# Many women have bodies that can bear 9 children, yet due to living on a salary and housing issues, many just have two. There needs to be more support



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

There needs to be more support for families to have many children. Many women have a body shape that can bear 9 children, yet society is structured in a way that they can only afford to have about two. This is very unnatural. There needs to be more structures in place, like a non-monetary society, where people care more about how much is produced, not how much something costs.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

It's not really that natural unless all you want to do in life is have children and have those children looking after their younger siblings.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

beth x said:


> It's not really that natural unless all you want to do in life is have children and have those children looking after their younger siblings.


It's also not natural when a woman wants to be a mother (of many children), and yet can have only one or two children due to societal factors, like laws or regulations, also financial and housing issues.


----------



## Bella2016 (Mar 5, 2013)

Is anything in this life playing out the way any of us want though? You can't support everyone's wishes. Some people just want some food to eat. Perhaps start with supporting those who are already alive and have basic needs which aren't being met.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Humanity is already seriously harming the environtment with overpopulation, id say more children is the last thing needed to turn towards the right course.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Sparky said:


> It's also not natural when a woman wants to be a mother (of many children), and yet can have only one or two children due to societal factors, like laws or regulations, also financial and housing issues.


The number of women who want 9 children isn't going to be large enough for this to be a thing. With each and every pregnancy there is a growing probability you shorten your own life and largen your own health risks and personal discomfort (ie pelvic floor can weaken causing incontinence).

Back in the day when women were risking their own lives to bear children, the infant mortality rate was higher and childhood mortality rate higher along with maternal mortality. Society has changed to the way that kind of reflects that. Also, others have pointed out that with the population so high it doesn't seem a natural thing to want to have many children but more natural to have fertility rates decline alongside the times.


----------



## thedazzlingdexter (12 mo ago)

Sparky said:


> There needs to be more support for families to have many children. Many women have a body shape that can bear 9 children, yet society is structured in a way that they can only afford to have about two. This is very unnatural. There needs to be more structures in place, like a non-monetary society, where people care more about how much is produced, not how much something costs.


I mean mormons do this. Also assuming wanting kids means you want a ton or need to have a ton is untrue. Most also do not have the ability to auctually raise more than a few. So really this also assumes a parent is smart enough to parent. There are people who have kids or many and can not handle it. They simply do not have the ability to parent properly. Kids are a lot of work and even parents who do care might have difficulty dealing with young kids. Not saying its impossible but its very hard.


----------



## deafcrossfitter (Nov 30, 2019)

You ever been pregnant? No? Then STFU.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## deafcrossfitter (Nov 30, 2019)

Sparky said:


> It's also not natural when a woman wants to be a mother (of many children), and yet can have only one or two children due to societal factors, like laws or regulations, also financial and housing issues.


That shit is so dangerous for the woman to do. One or two is enough. It's actually very dangerous to give birth. 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## deafcrossfitter (Nov 30, 2019)

beth x said:


> The number of women who want 9 children isn't going to be large enough for this to be a thing. With each and every pregnancy there is a growing probability you shorten your own life and largen your own health risks and personal discomfort (ie pelvic floor can weaken causing incontinence).
> 
> Back in the day when women were risking their own lives to bear children, the infant mortality rate was higher and childhood mortality rate higher along with maternal mortality. Society has changed to the way that kind of reflects that. Also, others have pointed out that with the population so high it doesn't seem a natural thing to want to have many children but more natural to have fertility rates decline alongside the times.


Exactly.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Sparky said:


> There needs to be more support for families to have many children. Many women have a body shape that can bear 9 children, yet society is structured in a way that they can only afford to have about two. This is very unnatural. There needs to be more structures in place, like a non-monetary society, where people care more about how much is produced, not how much something costs.


Society isn't great _at all_, but it's already structured in a way that allows everyone to survive much better than if they were forced to survive on the laws of the jungle.

A woman can have as many children as she wants. Raising them successfully is another matter entirely.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Why 9 specifically. Such an odd number.

Anyway here religious families have 10+ kids so I dunno what you are going on about.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

People keep saying that the environment can't handle the larger population size, and that's the argument used 100 years ago, or even a thousand years ago, with people fighting over herding land, or farmland, and yet population has steadily increased. In fact, the more people, the smarter the people are generally, so population is not the problem, it's that they do not notice what they need to do, and how to achieve it.

Society's ability to produce has increased steadily, yet birthrate has declined significantly. It means that there is an increased focus on higher salaries, higher education, instead of more children, and larger families. This is due to the monetary system. In a non-monetary system, people would view having children as a good thing, instead of as a burden.

