to their will. As our Muslim population increases and their demands increase, more likely we just make all meat Halal and start banning pork like UK is doin
speaking of which one place is starting making halal tortellini here in bologna and we are planning boycotts and protests.
but you have like 1% Muslims in the USA and only a trickle of immigration from Muslim countries so I am not sure why you fear they will ever dominate cultural trends in the USA
to go back to the claim that it is high school access that decreases fertility rates
This is the quite perfect picture proving that for the USA
Notice the VERY INTERESTING pattern when the degree is completed: no decrease in fertility rates vs 40+ years ago. But it was structurally lower in the 70s as well.
Ofc the cohort that completes it's degree is far more numerous than before, but it's very important to be able to claim that for a woman with a completed college degree, there is no lower propensity to have children today than a bit after the baby boom (!!!!!).
See also how it isn't about "lower marriage rates!!!!", causality isn't there.
i think the answer is no (without high religiosity), and Scandinavia proves that.whatever crossnerd thinks is making american women hold back from having children given options, well it must be happening in Scandinavia as well MORE, because Scandinavia native women are having fewer children than American natives.so, sorry if I don't buy for a second the obvious implicit accusat
I mean, I am literally the demographic you are discussing, but what do I know
Given Islam is currently the sacred cow of the progressive left, occupying the highest spot on the grievance pyramid; I dont really see the banning meat thing happening, as Muslims will not allow it and the left will bend to their will. As our Muslim population increases and their demands increase, more likely we just make all meat Halal and start
What is this about? I haven't heard of any such thing. I just googled it and could only find a ban on personal imports of meat from the EU, to screen out diseases.
