• fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m fine with regular support for people who need it, but not paying for people to create more people. There are WAY too many of us already.

    • Zip2@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      There are too many people, I’ll agree.

      However you can’t take away peoples biological rights to reproduce.

      But you can give fathers a bit more time off early on to help with looking after their family. A few weeks of extra paternity leave funding would probably work out cheaper in the long run for the treasury vs all the alternatives.

      Plus you need a constantly supply to refresh the workers who are getting older and cluttering up the top of the population pyramid.

      • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m not trying to take anyone’s “rights to reproduce,” I just don’t want someone reaching onto my wallet to incentivize increased population because its a stupid thing to do that harm humanity in the long run

        This is coming from somene who supports things like single-payer universal healthcare, broad financial support for education, ensuring housing for people, etc.

        • Zip2@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          How is giving fathers a bit of extra time off incentivising increasing the population??? They were going to have the child anyway!

          It’s not reaching into your wallet, it’s everyone’s. And the cost is far offset by the taxes levied on that child when it starts work anyway.

          • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Its right there in what you typed, its giving them time off. That’s what inventivizes them.

            I’m part of everyone, so yes, it’s reaching into my wallet.

            • Zip2@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Its right there in what you typed, its giving them time off. That’s what inventivizes them.

              No it isn’t. I speak from personal experience. Twice.

            • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Would you honestly take on at least 18 years of responsibility for another human being in exchange for a couple of weeks off work? Do you seriously consider that an incentive?

                • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I just want to be absolutely clear here, to make sure that you fully understand the question, because your answer suggests you don’t: It’s not couple of weeks a year, it’s just a couple of weeks, right at the start, and it’s not a holiday, you have to look after the baby at its most helpless during those extra weeks of leave. Are you sure that you consider a few extra weeks of looking after a child to be worth 18 years of looking after the child? Like I’m not doing a silly hypothetical where I ask if you consider yourself more or less likely to consider having a child in future, I am asking you, personally, if you will be having a child and raising it should men recieve more paternal leave.

    • sunbeam60
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Most western states are looking at bleak prospects in terms of keeping their welfare system going unless the citizens have more children.

      Either that or accept immigration, which many western states don’t want to do either.

      • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, that’s going to suck, but the apparent alternative is continuing massive overconsumption that will eventually cause much worse problems.

        Immigration will be a huge problem that’s already being exacerbated by climate change and disinformation.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Says who? Populations are expected the level off. We produce enough food for 10 billion currently before we even get to our advances in green energy and agriculture. Our housing issues are political.

      It’s a weird angle to take against equality.

      • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Says the fact that we’d require several more earth size planets just to sustain current human consumption, or the fact that we’re killing off other life on the planet at an almost unprecedented rate.

        We produce enough food to feed everyone… in a completely unsustainable way.

        weird angle to take against equality

        Come on, what a shitty strawman.