Also, people who are better at scientific research, product and technology development, as well as societal management, can help those who do not develop as fast, so that everyone benefits:


https://www.personalitycafe.com/threads/if-japanese-are-better-managing-society-and-doing-scientific-research-then-they-can-help-the-burmese-so-burmese-can-enjoy-care-free-life.1364919/


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Sparky said:


> People keep saying that the environment can't handle the larger population size, and that's the argument used 100 years ago, or even a thousand years ago, with people fighting over herding land, or farmland, and yet population has steadily increased. In fact, the more people, the smarter the people are generally, so population is not the problem, it's that they do not notice what they need to do, and how to achieve it.
> 
> Society's ability to produce has increased steadily, yet birthrate has declined significantly. It means that there is an increased focus on higher salaries, higher education, instead of more children, and larger families. This is due to the monetary system. In a non-monetary system, people would view having children as a good thing, instead of as a burden.


We have reached a climate crisis. It's so obvious that over 200 years of climate science has reached a point where we have world leaders meeting for climate talks and pledging (or at least pretending to) to cut their emissions so the world does not reach extinction level. The ability to produce food is diminishing already. The dimming of sunlight through carbon emissions and increasing volcanic activity inhibits the ability to grow some crops. The raising of water levels dimishes the ability to grow crops. The temperature of a couple of degrees makes it harder to grow some crops. Drought, fire and floods that are occuring through the weather changes inhibits crops. 

It's not a problem that was only previous centuries, it's upon us now once more in spite of technologies that have developed for food sources.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

beth x said:


> We have reached a climate crisis. It's so obvious that over 200 years of climate science has reached a point where we have world leaders meeting for climate talks and pledging (or at least pretending to) to cut their emissions so the world does not reach extinction level. The ability to produce food is diminishing already. The dimming of sunlight through carbon emissions and increasing volcanic activity inhibits the ability to grow some crops. The raising of water levels dimishes the ability to grow crops. The temperature of a couple of degrees makes it harder to grow some crops. Drought, fire and floods that are occuring through the weather changes inhibits crops.
> 
> It's not a problem that was only previous centuries, it's upon us now once more in spite of technologies that have developed for food sources.


People are turning deserts into farmlands, by mixing the sand with school glue and pouring water on it to form soil, as well as growing food in controlled settings using AI assistance. Even if the Earth enters a mini-Ice Age, people will find a way to survive.


----------



## WraithOfNightmare (Jun 20, 2019)

While there will always be exceptions to the norm, I am personally of the belief that it is highly unlikely that a couple in today’s world will have the time and energy (even if they can afford it) to ensure that many kids can not only have their basic needs met, but also receive the right amount of education and other kinds of provision. Furthermore, that many kids would definitely take a toll on a woman’s body that I would rather not want my future wife to go through.
I think for myself, I would ideally have two. Three is about the limit a couple can reasonably look after and provide for in today’s world, IMO. However, I am in complete agreement that a whole lot more has to be done to support the average family and the average young couple getting married and looking to have kids. Too much of this is being withered away in favor of “finding oneself” and the good old lies of “career” and “purpose” and “self-actualization” all of which plays into the hands of exploitative corporations. We have to start supporting the fundamental pillars of society again, and that to me will always be the family with one dad, one mom, and their kids.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

If we really want to raise a lot of kids like in the olden days, we'd have to go back to communal child rearing too. Involving extended family by the least. Sadly not an option that some of us have. But appreciate the sentiment <3


----------



## WraithOfNightmare (Jun 20, 2019)

Ideally that would be the case, although I do have reservations due to the nature of my extended family.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

WraithOfNightmare said:


> While there will always be exceptions to the norm, I am personally of the belief that it is highly unlikely that a couple in today’s world will have the time and energy (even if they can afford it) to ensure that many kids can not only have their basic needs met, but also receive the right amount of education and other kinds of provision. Furthermore, that many kids would definitely take a toll on a woman’s body that I would rather not want my future wife to go through.
> I think for myself, I would ideally have two. Three is about the limit a couple can reasonably look after and provide for in today’s world, IMO. However, I am in complete agreement that a whole lot more has to be done to support the average family and the average young couple getting married and looking to have kids. Too much of this is being withered away in favor of “finding oneself” and the good old lies of “career” and “purpose” and “self-actualization” all of which plays into the hands of exploitative corporations. We have to start supporting the fundamental pillars of society again, and that to me will always be the family with one dad, one mom, and their kids.


There are people who are more focused on having higher education and great careers, and there are also those who are focused on having family and children. More focus needs to be on family. This ties with how nations who develop faster need to help those who develop not as fast with technology development, scientific research, and societal management, so that people of those nations can better focus on family and children as well.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

deafcrossfitter said:


> That shit is so dangerous for the woman to do. One or two is enough. It's actually very dangerous to give birth.


