For the most part, I think raising kids is a pyramid scheme.

[onesteptwostep]

I think we can generally agree that everyone, and I mean this literally, everyone should be given a free life where they can choose what they want to do in life and that this should go unimpeded. If this maxim is true, it should be also true that parents should focus on raising a child who is well adjusted to life and who will be able to sustain themselves economically but also be content with themselves without being contingent on others.

If these two propositions are carried out, a parent should not depend on their child to care for them once they are elderly, whether or not they believe that they have taken care of their children well and that the altruism should be given back to them. Secondly a child should not be born if the couple cannot provide a living for the child up to its 18th birthday. Unless they have the means and plans to carry out a comfortable livelihood for the child until they are of age, they should not have children. The case where couples have children for the sake of raising children, because it's somehow their biological imperative or because every human being as done so up to this point doesn't seem to hold that much water either.

If a child is had with any of these reasons, I think for the most part the couple is perpetuating a culture where human life itself is a part of a pyramid scheme. It's sort of a 'Darwinistic' master-slave morality rather than a Nietzschean master-slave morality, so to speak. It's simply a biological capitalism where the freedoms of a sentient being is not respected. Many, many problems in society and in life would be alleviated or outright eradicated if such a culture would be impemented.

But, given the realities of a parent-child relationship and the historical progression of such relations dating back thousands upon thousands of years, are we teleologically bound to this arrangement?

Or can humans rise beyond it and come to reach upon a more radically egalitarian way of life?

Or, perhaps, are developed countries already heading towards this direction, given that birthrates are declining?

Hmm...

 

[Puffy]

I’m unsure if it’s obligation so much as reciprocity. If someone has given so much to me freely, and love is given freely, then I feel like I want to give back in return. It can’t be out of obligation as that breeds resentment but out of feeling sincere gratitude. When we feel gratitude our love is then also given freely. It can take a while to reach that place depending on ones relationship with their parents and that’s okay.

To me the child-parent dynamic seems to mirror this natural law of reciprocity. Where as a child we purely learn to receive, as we need taking care of, but as we mature we learn to give back in service, to community, family, planet, out of gratitude and love for everything we’ve been given. So then as we mature and grow we learn to take care of those like family, community and nature who once took care of us.

Personally I feel this emphasis on absolute freedom is a modern Faustian philosophy of individualism. While tempting, when applied as a governing principle of society I don’t feel it leads to sustainability or egalitarianism on a global level. As individual freedom isn’t accountable to or responsible for anything other than its own freedom. So it just breeds a ‘me’ mentality rather than an ‘us’ or ‘we’ mentality. Reciprocity is a much better law for governing society as it intrinsically leads to sustainability, as everything that is reaped is sewn, everything that is received is given back. It’s a natural rhythm rooted in love, it brings communities closer together in a mode of service.

I agree that people should take parenting seriously as it’s the most precious and important undertaking in life. But fundamentally people should do it when they have matured enough to be ready for that responsibility. And when they’ve learned to love, heal and accept themselves so they can raise their children to be able to do the same.

 

[Black Rose]

It is a bad idea to have a kid if you don't have resources.
But there would be reason to provide resources rather than force sterilization.
Conspiracy theorists believe vaccinations are population control sterilization.
More can be done to boost economies but does anyone care?
There is the mean population and then there are individuals.
Genocide really is not a good solution.

 

[Cognisant]

Imagine if you could invest in other people's kids, put forward money for their education and upbringing and get a percentile return on the money they earn later in life.

 

[BurnedOut]

The case where couples have children for the sake of raising children, because it's somehow their biological imperative or because every human being as done so up to this point doesn't seem to hold that much water either.

Giving birth to a kid was a survival strategy for civilizations before. There seems to be no other reason why people want kids. Everybody wants to preserve their legacy in some manner or the other.

If these two propositions are carried out, a parent should not depend on their child to care for them once they are elderly

I personally feel that child owes to the parents to take care of them when they are old if the parents were not toxic and contributed to a healthy adulthood. Every healthy child or a child who reconciled with their parents in adulthood naturally usually take it on themselves to keep their parents sated in their old lives. I can never think if deserting my parents when they grow old.

Secondly a child should not be born if the couple cannot provide a living for the child up to its 18th birthday. Unless they have the means and plans to carry out a comfortable livelihood for the child until they are of age, they should not have children.

Ideally? Definitely. Pragmatically? That's impossible. I think a better solution would be this - if the parent's financial status can be augmented by the government sufficiently enough to raise a kid till they are 18, they can have kids.

Or, perhaps, are developed countries already heading towards this direction, given that birthrates are declining?

No. Birth rates are falling because people are not fornicating enough and if they are, they actively don't want children. According to stats, people are not banging enough.

