The Morality of Having Children

[Carborendum]

This New Yorker article published just last month asks whether it is morally acceptable to have children in a burning drowning world.

Not a new thing, I know.  But I see this as becoming a more mainstream ideal that will be a "cancellable" offense in the coming years, unless things turn around.

I just wanted to highlight one of the introductory phrases of the article which, I believe, encapsulates the feelings, intent, and mentality of the green-to-human-extinction mindset:

Quote

There is the crystalline uncertainty of the structure and dynamics of the climate system

I want to point out that the word "crystalline" may mean one of two things in this context:

• structured
• clear

I gotta ask: Is it clearly structured or is it uncertain?  Certainly clearly structured uncertainty is an oxymoron.  And isn't it a bit redundant to say a "structured uncertainty to the structure"?

Yeah, not really.  This kind of self-contradicting reasoning is what is driving the ideology.  Do they even listen to themselves?

Quote

Having a child is at once the most intimate, irrational thing a person can do, prompted by desires so deep we hardly know where to look for their wellsprings, and an unavoidably political act

Apparently, it is now considered irrational to have children.  This has always been the center of the whole green movement.  Yes, it also includes many other aspects that will (if left unchecked) destroy the world as we know it.  And the new world order will not be pleasant.

I'd say that if they really believe that having children will actually destroy the world, then let them go on without having children.  We'll have children and raise them with good sense, work ethic, time-tested morals, and faith in God. That's the way to win.

[NeuroTypical]

Death cults gotta death cult.  It's always fun to ask these folks about their proposed solutions.  The decent ones say "I'm not going to have children and contribute to the problem."  The problematic ones propose all sorts of things from expanding access to birth control, to outright forced sterilization and murder.  But they never see it that way.  It's always couched in innocent terms like "we need to create a society where all couples have one or two children max".  You get to asking them about the details.  What happens if a couple ends up with three, or five, or ten?  Do you want to convince people to join voluntarily, or do you believe in using government force like China?

Edited December 15, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[JohnsonJones]

On 12/15/2023 at 7:55 AM, Carborendum said:

This New Yorker article published just last month asks whether it is morally acceptable to have children in a burning drowning world.

Not a new thing, I know.  But I see this as becoming a more mainstream ideal that will be a "cancellable" offense in the coming years, unless things turn around.

I just wanted to highlight one of the introductory phrases of the article which, I believe, encapsulates the feelings, intent, and mentality of the green-to-human-extinction mindset:

I want to point out that the word "crystalline" may mean one of two things in this context:

• structured
• clear

I gotta ask: Is it clearly structured or is it uncertain?  Certainly clearly structured uncertainty is an oxymoron.  And isn't it a bit redundant to say a "structured uncertainty to the structure"?

Yeah, not really.  This kind of self-contradicting reasoning is what is driving the ideology.  Do they even listen to themselves?

Apparently, it is now considered irrational to have children.  This has always been the center of the whole green movement.  Yes, it also includes many other aspects that will (if left unchecked) destroy the world as we know it.  And the new world order will not be pleasant.

I'd say that if they really believe that having children will actually destroy the world, then let them go on without having children.  We'll have children and raise them with good sense, work ethic, time-tested morals, and faith in God. That's the way to win.

Several thoughts are brought to mind on reading your post. 

Part I

I recently read an article on Climate change about how the oceans are rising and destroying a village in Mexico.  It was pointed out in the comments that if you look at the coastline beyond that village, you will notice that the ocean hasn't actually risen at all.  That the village itself only came about around 40 years ago.  That the reasons why there wasn't one previously were due to the exact reasons the village had suffered as per what the article posted...AND...even with that, most of the buildings were still standing and NOT damaged. 

