Parenting

Nobody's suggested that.

My suggestions were in response to potential parents opting out of having children at all because they think it's too much work, and parents who actually are overwhelmed by the work it entails or feel they're otherwise incompetent or unfit. To them, I say "you don't have to raise your children if you don't want to, they'll be in good hands, just freaking make them please".

Again, boarding schools have existed for a very long time. Why not expand on that?

And how exactly would one convince them to spawn more human larvae? Offer tax credits in exchange for each kid they push out and leave to the state?

That has worked wonders in the past. Ask the Haredim, to name one example.

Also I love the language you're using. Clearly you have the utmost respect for children regardless of how they came to be or who loves them.

edited 13th Dec '17 11:19:04 PM by TheHandle

France has tax breaks for having kids (and raising them). IIRC, it's one of the countries in Western Europe with the highest birth rates.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm the oldest in my family's generation and have watched plenty of young relatives grow up. I've loved each of the little monsters.

I just take issue with the idea of the government encouraging and outright bribing couples to have children and leave them to the state just to keep up the population. That is really disrespectful to children.

Yeah, but does the gov't outright tell them "you don't have to care for the kids, just have them"? There's nothing wrong with the government easing the burden on growing families.

edited 13th Dec '17 11:59:28 PM by M84

Well, if they otherwise can't be arsed to have them, what's a country to do? The other options are immigration and automation.

And immigration is bad because...?

As the first-born son of a pair of immigrants, I'd advise you to answer very carefully.

I'm sorry, but trying to intimidate me into giving an answer you won't dislike is just bad form. Now, as for your question:

Immigration is not bad as such, but you need to do it carefully and thoughtfully, otherwise you end up with ghettos of disenfranchised cultural bubble underclasses up to the third generation and beyond and/or a panicky freaked-out voting for stupid shit like far-right parties or Brexit.

Canada seem to be handling immigration very well, for instance: no far-right problem there, last I heard. Sweden is doing extraordinarily well for the sheer amount of immigrants, refugees, and their descendants, but those asshole Swedish Democrats gain more votes every election, and their ideas are seeping through.

Automation is awesome if combined with BMI. So the question presents itself: why bother keeping a high birth rate at all? What's wrong with going Caves Of Steel or Solaris?

edited 14th Dec '17 12:42:50 AM by TheHandle

Just making sure the answer wasn't something blatantly xenophobic or how an immigrant isn't a "real" citizen.

And it's hardly the immigrants' fault if the government chooses to scapegoat them for their nations' problems.

edited 14th Dec '17 12:43:36 AM by M84

I'm an immigrant myself, you're preaching to the choir.

Also, back to the earlier topic, people had kids they sent to boarding school and it wasn't just not frowned upon, it was outright the norm, especially for certain social classes. See Eton and other Public Schools. Not to mention nannies and wet nurses for the privileged since the dawn of time. So I really struggle to see what's so outrageous about having children because society expects it of you, and then leaving the actual rearing to someone else while you live out your own life and do your own thing.

Boarding school is one thing. The government, per your suggestion, outright saying "We'll pay you to have children and give them to us." seems wrong. To say nothing of trying to equate that with families hiring babysitters or sending kids to a daycare.

The way you presented your suggestion sounds way too much like "sell babies to the government". I get the feeling you actually meant it more along the lines of "publicly subsidized daycare programs."

edited 14th Dec '17 12:54:28 AM by M84

Well, until the government can start insta-growing clones for whatever job they happen to need filled, what else are they supposed to do?

Though, the comment about the government paying for people to have children reminds me of the somewhat poorly-written law that Nebraska passed a few years back.^note Supposedly to help lower the abortion rate by allowing women to drop off babies at certain locations (like hospitals, fire and police stations, etc) the law was written so that any parent could drop off any child - and suddenly the state was awash in abandoned teenagers (largely LGBT IIRC). The law was revoked and re-written and, AFAIK, all children put back with their families (like it or not).