 

[Riiscup]

I’m unsure if it’s obligation so much as reciprocity. If someone has given so much to me freely, and love is given freely, then I feel like I want to give back in return. It can’t be out of obligation as that breeds resentment but out of feeling sincere gratitude. When we feel gratitude our love is then also given freely. It can take a while to reach that place depending on ones relationship with their parents and that’s okay.

To me the child-parent dynamic seems to mirror this natural law of reciprocity. Where as a child we purely learn to receive, as we need taking care of, but as we mature we learn to give back in service, to community, family, planet, out of gratitude and love for everything we’ve been given. So then as we mature and grow we learn to take care of those like family, community and nature who once took care of us.

Personally I feel this emphasis on absolute freedom is a modern Faustian philosophy of individualism. While tempting, when applied as a governing principle of society I don’t feel it leads to sustainability or egalitarianism on a global level. As individual freedom isn’t accountable to or responsible for anything other than its own freedom. So it just breeds a ‘me’ mentality rather than an ‘us’ or ‘we’ mentality. Reciprocity is a much better law for governing society as it intrinsically leads to sustainability, as everything that is reaped is sewn, everything that is received is given back. It’s a natural rhythm rooted in love, it brings communities closer together in a mode of service.

I agree that people should take parenting seriously as it’s the most precious and important undertaking in life. But fundamentally people should do it when they have matured enough to be ready for that responsibility. And when they’ve learned to love, heal and accept themselves so they can raise their children to be able to do the same

I totally agree with your first statement. I also do not think parents should expect their kids to take care of them when they are old. Honestly, I was not aware this could be any parents expectation. If I've done a halfway decent job I imagine they will want to make sure I am alive and comfortable, but that speaks to love and what loving someone is about. But I don't expect it. They have their own path in life, I have mine. If that means I die in a ditch with none of my kids around so be it. I won't be hurt because I know my heart, it's their choice how and if they reciprocate. Regardless, as a parent who had children unplanned, who was not mature enough and had no idea how I would "afford" them, I did my best. They seem to be okay. Who actually knows the maturity level required for childrearing anyway? You think you're all mature and have it all together until.....you have kids! I love them and try to share what I have learned in life with them in an effort to help them find contentment if not happiness in this life. I am not their master and have never seen my role this way. I see myself as more of a guide and, on the flipside, my kids have helped me see myself and mature exponentially which was not expected when i decided to become a parent. Anyway, just a couple thoughts that crossed my mind when reading your post. Are you a parent?

 

[Riiscup]

Not sure why Puffy's comment became a part of my response.

 

[Puffy]

Not sure why Puffy's comment became a part of my response.

I’m unsure if this indicates you were quoting me by mistake and intended to reply to someone else. Otherwise, it's likely as you quoted my post. But no I’m not a parent, I was more writing from the perspective of being a son.

It's not my intention to question other's parenting or their level of preparedness for it, that's a pretty personal thing for someone to decide. I have a bad habit of writing in the plural saying, "people should do it", when often what I'm really saying is "this is the standard that I personally hold myself to."

If I take a snapshot of my life now as opposed to 5 years ago, there's qualitative differences in terms of mental health, health, stress, nutrition, playfulness, the amount of time I have free, level of support, friends and community around me, job security, finance. It's difficult for me to believe on multiple levels that I'd have been in a better position to raise a child then as opposed to now. Given the degree of mental health issues I was experiencing, that could have a potentially large impact on a child. So I hold myself to this standard out of an ethical duty to the child to raise them in a supportive environment.

That doesn't mean I think I'd be a good parent or a better parent than someone who had children unplanned. You're right that I'm sure there's never a 'ready' point. I'm sure regardless of someone's level of preparation or maturity that it's something you can't really prepare for that will throw up all kinds of unexpected challenges. But I hope that clarifies where I was coming from.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If you consider the idea that we as biological entities are "consenting" to old age, it's more like we're playing hot potato with older and younger generations. The potato being "usefulness". The older generations pass the potatoes to younger generations and so on and so on. If you don't have kids, you keep the potatoes, and you lose, because the potatoes is meant to be passed.

Before print media we had to depend on people who were there, usually older people to tell us about reality. They are pretty obsolete today. It's humanity getting rid of it's vulnerabilities. Old age itself is something we've not gotten around.

It's more like extortion if you have kids just so that you won't die a negligent death. And hell, if you have rotten kids you might die a worse death if they don't care for you anyway. It's not the safe move when you consider the fact that it's a 50/50 shot that they do or don't take care of you.

 

[Riiscup]

Puffy I was actually replying to onesteptwostep's original post. Or at least I thought I was. I totally agree and relate to both your comments. Your pass the potato analogy was great! Unfortunately, many haven't been passed anything as you alluded to and for me that is where alot of the problem parenting takes root. This is very much a "me, me, me" society and that doesn't always translate well into effective parenting. I can also tell you everytime I look back on my life I see how and where I have grown and where I wasn't prepared for various things. I was NOT ready to be a parent when I became a parent, I knew I wasn't in that moment but I chose to move forward anyway. It really sucks life doesn't give us all we need to be prepared for the stuff it throws our way beforehand but, I guess that's life.

