Should the poor be discouraged from having children?

Exactly.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Good and humble, but also competent enough to honestly earn for their living.

edited 18th Jul '11 9:43:14 AM by MilosStefanovic

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

...and?

No offense. But living in the midwest, I hear the terms "Good" "Humble" "Hard worker" and so forth all the time. But given who I see them applied to, they usually translate mentally to me as "stuck working in a dead-end job at a factory that will eventually leave them with crippling injuries because they couldnt afford college and have a family to raise"

Not to say people like that shouldnt be allowed to have kids..but I seriously question why words like that make it acceptable that theres few ways for them or their kids to get out of poverty.

edited 18th Jul '11 9:48:03 AM by Midgetsnowman

Not really. Many of them are quite ambitious, and strive for high education and well-paid jobs. If they're smart, and are aware of that, they will strive to use that to raise themselves from the slums, and if they're stupid, no wealthy upbringing will help them.

And, like it or not, but manual laborers and other low-paid workers are necessary for the society to work.

edited 18th Jul '11 9:49:16 AM by MilosStefanovic

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

48

I believe most children are intended, so it's not necessarily accidents (though that is a factor), but it may be something of choice, as the rich might choose a few children, but stop because they want to keep the rest of their resources, they feel they have something to protect.

I'm skeptical of the many part. of my entire list of highschool friends, a whole two of us even bothered with college.

edited 18th Jul '11 9:49:53 AM by Midgetsnowman

Oh, BTW, for everyone making eugenics comparisons, last I checked, social status was not genetic.

I'd say that social status is one of the few justifications you could take that right away on, to be honest. You may be causing damage to society if you decide to have a child that you cannot support.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

(shrugs) Don't know. If what you said about the Midwest is true, than it's probably because of the Ambition Is Evil sentiment. Ambition should definitely be encouraged, but only as long as it is within ethical boundaries and not overestimating yourself. Strive to make the best of yourself, but know your boundaries.

But who is to judge the boundaries of what is considered poor?

edited 18th Jul '11 9:54:55 AM by MilosStefanovic

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

"So, we've gone over some reasons why poor people have babies, but why is it that the rich *don't* have a lot of children even though they have the capacity to support them?" - sketch

Rich people are probably more calculating; that's probably WHY they're richer in the first place. (Think of it this way; businessman A is more calculating than businessman B; they are competing in the same market; the latter makes a mistake, and therefore the former is left with more money to invest than the latter, driving the discrepancy even further, etc...)

edited 18th Jul '11 9:56:31 AM by neoYTPism

@sketch: I think the main reason the rich have less children is because they want to devote more time and effort to the ones they do have, to provide them with the best education and quality of life possible.

But the truth is, those who good education and upbringing will experience far greater success in life then those who don't. This isn't really about whether or not poor people have better or worse characters than rich people; but the point is, if parents cannot support their children and provide them with a proper upbringing, than their children will end up disadvantaged from birth, and it is not fair to them nor it is fair to shift the burden to society.

I think so - not as an absolute rule, but on average. In modern societies, people who are willing to delay pleasure (by studying hard instead of hanging out with friends, saving and investing instead of buying that big screen TV, etc.) are more likely to get rich than more irresponsible people.

That probably counts - though the cause-effect arrow is more like "career-oriented people are more likely to be rich, and less likely consider children".

A third effect is, of course, "people who have a lot of children are less likely to grow rich" (the little buggers are expensive!).

Not just a numbers game, no, since on average a poor person can be expected to have moor children than a rich person (both inside a country, and between countries, though there are probably plenty of exceptions).

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

57

Some people do believe they're connected. But even that aside, it is a similar concept.

Also, FWIW, poor nutrition in childhood has been shown to have a deleterious effect on intellectual development, and that's more likely in poverty-stricken areas than the wealthy. Unless they start using lead-pipes again or something.

edited 18th Jul '11 9:58:32 AM by blueharp

Then explain hedge fund managers SED.

Of course it isn't. Getting the poor to not reproduce is a classic eugenics goal, that's the point.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Well if Social Status is not genetic, then that goes against Eugenics' goals of preserving "the best and fittest", isn't it? So how is getting the poor not to reproduce eugenics?

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

I think he means to point out the hypocritical stupidity of the fact that some people into eugenics support such things. It doesn't make sense and it's dumb, but it's been a goal nonetheless is what he's pointing out?

Though I guess they could attempt to excuse it with "We are trying to kill off all the lazy genes"...but that sounds really dumb too.

edited 18th Jul '11 10:13:17 AM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

wut?

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

Well because Hedge Fund managers are the people who started the global recession by (essentially) betting poorly. Sub prime mortgages were essentially let to people with no ability to pay by these managers who reaped vast rewards as long as it worked.

Look up "bernard Madeoff" as well, as he is someone to whom gambling (with other peoples money) came as naturally as breathing.

To OP: No. Sounds like Eugenics. Fixing the poverty problem woudl be more ideal. Educate, clean up their living conditions, access to basic healthcare, water, food, jobs... and maybe they'll end up having less children as a side-effect anyway, since having a zillion kids will no longer play a role in their own survival.

I heard something about Indonesia, as how giving certain poor areas of the country electricity led to a drop in birth rates. It seems that if you give poor people access to TV or the Internet, they'll be busy doing that as opposed to making babies. Or something along those lines, I'm paraphrasing a bit.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Yarp. Simple education (as long as its good and is altered to fit the circumstances) is probably cheaper and less morally tricky than sterilising people.

The problem is, people dont want to fund education.

Yeah, I know. We're cutting it here, for crying out loud.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Thread hop:

In the more poor countries, the large amount of children can be attributed to the importance of agriculture, where you need any extra pair of hands. In more industrial societies, a child is more expensive, there's less incentive for poor people to get them.

The demographic shift is already happening, though. Birthrates are down, infant mortality is down, life expectancy is up. All this together makes it look like there's a population surge, but it's just more people live longer. In a generation or two, the growth will even out, and even start declining which is a good thing.

the statement above is false

People don't want to fund ANYTHING.

...Except the military.

The right has done a great job of painting taxation as inherently evil (except when done in, cough, 'defense' of the country).

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.