I imagine a good number of said kids would have preferred to stay at those places rather than go back to the kind of parents who would do that to them.

edited 14th Dec '17 3:09:55 AM by M84

Boarding schools and the like existed, but that's not to say they were substitutes for parents. And like... I didn't go to any boarding schools, but most of the stories I've read about what it was like for the social classes who were raised by nannies and boarding schools don't make it sound appealing.

And most of the teachers I know? Do NOT want to take over the work of parents in any way shape or form. They want to teach the children and then go home and get away from them once the school bell rings.

Yeah, the Boarding School of Horrors trope was at least somewhat inspired by real life boarding schools.

edited 14th Dec '17 3:51:03 AM by M84

"the state was awash in abandoned teenagers (largely LGBT IIRC)."

That is the most darkly hilarious exhibit of human shittiness that I've ever seen. How cartoonishly despicable. How extremely petty. I betcha they're the same type of people who sneer at those who take social benefits.

Let's have a look at the Boarding School of Horrors:

Had (has?) some elements of truth in television. Boarding schools were not a Victorian innovation, but the institution was embraced as a means of counteracting the softening, emasculating influence of mothers and preparing young men for the harsh rigours of the world of business and Empire. The move to purposefully harsh institutions as a solution to parental mollycoddling took place':' in the context of the early-mid Victorian love of childhood and doting parenthood, which it was later feared would render the new generation of the better sort of people - i.e. the middle and upper classes - too soft to maintain Anglo supremacy. Thus, boarding schools were intended to 'break the attendants and thus prevent them from becoming 'soft' and/or homosexual. More specifically they would instill discipline and self-discipline, deference to authority, strict morals, a vague sense of the Christian religion, and teamwork'''. This was, of course, in addition to all the usual things one expects a public school (a school open to the paying public as opposed to a private school, which was more exclusive) to do. For real life examples, see also the section in the Strawman U page for "St. Jim Jonestown Academy." The overtly strict atmosphere of the boarding schools produced a proverb When a lower class kid turns bad, he is sent to a borstal; when an upper class kid turns bad, he is sent to a boarding school. Some boarding schools hardly differed from reform schools (borstals) except on curriculum.

Holy crap. But Im A Cheerleader all year long every year?!

@M84 As I said, that tax incentive is for parents who raise their kids.

Not just that. That first part of the trope description shows that the purpose of boarding schools was to turn young men into ruthless businessmen and government officials. Some of this attitude has lingered in the UK university system. If you ever wondered why the front-bench of the Tories in the UK are mostly a bunch of posh broken sociopaths...well, a good number of them are Oxford and Eton boys.

The entire school is House Slytherin?

Well Rowling is British. Perhaps she based Slytherin on stories she may have heard about Eton.

Yeah most boarding school aren’t the happiest of places, nor do they foster the best personal growth.

Mine was an exception and I know a few similar places, but it’s very rare, in the end you need an environment growing up that’s not strictly controlled and regulated at all times, most boarding school deny a child that.

So, basically, it can be done right, but it rarely has been so far.

A boarding school as a place for parents who can't raise their children? I remember a slew of research articles from my grad student days the gist of which is that insititutionalized settings are bad for kids (granted, I think they were orphanages, but still), and that's why the US switched to a foster care family system. Basically, we pay couples to raise children who can't be with their biological parents in a household setting. There are major flaws here too, esp. since the system is chronically underfunded. "Incompetant parents" is a complex problem with no easy solution, I fear.

"Basically, we pay couples to raise children who can't be with their biological parents in a household setting. There are major flaws here too, esp. since the system is chronically underfunded. "

So people will take money for raising kids that aren't their own. We should start by funding this properly.

edited 14th Dec '17 12:24:04 PM by TheHandle

See my earlier comments about intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation. We could serve children much better with a properly funded volunteer program. Which, ironically, would almost certainly cost more than the current foster care system does..