Why do people make children?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Honestly I would prefer a world where there are no wicked people who victimize and enslave other people.
But since there are these people...I think it's wrong to produce children that will become victims of these people.

Well, so long as you recognize that you are essentially advocating for the extinction of the human race, you are permitted your viewpoint.

I'll grant you, it would make the work of all those eco-lovers trying to save species all over the planet easier, but of course, they woudn't be around to enjoy it.

 

[Koldo]

So you would prefer a universe in which all life existed only on energy from stars and the inanimate material around them? And also never died? (And for that reason, should also never reproduce?)

Kind of... It depends on the specifics.

Let me put it this way: If the holocaust hadn't happened, many of us wouldn't ever have come into existence. But if I had to pick between my existence and preventing the holocaust, I would pick the latter.

 

[Koldo]

You could be right, I was wrote my first paper on neural transmission at 16 yrs old.

Eye-rolling.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Kind of... It depends on the specifics.

Let me put it this way: If the holocaust hadn't happened, many of us wouldn't ever have come into existence. But if I had to pick between my existence and preventing the holocaust, I would pick the latter.

But as the past is outside of our ability to alter, it's not an argument that I'll give much attention. I wouldn't attempt to answer such questions, myself -- I rather suspect, in my case, it would be an exercise in futility, liberally seasoned with an altruism I'd like to claim, but can't be altogether sure of.

 

[Koldo]

But as the past is outside of our ability to alter, it's not an argument that I'll give much attention. I wouldn't attempt to answer such questions, myself -- I rather suspect, in my case, it would be an exercise in futility, liberally seasoned with an altruism I'd like to claim, but can't be altogether sure of.

If you can't even be sure that you would pick preventing one of the worst moments of human history at the cost of your own life, how can that be a sign of anything other than selfishness?

This is not just about you in specific though. As I have said before, we tend to be selfish.

 

[Bthoth]

Eye-rolling.

i know, most of my friends were surfing and I was enjoying physics and tv/radio repair while working thru publications from berkeley and UC Irvine.

See penrose and hammeroff (UofA), ORCH theory, them two picked up where I left off at PNC (photo neuron conduction) to the synaptic junctions.

 

[Kfox]

Source?

https://www.cato.org/commentary/real-1-percent#

 

[Kfox]

"Many self-made millionaires have money coming in from several places, including their salaries, dividends from investments, income from rental properties, and investments they have made in other business enterprises, to name a few examples."

As a point. The poor typically don't have "salaries". Let alone multiple income streams.

And your point is?

 

[Kfox]

Yes. But only the fittest win.
There are winners and losers in Capitalism.

Who are the losers in capitalism?

And not because of merit. Because of money. Owning money is not a merit because you often inherit it.

Few rich inherit their money.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/real-1-percent#

 

[The Hammer]

And your point is?

Last sentence of the post you quoted specifically states "as a point...".

Apologies if you didn't read it.

 

[The Hammer]

And your point is?

The poor (and/or average persons) typically don't have "salaries". Let alone multiple income streams, to become millionaires.

Also, there is nothing wrong with being a millionaire. Billionaire on the other hand.

 

[The Hammer]

https://www.cato.org/commentary/real-1-percent#

Your source is over a decade out of date. Try more recent.

 

[Koldo]

https://www.cato.org/commentary/real-1-percent#

Your link doesn't state that they started poor, nor does it state that the poor are likely to become rich if they want to. Do you have anything else?

 

[Koldo]

Who are the losers in capitalism?

The poor.

 

[The Hammer]

Your link doesn't state that they started poor, nor does it state that the poor are likely to become rich if they want to. Do you have anything else?

It's also 13 year old research

 

[Kfox]

Last sentence of the post you quoted specifically states "as a point...".

Apologies if you didn't read it.

Okay; I get it. True; the poor don't have salaries and multiple sources of income, but my point is, most poor don't remain poor forever so when they eventually do get those things; they are no longer poor and often become rich.

 

[Kfox]

Also, there is nothing wrong with being a millionaire. Billionaire on the other hand.

Are you under the impression there is something wrong with being a billionaire?

 

[Kfox]

Your source is over a decade out of date. Try more recent.

Why? It is still relevant.

 

[The Hammer]

Okay; I get it. True; the poor don't have salaries and multiple sources of income, but my point is, most poor don't remain poor forever so when they eventually do get those things; they are no longer poor and often become rich.

That I am not sure is actually occuring, the poor having mobility, given that the price of consumer goods has skyrocketed in the last 50 years of trickle down attempts, and the wages we are paid stagnated in 1980s.

"Around 64% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck."

https://money.usnews.com/credit-cards/articles/how-many-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck

 

[The Hammer]

Are you under the impression there is something wrong with being a billionaire?

Absolutely