 

[ZenRaiden]

In pre pension age in larger families with lots of kids and tightly knit families this made sense.

People usually stayed at home with family and worked on their own land.

Farm life was hard, grandparents did not live long, more like 50 or 60 old.
Siblings usually all helped in someway.
The land and meager wealth was handed down and split between kids.
Grandparents could take care of kids or do simple chores that others hand little time to attend to.
There was mutual benefit.

Today?

Many people have pensions, and in old age have more wealth than their kids.
Inheriting that wealth might be nice, but not always an option or even beneficial.
Some parents have only enough to live for themselves.

Kids are either 1 2 or 3 rarely more.

Most kids grow up and move the fuck out, or even have careers that make them move around the world so even if they really wanted to provide for their parents their life is separate.

Some things might apply today or might not, but its very circumstantial.

So this is more of rural logic from the past handed down as artifact of old times.

Do old people need help? Yes.

Realistically for many people this logic no longer applies, sometimes it backfires and kids leech off parents or worse quarrel over inheritance, while stealing parents pensions, while parents and kids fight over what is the right way to bring up the youngsters.

Old people suffer because kids now become adults and treat their weaker parents with disdain or worse.

Seen this lame dynamic in my family.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@Riiscup

I'm not a parent, but after seeing plenty of family issues within my own family and within friends, I thought there could be a radical change in how one sees parenting, especially with how life in general has become more complex and that society in general has reached its developmental limits. There's nothing emotional that I'm coming from, it's just that when I see historical patterns give increase to birth rates, as well as its decline, it doesn't seem hard to see how the entirety of parenting can change- it's planning and sustaining.

In my own country, my father's generation usually had well over 3 siblings, in fact, my own father has around 9, while several died in the Korean War. In this point in time it was culturally mandatory to raise as much children as possible because there was lots of work to be done in modernizing the country. Korea didn't have the network sprawl of modern infrastructure yet, so jobs were plenty. You needed housing, you needed roads and highways, pipes for water and lines for electricity, sewage, and teachers to teach those kids, you needed an expanded and technologically savvy agricultural sector and so on. But now, society's developed in a way that it has reached its near maximal development. The mood is much more about sustainability rather than any growth. We had two digit GDP increases 3 decades ago, but now that 10% increase has turned to 2% or 3%. This means society has reached its modern limits.

You can see a similar issue in China, and pretty much across the modern world. There are times when the developmental milieu of one's country demands more childbirth, but once society and the economy develops, growth declines. An example that's happening in real time is Afghanistan. Because of the introduction of modern health care as well as infrastructural developments, a good third of Afghanistan's population are under the age of 24. This means around 13 million are kids out of 40 mil. If you look at a population pyramid, it literally is a pyramid: Population of Afghanistan 2020 But you can bet that, in 20, 30 years time, that pyramid will more start looking like a tower, as society modernizes.

It's similar to South Korea during its developmental era: Population of Republic of Korea 1960 But this pyramid, due to reaching its developmental limits turned into tower: Population of Republic of Korea 2000 then to more of a fat tower: Population of Republic of Korea 2020

During the phases of development in a modern country, the growth of an economy usually sustained a family, but that culture is slowly changing as costs of child rearing, housing, and education are on the rise. So I think we are in a transitioning culture where the end scenario is more about sustainability rather than growth. And because the economy can sustain and provide for life in a non-conflicting way, without impediments to individual freedom, it's natural that we strive towards the goal of maximal freedom. It's the same with the progression of gender roles/(feminism) and sexual-minorities issues. As capitalism alleviates the labor that's needed in a society, more of those freedoms could be met due to a robust economic base. (You can say the same for slavery- with technology and wealth, i.e. capitalism, nurtured the era of the Abolitionists. But if you said slavery was bad in the ancient world like Greece or Rome, you would be a laughingstock, as there was no economy to sustain so much free men in such societies).

I think optimally, the population pyramid would be a tower rather than a fat one or a triangular one with each generation on their own without trying to sustain the generations above. A fat one points to societal, generational conflicts while a pyramid reflects a developing country. I think we're in the mists of transitioning into a lean tower as we learn what works and what doesn't. The economy simply is dictating our childbearing opportunities, so I think a principled approach to birthing is something that's in order in the near future.

I guess you can be anecdotal and say that "it's the way of life" in a certain way, but life isn't a bubble where historical and current flow have no influence on our current reality. Not only is a change in childbearing in order due to the providence of modern economics, freedom demands it. We're in a post-modern, post-developmental age.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yeah as you say there is a phase in economy where labor and product are the same.