Yes, particularly when you have existing conditions that make it even more dangerous.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

You know...there is a reason contraception exists. That is what helps them limit it to two, which is what the average parents *want*. People go as far as having surgeries to prevent more, lol. It has nothing to do with housing or income. It has to do with not losing your sanity.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Women are not breeding machines.

Hopefully with increased autonomy and even more freedom, the number of children is further reduced.

The capitalist class does not deserve any more generations of wage slaves.

If they want wage slaves, then the so-called brilliant and genius enterprising entrepreneurial genius males are more than welcome to use their finances to invent ways to impregnate themselves and pop out their own fucking work force.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

I wholeheartedly support women who want more children. I'm also against the negative depiction society paints on those who do.

Climate issue is a whole separate issue entirely. You want to save the planet? Then save the planet. Don't blame it on meat-eaters and large families.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

SgtPepper said:


> I wholeheartedly support women who want more children. I'm also against the negative depiction society paints on those who do.
> 
> Climate issue is a whole separate issue entirely. You want to save the planet? Then save the planet. Don't blame it on meat-eaters and large families.


We're well past saving the planet IMHO. 
It's not gonna be an extinction either tbh, just further suffering, I think.


----------



## Miharu (Apr 1, 2015)

Just because I can, doesn’t mean I want to. Save for some countries (like Japan), I think it’s actually best not to overdo it.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

SilentScream said:


> We're well past saving the planet IMHO.
> It's not gonna be an extinction either tbh, just further suffering, I think.


You can blame that on improper government management, big corporations, and people's nonchalant attitude to the issues of the world around them.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

SgtPepper said:


> You can blame that on improper government management, big corporations, and people's nonchalant attitude to the issues of the world around them.


Wdym, me recycling my 9 babies' diapers like Shell told me to won't save the planet?


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Even in perfect conditions, most women are not gonna have more than two kids.

That said, I have 4 and put tremendous value in being a wife and a mother. So, I support women having as many as they like. As @SgtPepper said everything else is a separate issue.
Under the right conditions I’d probably have had more. But pregnancy was extremely dangerous for me, so at 3 I had my tubes tied. And somehow fell into that less than one percent of failures. I had my youngest basically against medical advice. So, I’ll be the first to tell you that pregnancy and motherhood are not for everyone.

I actually want to foster kids rn. There’s a huge need with kids who are already here and need care. Also a choice that’s not for everyone.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

SilentScream said:


> Wdym, me recycling my 9 babies' diapers like Shell told me to won't save the planet?


The collective efforts of conscientious good people doing their part to help the planet: +1
Governments and big corporations teaming up to destroy it everyday: -9,000,000,000


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

People of certain Sexual Temperaments might prefer the family size to be smaller, like having one or two children, though there are many people of other Sexual Temperaments who would like more.


----------



## deafcrossfitter (Nov 30, 2019)

Queen of Cups said:


> Even in perfect conditions, most women are not gonna have more than two kids.
> 
> That said, I have 4 and put tremendous value in being a wife and a mother. So, I support women having as many as they like. As @SgtPepper said everything else is a separate issue.
> Under the right conditions I’d probably have had more. But pregnancy was extremely dangerous for me, so at 3 I had my tubes tied. And somehow fell into that less than one percent of failures. I had my youngest basically against medical advice. So, I’ll be the first to tell you that pregnancy and motherhood are not for everyone.
> ...


Couldn't resist could you?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## deafcrossfitter (Nov 30, 2019)

Sparky said:


> People of certain Sexual Temperaments might prefer the family size to be smaller, like having one or two children, though there are many people of other Sexual Temperaments who would like more.


Why do you keep ignoring everyone LMAO

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## AkhenatensMummy (Nov 16, 2021)

@Sparky 
What's interesting about your proposition is that as a nation becomes more stable, educated and affluent, the birth rate actually declines, as does the average number of children per woman. If you check out this site https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Total-fertility-rate
(assuming accurate, without verification), you will see that the countries with the highest average number of children per woman aren't exactly the most stable, educated and affluent. Maybe the exact opposite. 
There are many other factors to determine why this is (e.g. cultural attitudes towards a woman's familial role as mother), but from this data, it doesn't seem to indicate that money is what holds back women from having more children. It is perhaps the realization for a lot women in the world that they have more options than ever before, including the option to have less children than would have been expected 50-100 years ago. And more woman are choosing to have 0 kids. Also, just because women have the physical ability to reproduce lots of offspring, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that they should. As many have pointed out, raising a family is not easy and not just because of the financial requirements. All humans desire love, affection, attention from their parental figures. As the number children increases, so does the ability to meet those individual needs decrease. I have two children and know how demanding their needs are. I could not imagine the toll on my psyche if I had more than 4 children. People may adjust to their situations as time goes on, but the reality seems to be less children (on average) means better society. I believe your heart is in the right place in that we should be in a bountiful utopia where everyone gets a huge family with boundless love and connection, but these ideals will not come to fruition based on what we observe in this world.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

deafcrossfitter said:


> Why do you keep ignoring everyone LMAO
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Sparky has been around for a long time and I don't recall them talking to anyone. Just talking at everyone.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

SilentScream said:


> Sparky has been around for a long time and I don't recall them talking to anyone. Just talking at everyone.