I feel Climate Change is occurring and that there is a Human factor that is involved with causing it to accelerate.  I also think that there is a awful lot of alarmist statements and articles that exaggerate how it has affected the world thus far.  This way of doing things only diminishes how believable the actual claims of Climate Change are.  When someone reads one of these articles and then finds out that it's basically full of lies, they are apt to discount ALL of the Science behind Climate Change.  These types of articles do more of a disservice than to help with anything, but these people pushing them and whatever agenda they have do not seem to understand they are doing more harm than good.

However, it IS affecting our youth and it is part of what they catalogue on their issues that are ongoing in the world.  I would be remiss if I ignored that many of my university students have these concerns.  It adds to the general malaise many of them feel towards the world and it's future.  I think there are many types of articles and influences like this today which make many of our students and young people give up hope about the future.

Someone without hope for the future is less likely to invest in a future...which also includes having a family.

Part II

The bigger concern I've seen in regards to family and children recently has to do with money and the financial situation in the West.  Housing is becoming unaffordable.  If a young person cannot afford a home, they are much less likely to start a family.  Many young people today look at the prices of housing and think they will NEVER be able to afford a home.  This is a DIRECT impact on them having families. 

If WE want more kids to get married and have families we HAVE to solve the housing crisis that is occurring in the West.  Unbridled greed and seeing housing as investments rather than a place to live and raise a family have caused what I see as a extreme problem to our society today.  I would say this is actually the #1 factor in students saying they won't ever have children...simply because they do not see themselves as being able to afford a family and children in the future.  This is from those who are in college.

I hate to see what despair is hitting those who are not looking at having a college education and the ensuing benefits in the future. 

We NEED to somehow tackle the greed that has consumed the housing market.  We need to somehow make housing affordable for young families and those who want children.  We NEED to make children affordable.

By making the necessities that are needed to raise children so expensive, we are guilty of being the cause of decreasing the desire and ability of our younger generations to HAVE those children.

Even having a child now days (giving birth at a medical facility) can cost over $20,000 in the initial bill.  That's insane.  It cost me less than $100 for my children to be born.  That's 2000x the amount I paid to have children.  That's ridiculous and is worse than inflation by a FAR amount. 

If we want young people to have children, we have to make it so that they can actually AFFORD to have those children.

Part III

I don't know if it's seen as irrational, but if you combine the two above (despair and giving up about the future and not being able to afford a family) you get a deadly combo of kids who look at families and think it doesn't make sense to try to have one. 

It's coming from both sides of the equation.  One side basically trying to kill all hope that the Kids have OF the future.  The other side basically making it impossible to AFFORD the children even if they wanted one.

There needs to be SOMETHING done, but I don't see the collective will of society in the West being able to come together at this time to get rid of both of these ideologies and greed to be able to actually stop the destructive forces that are fighting against families today.  It's a sad state of affairs we find ourselves it.

Edited December 18, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[laronius]

On 12/18/2023 at 4:28 AM, JohnsonJones said:

There needs to be SOMETHING done, but I don't see the collective will of society in the West being able to come together at this time to get rid of both of these ideologies and greed to be able to actually stop the destructive forces that are fighting against families today.  It's a sad state of affairs we find ourselves it.

One of the problems of socialism is the shift in public mindset that the government needs to solve problems rather than each individual making choices that are good for society and not just their own personal interest. It's another Satanic lie that produces the exact opposite result of what people think they are accomplishing. 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, laronius said:

each individual making choices that are good for society and not just their own personal interest

I don't believe these things are diametrically opposite.

[LDSGator]

55 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't believe these things are diametrically opposite.

100% correct. 

[laronius]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't believe these things are diametrically opposite.

I didn't say they were. But there are some things that are. Greed for example. 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 12/15/2023 at 7:55 AM, Carborendum said:

This New Yorker article published just last month asks whether it is morally acceptable to have children in a burning drowning world.

Not a new thing, I know.  But I see this as becoming a more mainstream ideal that will be a "cancellable" offense in the coming years, unless things turn around.

