Abortion and Population

[Rev. Rye]

I suspect that the issue with not enough people being in the workforce is less of a problem with the population and more of a problem with the employers. Fun fact: shortly before I turned 18, the world went into The Great Recession. Eventually, the economy started to grow back, but people of my generation haven't reaped many of the benefits of that return. You want a job that pays decently? Well, it's still shockingly hard to get a job that pays enough that you can be reasonably sure you can pay your bills. Hell, even entry-level jobs frequently still require years' worth of experience. Of course, you can still get those years from an internship, but, well, those jobs don't pay. At all.



(note: Emily the Criminal provides a damn good illustration of the situation many of us are in.)

And this can be a major turn-off, especially if, like many of us, your parents brow-beat you into going to college because they were convinced that it was the one thing that guaranteed you'd get a decent job. Those parents wound up being wrong, and many of us got saddled with tens of thousands in debt. Even if we've managed to get a full-time job, frequently, it still doesn't pay enough to keep the lights on. And then, in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic hit. And shortly after that came the Great Resignation. And when polled on why they left the work force, 63% of the respondents said that the pay was too low for them to stay in the work force, and they didn't see much opportunity for things to get better.

When you can't make ends meet, and there's little chance of that changing, it's no wonder that there's so few people in the workforce.

And if you want to go to the moon, Mars, and beyond, you're going to need more than a number of people willing to colonise those celestial bodies. You're going to need resources. Even if we had the technology necessary to make either the Moon or Mars habitable for long-term settlement ready (and we're not even close,) you're going to need a lot of fuel to power the rockets to get it there.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

 Well is society really "advancing" if it's making humans obsolete?

The creatures we're busy extincting would say so.

[Ahriman]

The human world is in desperate need of people who would be willing to make drastic changes. I say keep making more people until the right ones come along.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The human world is in desperate need of people who would be willing to make drastic changes. I say keep making more people until the right ones come along.

I bet you graduated from the Prometheus School of Running Away.

[Rev. Rye]

The human world is in desperate need of people who would be willing to make drastic changes. I say keep making more people until the right ones come along.

And who’s going to help pay to keep them alive? And not just alive, but in a position where they actually have the luxury of being able to make said drastic changes?

Otherwise, that sort of advice just sounds like this:

[brewer]

bold mine: Then they are incorrect. But it's my guess and I find it more likely that you are incorrect. Please provide the link for your UN quote.

Unless you are arguing that abortions directly impacts future fertility status. If you are, that would be incorrect also.

Help me out here. What’s the problem? Do you not agree with the definition of fertility rate? Or do you not agree that abortion reduces the fertility rate?

If it’s the former, get access to a computer and the internet to search on “fertility rate definition.”

If it’s the latter, then please see my response to Thumpalumpacus. I’m not interested in the hill that abortion reduces the fertility rate. However, it seems reasonable to me that anything that reduces the number of live births while, at the same time, keeping the number of women constant would reduce the fertility rate.

So, what is incorrect and why is it incorrect?

The problem is that I don't (didn't-see below) believe you. You made a 'quote' and state that the UN (and others?) claim that fertility rate = birth rate. I know this is incorrect. I asked for a link to the document where you obtained your 'quote' and now see that you are apparently unwilling or unable to supply the document.

Then you want me to do the work that you should have done to make the claim. Sorry, that's on you to support your claim.

But just for fun I found your source: https://www.un.org/fr/desa/world-populat...llion-2100

Now I think that you lack the ability to comprehend. The total birth rate, and population, increases world wide. And it's sad that the UN can't use fertility and birth correctly.

Why does it matter if the claimed 'fertility rate' is lower in 83 countries? Do you not like the 112 countries where fertility increases? It's more likely you used this as a false flag for your position on abortion. Your quote "So, you can be for abortion if you want. But don’t argue based on population levels." (post #1)

For education you might want to look at gravida vs para (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravidity_and_parity), apparently the UN also. Gravida relates to fertility, para relates to birth, they are most certainly different.

[The Grand Nudger]

Costs a little over a quarter mil to raise a kid in the us. 20% of that is just food. Thankfully, the price goes down drastically after two. Basically every additional child also appears to come with a roughly 25% decrease in cost. Experience, hand me downs, more practice with tighter budgeting, that sort of thing.

The brunt of that cost is absorbed by the parents - that's what made state investment in children so lucrative. Consequently, while most people have just as many kids as they want - among the group of people who indicate they wished they had more, the number one reason they didn't was cost. It's not even close.

There's no drastic change gene so we can't just breed environmentalists, for example. Demographically speaking those with luxuries are the least likely to advocate for drastic change in the first place. Truth is that the drastic changes will be mostly cobbled together by the poor as a brute force of demographics. People who can't wait for tech or wealth (or the next douchebro "genius") to save them. We need to make it more affordable to raise kids and close the skills gap - ideally at the same time, and we'll enjoy a baby boom. There could be an abortion clinic on every street corner and it wouldn't matter at all.

Or, you know, we could bitch and moan impotently about what whores deserve. Bet that'll make us super-fuckable.

[Mister Agenda]

Hi Thumpalumpacus,

Thanks for responding. I appreciate you clarifying the point being discussed.

So if anyone wants to argue that abortion reduces net population growth, they'll need better evidence.

Yes, I would argue that abortion could contribute to reducing net population growth. It clearly and by definition reduces the number of live births. If there are not other factors, then population growth would be reduced.

However, I was not arguing that abortion reduces net population growth. I tried to summarize my point in the last line.

So, you can be for abortion if you want. But don’t argue based on population levels.

Let me try to lay it out better than I did before. My apologies if it's still not clear.

People often argue for abortion, in part, because of our population levels. “We don’t need the people. We have too many people." This has been a rally cry for many years. My point is that the population levels are not out of control. The fearmongering was that we would run out of resources and even space (I think of a Star Trek episode).

On the contrary, population decline is a real thing that many countries are experiencing now. An article a year ago in Scientific American stated that the US present fertility rate is about 1.7, below the replacement rate. Which, by definition, means that our population will decline. As people start dying, there will not be new people to replace them. As people start aging, there will not be new workers to replace them.

So while you write that you aren't arguing that point, you are most certainly, by your own admission, agreeing with it. You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

That quote seemed the best one to start from. Obviously not. I should have left abortion out of the thread title, too. I only included it because that was part of the original thread.

Pax et bonum

Huh. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say (that I can recall) that we should have more abortions to help keep the excess human population down. I suppose we must run in very different circles.

[Mister Agenda]

 Well is society really "advancing" if it's making humans obsolete?

Having smaller families doesn't make humans obsolete unless if falls below replacement rate globally for generations. Our robot overlords are much more likely to render us obsolete.

[Ahriman]

 Well is society really "advancing" if it's making humans obsolete?

Having smaller families doesn't make humans obsolete unless if falls below replacement rate globally for generations. Our robot overlords are much more likely to render us obsolete.

Why would it even need to get to that point? That's like saying, "well, my kitchen is on fire, but I won't do anything about it until the whole house is on fire". And in this context, "having smaller families" just means, having families without children.