Considering my past conversations with them, I’m fine being ignored here.


----------



## deafcrossfitter (Nov 30, 2019)

SilentScream said:


> Sparky has been around for a long time and I don't recall them talking to anyone. Just talking at everyone.


LMAO

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

SirCanSir said:


> Humanity is already seriously harming the environtment with overpopulation, id say more children is the last thing needed to turn towards the right course.


Something very, very strange about a misanthropy like this peddled to you by people who will helicopter in their party guests to their birthdays on their mega yachts. You know how much fuel either of those sorts of machines burn up...?

Exactly the kind of self-hatred one would expect in a world lead by people who only know how to transfer wealth instead of create it.

You'll eat bug paste, acid-condensed plant protein, sleep in a pod and rent everything for 4 times the price over the course of your serfdom-ridden life - whilst having no children - because that will allow a financial system predicated upon infinite growth to maintain the people who have situated themselves in beneficiary positions of it to stay where they are or improve.

If you're such a cancer on this planet - WHY NOT KILL YOURSELF?

You're the only species who actively looks after other animals for the joy of it alone and nothing else.

You're the only species who actually looks after and attempts to protect other endangered species.

You're the only species so far that has managed to be able to survey so much beyond their immediate survival that you could protect this whole planetary ecology from asteroid impacts.

Why do you think dolphins intervene to save human beings?






For the same reason we do - you're not a cancer on this planet.

You're the best thing fucking on it.

And ask yourself who is pedding you this FUCKING self-hatred.

People who want MORE for themselves - and if necessary, LESS for you to do it - wealth gaps have EXPLODED in the last 20 years - and you're taking the perspective of WEF/Davos Man?

We can easily support 50 BILLION people on this planet each with the lifestyle of a low-level billionaire - it just takes the same thing it took us to get this FUCKING FAR.






IT CAN ALL BE DONE!


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

WraithOfNightmare said:


> Ideally that would be the case, although I do have reservations due to the nature of my extended family.


Yup, that's the thing, and not the only concern I have.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I don’t consider it that natural 

Like many mentioned on the risk of pregnancy/delivery

The reason they had so many children back in the day, was because many families operated farms. The extra children were for labor. And because birth control didn’t exist.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Sensational said:


> I don’t consider it that natural
> 
> Like many mentioned on the risk of pregnancy/delivery
> 
> The reason they had so many children back in the day, was because many families operated farms. The extra children were for labor. And because birth control didn’t exist.


The demand for "let's keep making babies now" is also almost entirely the same.

They need the next generation to pay for the previous one's retirement and so on.

We need to figure out other means than forcing labor out of our upcoming generations. Just cuz we're no longer working farms doesn't mean that that's what our children aren't still required to do: Work as serfs for corporations instead.

In fact now they don't even work on their family's farm, they go off and work someone else's farm instead.

Obviously I'm not against people having children. I have 3 nephews and a neice and here's hoping they have at least somewhat of a decent future ahead.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

NIHM said:


> I thought the same thing. Like a small sample size of one viewpoint and not knowing the situation. I was just about to point out correlation vs causation and the sample size of one. Apparently, 100 bucks is a lot of money today as well... you can still be on food stamps and have 100 bucks on you.


Smh, no, I said a fat stack of cash. That means a wallet with a thick stack of 100's. Who the fuck walks around with like 10 grand in their wallet? I know the culture, sometimes the kids of the parents when they were my age, the shit that goes on. I know about the drug dealing that was common in those who shared this pattern. I know from being around it while it was happening about the tendency to illegally sell the foodstamps as well, due to them not needing everything they were getting.



> I mean they're thinking it's empirical proof but it's extremely weak evidence to go so far as to determine this person does not deserve food stamps.