As economy swings towards industry it starts developing real fast, and then its only short time before it evolves its financial and consumer service sector.

Korea had this phase just like everyone else.

The key here is that labor was labor and it was highly valuable. That is where people get the notion of hard work pays off.

In this phase also intelligent people who get higher education get higher pay off because intelligence in this phase is still matching production. Because there is demand for these people, math people do math, chemist and physicist do chemistry and physics, engineers do engineering etc.

Once that is gone and there is over production your labor and your product are disconnect in value.

However once capital develops labor loses its value. So being an ordinary worker no longer gets you what you would have previously.

This phase is tricky as financial burden shifts more towards finance and labor no longer matches product.

Countries that match labor and product end up growing real fast, but since there is no framework beyond this, this highly productive phase is gone and devolves into modern consumer society, high tech low life.

In consumer phase intelligent people start competing for jobs at market and so the jobs that were in demand for intelligent people no longer exist, as more students go to schools and hope for better income intelligent people become less valuable.

The working class is no longer backbone of economy either as they are less skilled, or highly specialized, but either way the guys who do the shit jobs no longer can sustain even lifestyle financially.

Simply in the labor phase you could raise a family with a shovel in the hand or doing the stupidest jobs ever.

However once you get lots of capital and heavy industry all the major capital naturally goes towards urban areas and with that also go people.

This creates a bigger boom in growth, but what sustained your country previously no longer has the same financial support.

This is why Chinese model of central government can retain value in labor by artificially pushing money towards productivity and thus at least marginally holding on to labor and product value.

 

[BurnedOut]

The Q is this - is it possible for technology to support the ageing population?

Very difficult to answer. I won't be surprised if in another 100 years, test tube babes will become a reality to augment the ageing populace.

Of course, we got the poor countries serving as child-producing machines but the effect rarely spills over its borders but the widespread production of test tube babies accoupled with breastmilk substitues and cheap incubators...

Environmental changes and test-tube baby production will ensure crappy genetics. Then at that time we'll have the new problem of state-controlled orphan production that will bring upon the dawn of slavery and cronyism. Either ways, the future is definitely bleaker for whatever generation follows Gen Z's following generation. Parenting will be a mechanical activity than an organic one. This Pyramid Scheme as envisaged by the OP will no longer exist.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The Q is this - is it possible for technology to support the ageing population?

Very difficult to answer. I won't be surprised if in another 100 years, test tube babes will become a reality to augment the ageing populace.

Of course, we got the poor countries serving as child-producing machines but the effect rarely spills over its borders but the widespread production of test tube babies accoupled with breastmilk substitues and cheap incubators...

Environmental changes and test-tube baby production will ensure crappy genetics. Then at that time we'll have the new problem of state-controlled orphan production that will bring upon the dawn of slavery and cronyism. Either ways, the future is definitely bleaker for whatever generation follows Gen Z's following generation. Parenting will be a mechanical activity than an organic one. This Pyramid Scheme as envisaged by the OP will no longer exist.

I have seen this line of thinking, but I still don't understand it.

Why do you need the economy to grow if people are not having kids.
Why do you need profit?
Why would people have test tube babies if they aren't bothered to even have their own?
Who is taking care of the test tube babies?
Why do old people care if young people have kids?

 

[BurnedOut]

Why do you need the economy to grow if people are not having kids.

Because it is impossible for any state to throw their hands up in the air and claim that 'Hey guys, development is over. We should be happy with what we got.' Technological advancement makes this notion impossible.

Why do you need profit?

Humans are always on the hunt for the easier way to solve problems. When they figure it out, they also figure that if production is more cost-effective and mass, they can skim more money off the top. Greed is a means to itself. Everybody wants to work less and have more money.

Why would people have test tube babies if they aren't bothered to even have their own?

There is no research on whether people don't want babies or whether they lack the time and resources to rear babies. Current research suggests the latter (because there is none on the former). Everybody likes kids and everybody likes the notion of their legacy being preserved. Unhealthiness is another devastating pandemic. Accouple that with high costs of child-rearing, the idea of producing a kid is off-putting. However, test tube babies makes it possible for any old couple to have a child of their own even if the woman (or any child-bearing human) is not strong enough to produce one of her own.

Who is taking care of the test tube babies?

The couple who chooses to have them. Given that they plan to have a child when they are financial sound, they would have no problems rearing the child if they can easily afford to raise one. Cost of raising is a child is more of a deterrent than the idea of having one.

Why do old people care if young people have kids?

I don't understand this question. We are assuming that the median population is old and there are not enough child-rearing young couples.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Because it is impossible for any state

Its not impossible, but yeah sometimes its desirable for some improvements, but improvements are not for sake of improvements.

