| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gordon

Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 5309 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Hall wrote: |
So, why not invest in a FAMILY, who can look after you while you are old and grey? A modern First-World family isolates its elderly in nursing homes, but it is still done the old-fashioned way in the Third World. Can you picture yourself as the English-speaking grandparent in a household in a developing country? I can.
Oh, but I used that word that usually makes "international English teachers" run away: FAMILY! Settling down! Actually staying in one country, one city, with the same people for the rest of your life! Horror of horrors! I am sure that many of you are already booking your plane ticket to the next country at just the thought of this!  |
You too noticed how unfamily-friendly this place is too.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sidjameson
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 629 Location: osaka
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes John Hall, why don't we all have 20 kids. Retirement sorted. Whats that? Oh, the earthe can no longer sustain an ever increasing human population? But why should I care? I will be dead anyway.
If 1000 people lived on a small island but one family decided to have as many kids as possible and their 10 kids did the same and so on and son. The other 250 families would be rightly annoyed as one family caused a depletion of the islands resources.
That is exaclty whats happening in the world today. People in the developing world often dont have the education to understand this, but you, a teacher do. Anyone who has more than 2 kids in the western world is plain selfish.
I know its a lot more complicated than this, but there are 6.5 billion people on this planet now, many of whom are getting richer and will polute to western levels within a few years. How many more people do you want living on earth John Hall?
Sorry, I know its a rant, but J Hall's attitude really gets to me. Unless of course he ment to have 2 kids, but I cant see how 2 kids in a developing country would be a secure form of retirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gordon

Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 5309 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
You might as well shoot me now, Sid. I have 3 kids. Oh the mess I have made.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gordon

Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 5309 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sidjameson wrote: |
Anyone who has more than 2 kids in the western world is plain selfish.
|
I have to say that this is BS. Anyone who has kids, knows it is not being selfish. I give a lot more of myself than I take. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spiral78

Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gordon, I'll offer to let you off the hook forever. We are having 0 children. You can count your third (and fourth if you want one!) forever as nominal little spirals, and you and your wife can counter such arguments by saying that you are making up the numbers for me and my spouse.
Joking aside, you're right - �ducated, responsible parents earn the right to have as many children as they can afford and wish to have. The investment made by good parents benefits everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004 Posts: 1270
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spiral78 wrote: |
| Joking aside, you're right - �ducated, responsible parents earn the right to have as many children as they can afford and wish to have. The investment made by good parents benefits everyone. |
Japan and the Western world as a whole needs more people like Gordon. There's going to be a crunch in the next few decades when the shortage of skilled workers is really going to be felt. That, combined with the failure of many in the baby-boom generation -- who have grown accustomed to expecting government to provide for their every need -- to plan for their retirements, is going to lead to some serious problems down the road.
| Gordon wrote: |
| I have to say that this is BS. Anyone who has kids, knows it is not being selfish. I give a lot more of myself than I take. |
Total BS. As long as responsible parents are able to take care of them, who the hell's business is it to say how many children is "enough?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gordon

Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 5309 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spiral78 wrote: |
Gordon, I'll offer to let you off the hook forever. We are having 0 children. You can count your third (and fourth if you want one!) forever as nominal little spirals, and you and your wife can counter such arguments by saying that you are making up the numbers for me and my spouse.
Joking aside, you're right - �ducated, responsible parents earn the right to have as many children as they can afford and wish to have. The investment made by good parents benefits everyone. |
Thanks. I thought Sid was going to come over and take my youngest. He is only 3 weeks old, perhaps he'd be merciful. Sorry to beat up on him, Sid normally makes very helpful, insightful posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sidjameson
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 629 Location: osaka
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
To anyone who thinks that you can "have as many kids as you want"
Do you think that this planet can hold an infinite number of people? If not, how many would you hazard to guess? Whatever the number is surely it is a number that will be reached quite soon if the world continues to reproduce as it has been.
Go to a place like Java (and many others) it is massively over crowded. Kids everywhere. They still have 8 kids or more. Is this a good thing?
Do you think Gordon Japan would be a nicer place to live in if somewhere in the past there had been a more enlightened attitude to birth control? Japan is way overcrowded and as a rich nation uses far more rescources than it produces. People harp on about the low birth rate, but imagine the horror if there was a typical birth rate (population growth) of say the middle east; 3%. There is literally no land left.
Even in a large country like America how much natural land has been lost to urban and farm development? How much more land would you like to see gone?
The point about good parents is worthwhile and I dont include Gordon in this statement at all, but in the Uk the type of person to have more than 3 kids is 9 times out of 10 the exact opposite of the kind of parent you would want to be having them.
Lastly if you can't be bothered to answer the above, as I suspect that you wont. Please answer this one question.
In a decade or two there will be 2 BILLION extra Chinese and Indians consuming at a western level. The effects on the planet will be huge.
Do you prefer that we;
A........dont worry about it.
B........ban the use of motor cars, air travel, meat, air conditioning etc
C........try to lower the world population so we can all enjoy a modern lifestyle
D........hope new "star trek" like technology saves the day.
What's your address Gordon?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmb

Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Posts: 8397
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| To anyone who thinks that you can "have as many kids as you want" |
AKP have recently passed a new law here in Turkey. If you have more than 7 kids you then you don't have to pay tax!!!! Any other country have a ridiculous law like this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gordon

Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 5309 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sid, you are changing the subject here. You said anyone that has more than 2 kids in the western world is selfish, now you are talking abut 8 kids. So which is it?
Please tell me how I am being selfish.
As far as there are some people who shouldn't have lots of kids, of course. Some people shouldn't have one, but that is not the point. We're not talking about good vs. bad parents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004 Posts: 1270
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Although procreation is considered a fundamental right in the United States, maybe Sid's right. Let's begin sterilizing people. I say we start with the blacks. Or, better yet, the Mexicans. Everybody knows they have way too many kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ls650

Joined: 10 May 2003 Posts: 3484 Location: British Columbia
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon wrote: |
You too noticed how unfamily-friendly this place is too.  |
Are Dave's posters un-"family-friendly" - or simply uninterested?
Kids are nice and all, but I have no desire to have a family. If it happens, it happens, but I'm not looking to raise a family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Trullinger

Joined: 28 Jan 2005 Posts: 3110 Location: Seoul, South Korea and Myanmar for a bit
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If 1000 people lived on a small island but one family decided to have as many kids as possible and their 10 kids did the same and so on and son. The other 250 families would be rightly annoyed as one family caused a depletion of the islands resources.
|
I have no kids, at the moment. Though I might one day. Or not. None of your business, anyway.
But I feel that your analogy is offensive and flawed. Because, at the moment, here on island earth, it IS NOT the children of those who have a lot of kids who are using up the damn resources. It is a privileged few within the most privileged countries, mostly in North America, Europe, and Japan that are using the lion's share of the resources.
Look it up- one US citizen uses more of the worlds resources than 16 Ecuadorians. So if I want to have 32 kids here, that would be less "selfish" than having two in the US.
Anybody who claims that the equation is a simply a case of "more people, more resources" is being willfully obtuse. The resource use problem on island earth is NOT simply a matter of "have less children."
On your island of one thousand, what if most people had only the basic needs to survive, and a substantial minority had not even that and lived in misery, but there were 25 people who every day ate 20 times as much food as they needed, used 20 times the energy resourse that they needed, and consumed the majority share of everything? What would the other 975 do?
That's the island we're on.
Best regards,
Justin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003 Posts: 4124
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A modern First-World family isolates its elderly in nursing homes, but it is still done the old-fashioned way in the Third World. |
Actually families put more effort into looking after the elderly than they have ever done before.
The reason is simple; there are a lot more elderly now than before. In the 19th century the over 65 in the US only made up 4% of the population, and they were still the poorest age group. At present they make up about 15% of the population and in the US they are actually the richest age group. Only 25% of the old in the US die in nursing homes, less than die at home (45% die in hospital after a short stay). There is also the phenomenum of the "sandwich generation" those who are caring both for school-age children and elderly parents.
I suggest a reading of "The Way We Never Were; American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Koontz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003 Posts: 4124
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Although procreation is considered a fundamental right in the United States |
Actually the United States was in the vanguard of forced sterilization and the Germans took their eugenics policy from the US Congress. Have you never heard the famous quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes "Three generations of idiots is enough" when the Court backed up the Virginia governments policy of forcibly sterilizing those who got bad marks on its intelligence tests? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|