I just wanted to highlight one of the introductory phrases of the article which, I believe, encapsulates the feelings, intent, and mentality of the green-to-human-extinction mindset:

I want to point out that the word "crystalline" may mean one of two things in this context:

• structured
• clear

I gotta ask: Is it clearly structured or is it uncertain?  Certainly clearly structured uncertainty is an oxymoron.  And isn't it a bit redundant to say a "structured uncertainty to the structure"?

Yeah, not really.  This kind of self-contradicting reasoning is what is driving the ideology.  Do they even listen to themselves?

Apparently, it is now considered irrational to have children.  This has always been the center of the whole green movement.  Yes, it also includes many other aspects that will (if left unchecked) destroy the world as we know it.  And the new world order will not be pleasant.

I'd say that if they really believe that having children will actually destroy the world, then let them go on without having children.  We'll have children and raise them with good sense, work ethic, time-tested morals, and faith in God. That's the way to win.

They really try hard to sound smart, don't they? LOL

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 12/18/2023 at 4:28 AM, JohnsonJones said:

The bigger concern I've seen in regards to family and children recently has to do with money and the financial situation in the West.  Housing is becoming unaffordable.  If a young person cannot afford a home, they are much less likely to start a family.  Many young people today look at the prices of housing and think they will NEVER be able to afford a home.  This is a DIRECT impact on them having families. 

If WE want more kids to get married and have families we HAVE to solve the housing crisis that is occurring in the West. 

Pre-fabricated and concrete dome homes would cost a lot less. What the Feds should do is unlock the BLM lands and allow people to have them up to half an acre. Then help them finance the prefabs.

[LDSGator]

On 12/23/2023 at 12:15 AM, laronius said:

I didn't say they were. But there are some things that are. Greed for example. 

Greed is absolutely sinful, but so is envy. In fact, I’ve noticed that greed is one of those sins that only the other guy has.

To be fair, like the old saying goes we’re wonderful prosecutors for the sins of others and spectacular defense attorneys for our own sins-but this is very true when it comes to greed & envy.   

[Traveler]

On 12/18/2023 at 4:28 AM, JohnsonJones said:

.......

I feel Climate Change is occurring and that there is a Human factor that is involved with causing it to accelerate.  I also think that there is a awful lot of alarmist statements and articles that exaggerate how it has affected the world thus far.  ......

......

In 1960 the most intensive government census in history was conducted in the USA.  As a result, a political movement was created with two major objectives (among others).  End poverty and the destruction of our environment caused from human pollution.  This was initiated by the Democrats under President Johnson in May of 1964.   This initiative has now become the greatest tax and expenses on Americans. 

I would point out that with all the government involvement and research that the results are that poverty today is worse than in 1964 (more Americans per capita) living below the poverty level and that even by all the government standards and documentation of our environmental issues since 1964 – we are in greater danger of destroying our environment today than back in 1964.  

Concerning global warming – it is interesting to note that all the planets and also our sun of our solar system are all experiencing global warming climate change.  It is also interesting to note that the areas of our earth that are experiencing the greatest percent in global warming climate change – it has been discovered that the cause is geological and not atmospheric.  It is also important to note that in general there has been a global climate warming change since the decline of the last major ice age caused by geological changes.

The second largest super volcano in the world is sitting under almost 3 miles of ice at the south pole in antarctica.  There is warming and expansion within that volcano’s caldera indicating a possible eminent eruption.  If and when a major eruption occurs it will cause the melting of enough ice to raise the oceans from 20 to 60 feet.  If such an eruption was rapid, over 80% of the world’s human population would have to migrate within 48 hours.   Also such an eruption would emit more green house gases within a few hours than humans would in decades. Why are environmentalists (and politicians) not worried about geological effects on climate? 

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

23 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Pre-fabricated and concrete dome homes would cost a lot less. What the Feds should do is unlock the BLM lands and allow people to have them up to half an acre. Then help them finance the prefabs.