Also economy for sake of economy is kind of screwed up notion to begin with.

Only economist speak that way.

Economy is to provide security, food, and necessities for people as well as well being.

You don't always need kids for that, but if you do have kids, test tube kids aren't any different from regular kids.
Unless they can care for themselves and somehow cost lest effort, time, money or something.

Humans are always on the hunt for the easier way to solve problems.

You don't need profits for that. At least not always.

Greed is a means to itself. Everybody wants to work less and have more money.

I don't really think this is true.
Some people work all the time and love it.
Some people don't.
Some people are greedy, and no doubt for those people greed is means to it self, but most people aren't that greedy.

However, test tube babies makes it possible for any old couple to have a child of their own even if the woman (or any child-bearing human) is not strong enough to produce one of her own.

Even if people don't necessarily like kids they do have them, simply, because its a biological imperative.
Contraceptives cut out the people who simply want sex, but no kids, and people who plan ahead.

Fact is though if people are not having kids, for whom are you building the economy???? Like why even worry about the economy?

This is basically just rich people complaining they don't have cheap labor, but it has fuck all to do with economy.
It has to do with their job applicants, but literally if you have people not having kids, who cares?

You either have them and grow the economy or you don't have them and then any growth of economy is pointless.

But in this sense this type of thinking is a lot like ponzi scheme. So I guess that was your point all along?

 

[BurnedOut]

But in this sense this type of thinking is a lot like ponzi scheme. So I guess that was your point all along?

Congratulations. Capitalism and progeny-generation works on this principle. Somehow 'enough' is never enough. People keep making excuses to be richer and states keep pushing people to think that they'll be richer. Naturally child-production is a part of that propaganda.

 

[BurnedOut]

Some people are greedy, and no doubt for those people greed is means to it self, but most people aren't that greedy.

Innovation is driven more by greediness than need in this era. This is the post-development era where technological advancement further this point is practically useless. I don't know why technological advancement is such a cool thing in people's minds these days. I mean what would you achieve beyond this point? Perhaps longer life span as if living till 80 is not miserable enough.

Instead of cutting down on excessive resource usage, people want to make more technology to further more consumption that is useless. I mean what inventions post-WW2 have been useful? If the whole narrative is to eliminate poverty one day, I think that can be easily down by richer states just donating money to poorer states. Combine that with good governance, you'll figure that poverty is not a big thing. But no, you want more tech that just creates more tech and create a post-humanist world where tech determines your humanity instead.

This sounds like a ridiculous argument but it is true. Healthcare is in good shape (in developed countries (holding that as an ideal)). I mean imagine how futile cancer research is. When the cure for cancer is made, you'll already have a million more problems graver than it. If suppose in a utopian world where every country has a healthcare system and economy as good as the scandinavian countries, the whole need for further tech development is a waste of time and resources. Instead of trying to level the economies of the states that are impoverished, every developed and developing state is hell bent on achieving some vain dream of becoming technologically more and more advanced

 

[ZenRaiden]

Innovation is driven more by greediness than need in this era

Well greed is more rewarding.
Making money means you have money having money means you can do more, if you can do more you can invest more and if you can invest more, you can do more in realm of tech.

That is how most things work.

But there are many reasonable things for which technology can be developed.
Technology does help in security, health, work productivity etc. its just usually fairly and squarely skewed towards profit.

However profit and greed don't always have to be the same.

Greed is mainly taking away from others what belongs to them.
Ergo a company that pays people their share is not greedy.

Also given overpopulation and current state of human development and size of infrastructure improving tech can actually help save humans from self destruction.

That being said current trends that I know of are pretty bad.

Resource extraction and efficiency of humans is pretty bad too.

If we take into account that humans are with tech and industries sometimes multiple times more productive than say in medieval times, how can there be still poverty, lack of security, wars and so on.....

The only answer is we aren't using things for our own benefit as much as we could and hence we are lot less efficient.

by richer states just donating money to poorer states.

I don't think that is necessary.
Many poor states are poor, because they get exploited by the rich. End exploitation and you end poverty.

Also capital has to stay with people who make it.
Most of what happens today it gets lifted up away from the people who make it and then it gets used again.

That is what the financial construct of society allows.

You have entirely imaginary value of money, and depending on how many digits on your bank account there are that is how much you can buy.

The thing is the people who operate banks and understand finance can shift capital in way they like, using laws and financial rule.

For them its like taking candy from little children.

Motivation for people is gain.

If I work today I want to have more tomorrow.
Everyone wants to accumulate some wealth and that is not merely domain of rich.

However today the number of people who simply work in order to have tiny bit more tomorrow is very much majority of people.

SO basically people are farmed for capital, while they themselves do all the actual productive work the people who take away the capital leave the working productive people with just the minimum. Caveat if they are greed, not all do that.