I didn't say it's empirical. I just don't consider anecdotal accounts to be entirely worthless. Statistics are imperfect also. You can sample 3 states with low immigration rates and find it's uncommon, but sample one with high immigration rates and find it's common. Not to mention, in order for statistics to have the data in the first place, _people have to actually get caught doing it_, and they generally don't.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Lunacik said:


> Smh, no, I said a fat stack of cash. That means a wallet with a thick stack of 100's. Who the fuck walks around with like 10 grand in their wallet? I know the culture, sometimes the kids of the parents when they were my age, the shit that goes on. I know about the drug dealing that was common in those who shared this pattern. I know from being around it while it was happening about the tendency to illegally sell the foodstamps as well, due to them not needing everything they were getting.
> 
> 
> I didn't say it's empirical. I just don't consider anecdotal accounts to be entirely worthless. Statistics are imperfect also. You can sample 3 states with low immigration rates and find it's uncommon, but sample one with high immigration rates and find it's common. Not to mention, in order for statistics to have the data in the first place, _people have to actually get caught doing it_, and they generally don't.


As I pointed out even if they have a "fat stack" of cash isn't empirical proof that they're not deserving food stamps at that given moment in time. As I stated some people can be paid for trade work which has to last them weeks if not months. Also looking at a "fat stack" as they go through the line with you is highly "sus" that they don't have 1, 5, 10, 20 in that stack. And if this person did decide to flash 10k and spread it out on the counter for you the full view along with the person behind them, then they're also an idiot. It still isn't proof that they don't deserve food stamps. Do you know the circumstance around that cash? Again it's nowhere near the evidence needed to judge them the way you did.

I take anecdotal accounts as an outlier event, in statistics, you would know this. Eventually, enough outliers accrue you can start a variant point happening in the graph, then if it becomes dominant then it becomes the estimated average status quo. Yes, I know that statistics are not perfect but IMO that's why we use bell curves, estimations, and probability. I literally had a conversation months ago on this very site about people using data from different sites about covid's numbers being off and how they thought that was proof that covid is fake because they don't match up. Which is laughable. I'm very good at statistical mathematics. I will warn you, I've very good at my job.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying your specific personal account of seeing someone with cash, is not a reason to prove they don't deserve food stamps at that time. It's not great evidence to debate on for the reasons I've already pointed out, which was just off the top of my head, and imagine if I had some time to think about it. There are so many variables to contradict what you think is evidence, and you have to realize those variables before concluding it's proof for your side of the debate. Which you took one of those variables, a 100 dollar bill, and ignored the other ones to try to debate me for what to show you've applied reductive reasoning skills instead of deductive logic? It lacks causation and is a huge leap of logic to say seeing someone with a stack of cash is the reason they don't deserve food stamps. You're thinking of this one variable to provide at the start of your paragraph is a good open of a biased personal anecdote should be used to debate someone that posted about papers that had been published on it.... Thinking that's going to do the trick? I don't even get through the rest of your statement because I did a full stop there with the logic... wait what moment... why? Do you really think that's evidence for your position? Don't do that in your first paragraph maybe add that in the end, but make it sound logical. The capacity of one variable to rely on when it's very weak evidence that can be easily pulled, ignored, and turned around on you. Just don't judge someone in current times before you know the whole situation. Like I could easily think you have a greek flag so why are you weighing in on laws bounded in the United States? Again I don't know your situation and you might now be a legal resident of the United States. That greek flag symbol could also mean you're from a Greek background and are proud of your Greek heritage and are a citizen of the United States Of America. I still don't come out with my assumptions about your standing to provide proof. I did however do that with Sparky with his China flag, and tried to clarify with him that's the reason for his very opposite viewpoint of a lot of births. So I get we all make assumptions but still, yours is not proof that the person doesn't deserve food stamps.

That's all I'm going to say, not going to reply again.

And to bring this post back on topic. This causality that Sparky thinks that taking money out of the equation will be the reason women start having 9 + babies. It doesn't line up.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

NIHM said:


> As I pointed out even if they have a "fat stack" of cash isn't empirical proof that they're not deserving food stamps at that given moment in time. As I stated some people can be paid for trade work which has to last them weeks if not months. Also looking at a "fat stack" as they go through the line with you is highly "sus" that they don't have 1, 5, 10, 20 in that stack. And if this person did decide to flash 10k and spread it out on the counter for you the full view along with the person behind them, then they're also an idiot. It still isn't proof that they don't deserve food stamps. Do you know the circumstance around that cash? Again it's nowhere near the evidence needed to judge them the way you did.
> 
> I take anecdotal accounts as an outlier event, in statistics, you would know this. Eventually, enough outliers accrue you can start a variant point happening in the graph, then if it becomes dominant then it becomes the estimated average status quo. Yes, I know that statistics are not perfect but IMO that's why we use bell curves, estimations, and probability. I literally had a conversation months ago on this very site about people using data from different sites about covid's numbers being off and how they thought that was proof that covid is fake because they don't match up. Which is laughable. I'm very good at statistical mathematics. I will warn you, I've very good at my job.
> 
> ...


Why so angry? Lol.