Unfortunately, it is not about availability.  It is about government intervention.

• Lumber can be grown at a very fast rate.  With more supply, lower costs.  But government is preventing private forests through environmental and tax intervention.
• Property taxes are just plain too high.
• Cities and counties have overly restrictive building codes.  And the enforcement by untrained bureaucrats causes compliance costs to go through the roof.
• Minimum wage causes all the little expenses to go up.  And they add up pretty fast.

Put it all together, and there is no way to build a cheap home.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Unfortunately, it is not about availability.  It is about government intervention.

• Lumber can be grown at a very fast rate.  With more supply, lower costs.  But government is preventing private forests through environmental and tax intervention.
• Property taxes are just plain too high.
• Cities and counties have overly restrictive building codes.  And the enforcement by untrained bureaucrats causes compliance costs to go through the roof.
• Minimum wage causes all the little expenses to go up.  And they add up pretty fast.

Put it all together, and there is no way to build a cheap home.

I'm not sure government and taxes is sufficient to explain the fact that our house is worth 3 times the amount we originally bought it for 15ish years back though.

[zil2]

36 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure government and taxes is sufficient to explain the fact that our house is worth 3 times the amount we originally bought it for 15ish years back though.

I have heard that this is because, in part, corporations are buying up houses and renting them, keeping people from being able to buy houses, increasing the demand, which increases the price.  While I don't suppose I can blame any home-seller for accepting the highest bid, my advice to those who can is to refuse to sell to anyone other than an actual person who intends to live in the home (don't sell to corporations).

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure government and taxes is sufficient to explain the fact that our house is worth 3 times the amount we originally bought it for 15ish years back though.

Not too far off.  This website says the median home price in 2009 was 208,400, and it rose to $431k today - 106% higher. 

 

Inflation can account for maybe 40% of that:

there was 1.6% inflation in 2010 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $101,640 
there was 3.2% inflation in 2011 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $104,852 
there was 2.1% inflation in 2012 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $107,022 
there was 1.5% inflation in 2013 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $108,595 
there was 1.6% inflation in 2014 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $110,355 
there was 0.1% inflation in 2015 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $110,487 
there was 1.3% inflation in 2016 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $111,879 
there was 2.1% inflation in 2017 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $114,240 
there was 1.9% inflation in 2018 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $116,422 
there was 2.3% inflation in 2019 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $119,088 
there was 1.4% inflation in 2020 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $120,708 
there was 7.0% inflation in 2021 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $129,205 
there was 6.5% inflation in 2022 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $137,539 
there was 3.1% inflation in 2023 making a home worth $100k in 2009 now worth $141,858 

This website roughly agrees on housing inflation.

 

So, we're down to explaining why home prices are ~66% higher than 2009, after factoring inflation.  I don't know why.  Random guesses:
- We have 10% more Americans than 2009 (340 mil vs 308.5M), a lot of materials go into 31.5m homes.  Do we have 10% higher production, or import 10% more stuff?
- I've also heard @zil2's rental vs ownership stuff.   But ome ownership was 67.2% in '09, and 65.9% in April '23, according to this website.  1.3% isn't really the end of the world, especially since that rate has bounced around since the '60's.  
 

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Unfortunately, it is not about availability.  It is about government intervention.

• Lumber can be grown at a very fast rate.  With more supply, lower costs.  But government is preventing private forests through environmental and tax intervention.
• Property taxes are just plain too high.
• Cities and counties have overly restrictive building codes.  And the enforcement by untrained bureaucrats causes compliance costs to go through the roof.
• Minimum wage causes all the little expenses to go up.  And they add up pretty fast.

Put it all together, and there is no way to build a cheap home.

Exactly, Government should focus on securing our borders and keeping a strong military to protect us. The people should be left alone otherwise.

[NeuroTypical]

You meant federal government, right @Emmanuel Goldstein?  Because otherwise...