You cannot save much money, because banks won't allow that.
Inflation, destroys your worth.
You might hoard gold, but that is near impossible for most.

So banks capitalize on you having your income go to bank which uses the capital sum of all clients to further invest the money and shift the capital around on market.

You might buy stuff, but all things and utilities are kind of limited.

At the end of the day many people work just to work and have their value lifted from them.

The problem with capital its entirely imaginary concept put into money and cash flow.

That is something people are not taught to think about in schools or understand.

Those who do understand it are the ones who make the money.

Whether that is fair or not is beside the point, but essentially, most of todays major problems like wars, and famine and poverty are simply bad resource management rather than lack of money or capital or food, or productivity or anything.

Technology might be necessary for future if we want to even exist, but the incentives for developing technology have to be skewed more for long term solutions than merely for farming people for capital.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Main difference between people is short term thinking and long term thinking.
The working class is basically trained to be short term thinkers.
1 day at a time.
Rich people can afford to think long term, and the more long term they can plan efficiently the more money they make.

Most working class people export their long term thinking for companies, but when it comes to their personal decisions its all short term.
One because you cannot afford to think long term, two because there is very little gain in long term thinking.
Third because long term thinking takes huge chunk of time to be efficient, meaning that most people look at immediate results and reality now.

Now rich people they have capital and they can scheme and think about manipulating investment and money for months and years.
So obviously they get really good at it and they have more incentives.
The more capital they get the more time they have and the more long term and precise their strategies accumulating wealth can be.
Working class people don't know how or cannot do so.
This means working class are always reliant on the will of the rich. Be it good will or bad will.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

To get to the explicit title of the thread. There should be a transactional component to raising a child and being birthed. No one is entitled to anything in being alive or in being dead, certainly if you never existed.

It's courtesy if your guardians, well, guard you. It's also courtesy if your children take it upon themselves to make sure you are provided for in your old age.

People need to be nicer, and respect sacrifices people make. But they also should realize that they aren't entitled to anything. We've used fear as a tactic to make people nice and spread familial values, like with concepts of Karma, spirits and such. To the rational agent, which is the dominant strategy this means nothing if there is no underlying substance behind them.

The Good Place is a good show, super philosophical. Basically the premise is that we live in Hell, and are probably going to Hell after we die. Theres some bullshit about how people can change stuck in there too.

Am I an egomaniac if I want kids? Probably a little. It's a big responsibility. They could be the next Stalin, or maybe prophet of god. Intentions never really matter in the grand scheme of things anyways.

 

[BurnedOut]

But they also should realize that they aren't entitled to anything.

You bet. Nobody's going to be like that. Ever.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Yeah as you say there is a phase in economy where labor and product are the same.

As economy swings towards industry it starts developing real fast, and then its only short time before it evolves its financial and consumer service sector.

Korea had this phase just like everyone else.

The key here is that labor was labor and it was highly valuable. That is where people get the notion of hard work pays off.

In this phase also intelligent people who get higher education get higher pay off because intelligence in this phase is still matching production. Because there is demand for these people, math people do math, chemist and physicist do chemistry and physics, engineers do engineering etc.

Once that is gone and there is over production your labor and your product are disconnect in value.

However once capital develops labor loses its value. So being an ordinary worker no longer gets you what you would have previously.

This phase is tricky as financial burden shifts more towards finance and labor no longer matches product.

Countries that match labor and product end up growing real fast, but since there is no framework beyond this, this highly productive phase is gone and devolves into modern consumer society, high tech low life.

In consumer phase intelligent people start competing for jobs at market and so the jobs that were in demand for intelligent people no longer exist, as more students go to schools and hope for better income intelligent people become less valuable.

The working class is no longer backbone of economy either as they are less skilled, or highly specialized, but either way the guys who do the shit jobs no longer can sustain even lifestyle financially.

Simply in the labor phase you could raise a family with a shovel in the hand or doing the stupidest jobs ever.

However once you get lots of capital and heavy industry all the major capital naturally goes towards urban areas and with that also go people.

This creates a bigger boom in growth, but what sustained your country previously no longer has the same financial support.

This is why Chinese model of central government can retain value in labor by artificially pushing money towards productivity and thus at least marginally holding on to labor and product value.

Right, you've described the general progression of economic modernizing. The problem is that we don't have a clear picture of how the economic prospect of what the future will be. The phase of development has past- we're going into economic territory where sustainability is more of the priority rather than growth.

The ultimate question I think is, what really is the purpose of humankind? There is a grand flow of history that is happening, we know this when we look into the past, but because of the internet and various platforms people have been given, there's been a plurality of voices and desires that have been set out for man. On an individual level, yes, everyone finds a purpose or meaning for themselves, but on a higher level, the amalgamation of those desires turns into culture, and that culture forms and informs a society. But what is its final picture, and would there be a true justice in that future?