I'm not opposed to admitting I'm in the wrong, judging, assuming, extrapolating, jumping to conclusions, or whatever else. Maybe I am, and maybe this is an opportunity for me to erase some culturally ingrained prejudice. (I am not personally prejudiced.) I'm simply presenting a case/argument for the sake of seeing it through to the end.

Again, empirical data is not the only reliable source. It's often heavily biased or otherwise flawed or tampered with. The most immediate strong example of this that comes to mind is the whole "Type A, Type B" personality myth. The tobacco industry is where that comes from. They funded research to gather evidence, statistical data, etc. that supports the idea that certain personalities had higher stress and anxiety levels, and were thus more prone to smoke, while also being more prone to health issues because of their personalities, rather than their tobacco products. This was during the times when it was not yet evidenced that the tobacco industry was responsible for the health problems people had from the products. The truth was only exposed later.

Anecdotal claims are also not void of merit. Sometimes they see things that statistics can't. When it involves covert subjects such as black markets, drug abuse, domestic violence, and other illegal activities, there will not be solid empirical data. That conflicts with the very nature of things being concealed. Anecdotal accounts can see what is hidden better than empirical data can in many cases. The same is true of information such as the state of North Koreans. The defectors often give better accounts of what is happening there than the statistics can due to the fact that the Kims conceal everything except for the best of North Korea. Not allowed to film, etc. When people don't want you to find out about their activity, it is difficult to survey it or collect solid statistical data on it.It's a mistake to say I am treating it like it's empirical data, therefore. I'm not. I'm treating it as though there is potential to see what empirical data doesn't.

Your argument here is also full of assumptions, though, since you also lack awareness of the full scope of information I have. For example, I know there weren't 1s, 5s, etc. because we would ask the customers if they have any smaller bills. They'd go through and show us they don't.

Maybe they should be on foodstamps, I don't know. It's still sus either way. A lot of times, they weren't even able to present American ID cards for purchasing alcohol. They'd hand us Mexican ones, which we could not accept. So I have no idea how they even were on foodstamps to begin with.

Yes, I'm aware it's not solid evidence, but I'm not going to ignore reasons for suspicion.

Also, although irrelevant, I am from the USA and I'm in the process of immigrating to Greece just now, at age 30. I'm marrying a Greek person. But yes, your overall point behind saying that is 100% valid, and it's something I do take into consideration much more frequently than most. It's one of my values to, as I am frequently misjudged myself due to people assessing me via standard social norms, which I ignore/don't follow.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Now I'm bugged by the fact that this convo was bailed on, because I wasn't finished challenging my own views, and it bothers me that I might have a culturally ingrained prejudice -.-

I say culturally ingrained because I'm mostly regurgitating things that were said a lot when I was younger (even by other hispanic people).

I'm legitimately trying to learn and find out whether I'm in the wrong for something, but it's reacted to by getting mad and leaving after being rude, distorting my words, etc. How annoying.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Lunacik said:


> Now I'm bugged by the fact that this convo was bailed on, because I wasn't finished challenging my own views, and it bothers me that I might have a culturally ingrained prejudice -.-
> 
> I say culturally ingrained because I'm mostly regurgitating things that were said a lot when I was younger (even by other hispanic people).
> 
> I'm legitimately trying to learn and find out whether I'm in the wrong for something, but it's reacted to by getting mad and leaving after being rude, distorting my words, etc. How annoying.


She does that to anyone she disagrees with. It's her way of managing her own experience on PerC.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

chad86tsi said:


> She does that to anyone she disagrees with. It's her way of managing her own experience on PerC.


Ehh, yeah, alright, I get managing your experiences...but then why even respond if that's the case? She's involving herself and then bailing in order to not be involved, it makes no logical sense. Also, why get so reactive toward someone who is trying to learn, and not just arguing using fallacies or other unfair tactics, not trying to win, not needing to be right? I may very well be wrong, I may be flawed in this way...like, sure, ok, I'm human, I'm imperfect...but at least I'm actively seeking self-correction head on, so that I can stop having that flaw in me if I am wrong. That kind of prejudice goes against my own personal values if I'm wrong, I don't want to be inconsistent about my own views that way. I don't understand being that reactive/impatient about it when my intentions (at least to me?) seem clear/obvious. Whatever, it is what it is. It's not like I _require_ someone else to bounce my thoughts off of as my only method of learning.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lunacik said:


> Why so angry? Lol.
> 
> I'm not opposed to admitting I'm in the wrong, judging, assuming, extrapolating, jumping to conclusions, or whatever else. Maybe I am, and maybe this is an opportunity for me to erase some culturally ingrained prejudice. (I am not personally prejudiced.) I'm simply presenting a case/argument for the sake of seeing it through to the end.
> 
> ...