[The Folk Prophet]

56 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Not too far off.  This website says the median home price in 2009 was 208,400, and it rose to $431k today - 106% higher. 

We bought our home in 2009 at 225k. It appraised about a year back at 620k. We did finish the basement in that time, so that explains some small part of it. But we don't have a big fancy house by any means.

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You meant federal government, right @Emmanuel Goldstein?  Because otherwise...

This made me think of the interviews I've seen recently with Michael Malice and his anarchism philosophies. He has some interesting ideas. I like a lot of his thoughts. But no government? Really? That's gonna work out.

[zil2]

36 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You meant federal government, right @Emmanuel Goldstein?  Because otherwise...

Hey, we all work from home now anyway, and I'll bet sellers would get on the delivery-drone bandwagon real quick...

(And don't you dare go asking how employees are going to get to work to load and fly those drones, I'm enjoying my imaginary isolation over here, so they're just going to have to build better robots!)

Edited December 29, 2023 by zil2

[Carborendum]

On 12/29/2023 at 10:45 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure government and taxes is sufficient to explain the fact that our house is worth 3 times the amount we originally bought it for 15ish years back though.

Yes, you're probably right.  But it does explain a lot of it.

A 3x factor is probably a local phenomenon.  The national average has been just under 2.0

• Overall inflation alone (which is 100% the government's fault) will explain about a 1.5 to 1.6 factor over the course of 15 years.
• Building code requirements effect the land prices. A recent subdivision I designed ended up creating a cost of about $50k per lot above and beyond the price of the land originally due to development costs as mandated by the County.  There was, of course a bit more cost due to the profit to the developer.  But I'm not privy to that amount.
• Houses are required to have more construction requirements every three years.  Most people aren't aware of the differences.  But they incrementally cause more and more cost each year.
  • When new homes cost more, existing homes will see their appraisals rise as well.
• Property taxes won't explain home prices.  But it impacts the monthly payment (which usually escrows the property tax).  The original point was about affordability, and the escrow amount is included in that.
• Insurance rates (also escrowed into the overall monthly payment) have gone up mainly due to government influences.  And this gets a lot more convoluted when you consider broad based insurance companies (i.e. companies that do more than one type of insurance).

Not everything, I understand.  But the market forces are something that the average person is well aware of.  And that may be the difference between the 2.0 average and the 3.0 that you cited.  Some places like CA are seeing their home prices plummet, while places like Texas and Florida are seeing things skyrocket.  I, myself, saw the price go up over 40% in two years.  Multiply that with the 2.0 average, and yes, it has tripled.  But most of that was in the past 5 years. 

We're at a peak right now.  The next year or two will see home prices plummet.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

On 12/29/2023 at 2:35 PM, NeuroTypical said:

You meant federal government, right @Emmanuel Goldstein?  Because otherwise...

I’ve seen a ton of Libertarians post this. I know there are humorless libertarians out there but I love how the majority of  us can laugh at our own beliefs 

[Grunt]

On 12/28/2023 at 1:03 PM, LDSGator said:

Greed is absolutely sinful, but so is envy. In fact, I’ve noticed that greed is one of those sins that only the other guy has.

To be fair, like the old saying goes we’re wonderful prosecutors for the sins of others and spectacular defense attorneys for our own sins-but this is very true when it comes to greed & envy.   

So is lying, fraud, and breaking covenants.  Some people prosecute the sins of others.  Some people defend them. 

[LDSGator]

39 minutes ago, Grunt said:

So is lying, fraud, and breaking covenants.  Some people prosecute the sins of others.  Some people defend them. 

Agree. 

[LDSGator]

@Grunt- to combine this with the other thread, capitalism is the only economic system that turns greed into something that can benefit society. All other systems fail to do that.  

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

@Grunt- to combine this with the other thread, capitalism is the only economic system that turns greed into something that can benefit society. All other systems fail to do that.  

Absolutely.