Freedom should be allotted to the maximal number of people for the maximal amount of happiness. I don't think, with today's technology, that this would be impossible.

Maybe then we'll be able to sit around and try to answer pointless philosophical questions for leisure..

 

[Cognisant]

The ultimate question I think is, what really is the purpose of humankind?

Purpose is for the living, you learn for the purpose of knowing, you make for the purpose of having and you build for the purpose of inhabiting.

But without life there is no purpose.

Every action is an investment in the future, having a future is what makes that investment meaningful, what meaning is there in learning a new skill when you're on death row, you'll never get the chance to use it. Fortunately our demise is not so imminent but the principle is no less true, any skill I learn now is only as meaningful as the time I'll have to use it and with every passing day, every passing moment there is less time.

My life is slowly being robbed of purpose, of value, of meaning.

Were I not doomed to expire life would have true meaning, I would not be concerned with the things I must do lest I die with regret for not doing them, I would not refrain from endeavors lest they take up too much of my time. If I wanted to carve a statue out of a mountain with nothing but my bare hands I could do so on a whim, it may take me centuries but such is only a moment for an immortal.

The death worshipers would tell you that death gives life meaning, that the beauty of a flower is its transience, an argument that has no rational basis cannot refuted but is instead undone with a question, why?

Why is transience beautiful?
Because life is transient? Transience is the end of life, if life is beautiful then transience is not beauty itself but rather the end of beauty, therefore the beauty of transience must be that of death. Is death beautiful?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Maybe then we'll be able to sit around and try to answer pointless philosophical questions for leisure..

I mean people always did and you can do that now days as well.

Its just not that rewarding exercise.

Why is transience beautiful?
Because life is transient? Transience is the end of life, if life is beautiful then transience is not beauty itself but rather the end of beauty, therefore the beauty of transience must be that of death. Is death beautiful?

Yeah I never understood that line of reasoning either. Desire for life usually does not leave healthy people, but then again some people do get fed up with life.
Either way transience makes zero sense in this sense.

However it makes sense in certain ways, because people unlike say sharks or turtles change in life.

Old people as matter of principal hate new culture. Its not that they are hateful, but you grow up with certain values and beliefs and overtime society changes them.

You also grow up raised a certain way, with certain expectations and certain amount behaviors.
Overtimes these things change, and adaptations that worked well before now don't work.

We might be entering the age where people need to adapt to change even faster.

Imagine your brain was wired for 20 years for certain realities, and now you have to rewire you brain all the time.

We are intelligent and adapt, but over time the accumulated understanding you gather at least cultural and social can actually lose its value just like stock market.

Your motivation is also not infinite. I mean how do you know that if you start a project that will take 100 years you will have the motivation down the line and not leave it unfinished 50 years down the line.

Garry Kasparov for example said that once he hit 30 years he lost that competitive edge and motivation he had previously for chess.

Imagine your whole life revolves around competitive chess and you suddenly lose it.

Also it makes sense in terms of resources.
Imagine all the old rich farts who are billionairs today keep accumulating the money indefinitely.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Intentions never really matter in the grand scheme of things anyways.

First of all what entitled means is entirely subjective anyway.
But intentions do matter. Especially if they become a reality that effects people around you. Say being racist makes zero sense if you live in all white community.
It only becomes a problem if you interact with people.
But racism is a kinds of tribalism and we all behave in tribalism ways.

The big reason why racism is frowned upon, while few decades earlier it was basically acceptable thing to do is, because it has major drawbacks in society.
But racism is same kind of wrong as classism, elitism or genderism or karenism or mobism or any other thing that kicks people who contribute to society out of circulation, because someone likes sympathies of their own kind.

Its however hard to fault such logic, because we humans are hardwired this way for sake of survival. One can argue its not true, but we all have certain gradient of trust and certain baseline for who we consider more close and more distant in affiliation or loyalty.

Jews prefer dealing with Jews. Especially in places where Jews seem more familiar and trust worthy than say palestinians.
Is it wrong to trust someone who shares your background more than say someone who is different?
We constantly make this decisions everyday in life.

Many people act like nationalism is evil, but if whole society benefits from nationalism how can it be wrong. If national interest takes precedence over interest of some other nation most people don't care about is it wrong? Not really.

All social groups have ingroup and outgroup mentality.

Most T types decide this based on objective things like performance.
So even the most racist ENTJ will respect a black guy if they can do a better job.
When it comes to feelers its less about objective, but more about subjective view.
How does that person make me feel or is that person sharing my values etc.

As for entitlement I reall don't know what people mean.

Do they mean you get benefits of something you did not earn?
Well Issac Newton said it himself I stand on the shoulders of giants. Or was it Einstein? Either way they both did.

SO is it entitlement to get a Nobel prize for physics?