You appear to be Enneagram 9

For the Type A and Type B personalities, it's based on Blood Type A or Blood Type B, also there is Type AB and Type O:









Blood Type Personality Theory - Blood Temperaments


The existence of blood types is discovered in 1901, and it was also when the study of personality and psychology became increasingly popular. How personality is influenced by blood type was first popularized by the Japanese, specifically, in a book on the subject by Masahiko Nomi. Since then...




www.personalitycafe.com





Also, I wouldn't give up your American citizenship for Greek citizenship, because I feel the US has more room for growth than Greece.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

NIHM said:


> As I pointed out even if they have a "fat stack" of cash isn't empirical proof that they're not deserving food stamps at that given moment in time. As I stated some people can be paid for trade work which has to last them weeks if not months. Also looking at a "fat stack" as they go through the line with you is highly "sus" that they don't have 1, 5, 10, 20 in that stack. And if this person did decide to flash 10k and spread it out on the counter for you the full view along with the person behind them, then they're also an idiot. It still isn't proof that they don't deserve food stamps. Do you know the circumstance around that cash? Again it's nowhere near the evidence needed to judge them the way you did.
> 
> I take anecdotal accounts as an outlier event, in statistics, you would know this. Eventually, enough outliers accrue you can start a variant point happening in the graph, then if it becomes dominant then it becomes the estimated average status quo. Yes, I know that statistics are not perfect but IMO that's why we use bell curves, estimations, and probability. I literally had a conversation months ago on this very site about people using data from different sites about covid's numbers being off and how they thought that was proof that covid is fake because they don't match up. Which is laughable. I'm very good at statistical mathematics. I will warn you, I've very good at my job.
> 
> ...


Having people not starving to death is certainly no incentive for women to give more births, as mothers still want their dignity, and not depend on others for a living. The better method is a share-based or non-monetary society, where people do not rely on salary for a living.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Sparky said:


> You appear to be Enneagram 9


Lol, no.



> For the Type A and Type B personalities, it's based on Blood Type A or Blood Type B, also there is Type AB and Type O:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Also no.




__





General Interest: Type A and Type B Personalities - Useful Measure of Personality or Conspiracy Funded by Tobacco Companies?







www.aspeducators.org









__





Type A and Type B Personality Theory | Simply Psychology







www.simplypsychology.org







> Also, I wouldn't give up your American citizenship for Greek citizenship, because I feel the US has more room for growth than Greece.


That's none of your business, and that's not how it works, either.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lunacik said:


> Lol, no.
> 
> 
> Also no.
> ...


You can read this article for your Enneagram 9 personality:





__





Explore the 9 Enneagram type descriptions


Introduction to the nine Enneagram types of Personality, motivations, fixations, core fears, virtues and vices




integrative9.com





Here is information linking Blood Type personality to Blood type Diet (based on acidity of stomach):









Exploring the Blood-Type Diet: Part One


Just a few months ago I ate steak for the first time in about 10 years AND I didn't get sick. It was a lean cut, well-proportioned and surprisingly sat well in my stomach. With less than one week left of winter, I have also noticed that this is the first winter in at least 7-8 years that I did...




www.drwhitneyortho.com


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Sparky said:


> You can read this article for your Enneagram 9 personality:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know plenty about 9, as well as the other types. I wonder why you think I seem like one...I'm pretty far from it.

The blood type thing is something different, hun.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lunacik said:


> I know plenty about 9, as well as the other types. I wonder why you think I seem like one...I'm pretty far from it.
> 
> The blood type thing is something different, hun.


It's possible that those "9" are mistyped. You have to look into Angel Number Manifestation in the Physical, to understand the origin of Enneagram numbers.









Angel Numbers – Learn the Angel Number Meanings Today


Angel numbers are recurring spiritual number sequences that carry angel meanings and symbolism. Reveal your angel number meanings and signals today.




www.ask-angels.com





You can just ask yourself how the profile description fits your personality, after comparing it to the other types.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Sparky said:


> You have to look into Angel Number Manifestation to understand Enneagram numbers.


Why do you think so?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lunacik said:


> Why do you think so?


The origin of Enneagram is based on Angel Number Manifestation in the Physical


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Sparky said:


> The origin of Enneagram is based on Angel Number Manifestation in the Physical


I see...I don't think so, lol...but you can type me as 9, I don't mind.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lunacik said:


> I see...I don't think so, lol...but you can type me as 9, I don't mind.


Angel Number can not only show up when you look at your digital watch or digital clock, it can also show up on license plates and signs. It also manifests in the physical, as objects and personalities. Personality is what makes one different from another, so all objects have personality.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Angel Number can not only show up when you look at your digital watch or digital clock, it can also show up on license plates and signs. It also manifests in the physical, as objects and personalities. Personality is what makes one different from another, so all objects have personality.