Or is entitlement the part where you never contribute, but only take?

But what says makes your parents entitled to be a certain type of person.

Like lets say your parents say you should be a doctor?

Is that a good thing or not?

So I think entitlement is very subversive language.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Intentions never really matter in the grand scheme of things anyways.

First of all what entitled means is entirely subjective anyway.
But intentions do matter. Especially if they become a reality that effects people around you. Say being racist makes zero sense if you live in all white community.
It only becomes a problem if you interact with people.
But racism is a kinds of tribalism and we all behave in tribalism ways.

The big reason why racism is frowned upon, while few decades earlier it was basically acceptable thing to do is, because it has major drawbacks in society.
But racism is same kind of wrong as classism, elitism or genderism or karenism or mobism or any other thing that kicks people who contribute to society out of circulation, because someone likes sympathies of their own kind.

Its however hard to fault such logic, because we humans are hardwired this way for sake of survival. One can argue its not true, but we all have certain gradient of trust and certain baseline for who we consider more close and more distant in affiliation or loyalty.

Jews prefer dealing with Jews. Especially in places where Jews seem more familiar and trust worthy than say palestinians.
Is it wrong to trust someone who shares your background more than say someone who is different?
We constantly make this decisions everyday in life.

Many people act like nationalism is evil, but if whole society benefits from nationalism how can it be wrong. If national interest takes precedence over interest of some other nation most people don't care about is it wrong? Not really.

All social groups have ingroup and outgroup mentality.

Most T types decide this based on objective things like performance.
So even the most racist ENTJ will respect a black guy if they can do a better job.
When it comes to feelers its less about objective, but more about subjective view.
How does that person make me feel or is that person sharing my values etc.

As for entitlement I reall don't know what people mean.

Do they mean you get benefits of something you did not earn?
Well Issac Newton said it himself I stand on the shoulders of giants. Or was it Einstein? Either way they both did.

SO is it entitlement to get a Nobel prize for physics?

Or is entitlement the part where you never contribute, but only take?

But what says makes your parents entitled to be a certain type of person.

Like lets say your parents say you should be a doctor?

Is that a good thing or not?

So I think entitlement is very subversive language.

Let me rephrase that into 'most intentions don't matter in the grand scheme of things'. Not to drift into realativist hypothetical hell, but perhaps, Hitler who intended to dominate the world but failed, didn't intend to, but indeed did hypothetically delay a World War 2 that would've been much worse.

What you're saying about intentions and behavior is very true, but you only look at or conceive intentions when you do not have information on one's actual actions. You cannot look inside someone's mind, and even if you could, they might come up with a new idea and completely change their strategy and thus altering their intentions. If you can see the supposed outcome of their decisions, this is a much more reliable thing.

I suppose you could say that one would only look at behavior to qualify intentions to begin with, but that isn't what I'm saying either. Though I guess when I'm this reductive my own point falls on it's face too. Intent might appear to matter in the present, and as the uncertainty of our actions and knowledge of reality does diminish it certainly will matter, but how any entity is informed history is not solely by intent, but various things within the context of where that intent was furnished. And then eventually the entity will crumble to dust, from whence it came.



On entitlement, in a legal context, if you have own the title of a home, you are, depending on the jurisdiction, entitled to virtually all things having to do with that home.

More abstractly, I am entitled to defend myself if I feel someone is a threat to me.

If someone comes to me and assaults' me, or builds something on my property, they have to make me aware of what entitled them to do so. Is it some neighborhood government function, or someone who thought I stole something from them, and thus defending their property and such.

OUTSIDE the legal context, people will think they have this sort of leverage over things and people who have no business with them. They BELIEVE they are entitled to do X, when they actually aren't entitled to anything. It's basically a dispassionate way of saying, arrogant, self-serving, possessive, or manipulative, and perhaps even capitalist.

Pragmatic moralism falls apart with unexplored things, so I couldn't tell you if feeling entitled is all bad or all good. People should certainly be entitled with something that gets them to not be miserable. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness and all that.

Between us humans, I certainly feel entitled for us to write in English to each other. If one of us suddenly switched languages the other didn't understand, I know I'd be like "da fuq?" I might feel insecure if you try to continue communication and just expected me to know the language, and thus maybe I call you rude, but are you rude? Or is there maybe some other word that should convey more accurately what you are? It's definitely abnormal. Norms I guess are the crux of what we would say entitles people, which is a scary thought. It's not a question about good and bad.

Avoiding abject misery I believe is what we should be entitled to. But that's a hairy situation. If I traded one of my kidneys, to keep my father from dying, am I entitled to anything, is it bad if he feels he doesn't owe me anything because I am alive due to him? If we can predict the future, and find out that the only way we as a species will survive, is if 90% of us are culled, are people entitled to start killing each other until there are only 10% left?