What originally caused you to start attributing meaning to these kinds of things? Did you do this before discovering Angel Numbers? Was it some sort of epiphany moment? Or was it associated with a fear of something, maybe? Have you always done it?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lunacik said:


> What originally caused you to start attributing meaning to these kinds of things? Did you do this before discovering Angel Numbers? Was it some sort of epiphany moment? Or was it associated with a fear of something, maybe? Have you always done it?


Before learning what the Angel Numbers mean, I have been wondering what it means to see 911 on the clock. After asking Anya Briggs about it, and about five years later, I found the website on Angel Numbers. I later looked at Natural Numbers, and realized it's based on Angel Numbers, and caused me to look more at Enneagram, and found the profiles on that Enneagram website matching closely with what's on Natural Numbers. This made me realize that Enneagram is Angel Number manifestation in physical form.









Natural Numbers







bodyof9.com


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Before learning what the Angel Numbers mean, I have been wondering what it means to see 911 on the clock. After asking Anya Briggs about it, and about five years later, I found the website on Angel Numbers. I later looked at Natural Numbers, and realized it's based on Angel Numbers, and caused me to look more at Enneagram, and found the profiles on that Enneagram website matching closely with what's on Natural Numbers. This made me realize that Enneagram is Angel Number manifestation in physical form.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see. You said you wondered what it meant--what was it that led you to believe it meant anything at all?

Does that number mean anything in your culture? I'm not sure where you're from, but in the US it's the emergency number.

Sorry if I'm asking too many questions, I'm just really curious.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lunacik said:


> I see. You said you wondered what it meant--what was it that led you to believe it meant anything at all?
> 
> Does that number mean anything in your culture? I'm not sure where you're from, but in the US it's the emergency number.
> 
> Sorry if I'm asking too many questions, I'm just really curious.


Here is the Ask-Angels explanation for 911; Anya Briggs has explained that it's an emergency wake-up call, though the following explanation is clearer:

"911 is most often a message from the angels to stay positive about your life and your soul purpose. Who you are, and all the many facets of your life story are beautifully unique. You are needed in this world, and you have a unique purpose and mission only you can accomplish."









Angel Number 911


The angel number 911 brings the message that you are a powerful, spiritual being in physical form... It also encourages you to align with your soul purpose...




www.ask-angels.com


----------



## AkhenatensMummy (Nov 16, 2021)

Wow, this thread is still going. Yay!! 

@Sparky What if you re-frame your question along the lines of "Women's bodies have the ability to reproduce at least 9 offspring. So why don't they (have more children)?" This will provide more breadth with the answers you receive and quite possibly encourage you to think beyond the finances aspect of your theories.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

AkhenatensMummy said:


> Wow, this thread is still going. Yay!!
> 
> @Sparky What if you re-frame your question along the lines of "Women's bodies have the ability to reproduce at least 9 offspring. So why don't they (have more children)?" This will provide more breadth with the answers you receive and quite possibly encourage you to think beyond the finances aspect of your theories.


Hi, you are welcome to share your thoughts about how women can be encouraged to have more children, especially from the community perspective.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Sparky said:


> Hi, you are welcome to share your thoughts about how women can be encouraged to have more children, especially from the community perspective.


I disagree with the premise of your question, why should women have up to 9 children just because they can?

Because it's natural? Having the possibility doesn't make it natural. Humans has the ability to keep eating until they vomit, doesn't mean they should do that, but they can.

Deadly nightshade is also natural. It's also toxic. Just because it's natural it doesn't automatically made it good.

Ok, but what if only for the women that want 9 kids, not that they have to, just to have the option.

Why should there be more support for that as opposed to support for anything in the world? hunger? poverty? depression?

We don't live in a perfect society and have limited resources, changes towards good should be made, but I think there are more important priorities than that. I'd rather prioritize universal healthcare than that.

Not to mention, the moral implicaitons, having a law such as "women get X much money for every child they have" could backfire and have people make children solely for financial gain. See the case with the government founds for catching vipers in India.

When it comes to pro-life vs pro-choice, one of my issues with pro-life is that it's only pro-birth rather than actually pro-life. We should prioritize giving children a quality life, rather than having as many children as possible.

Last time I checked, there seems to be a problem with overpopulation rather than underpopulation.

Overall, I don't think there needs to be more support.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Dezir said:


> I disagree with the premise of your question, why should women have up to 9 children just because they can?
> 
> Because it's natural? Having the possibility doesn't make it natural. Humans has the ability to keep eating until they vomit, doesn't mean they should do that, but they can.
> 
> ...


Overpopulation and "lack of resources" is something they complained about two thousand years ago, as people fought over farmland and grazing grounds. In the future, production will further advance, though people's ability to buy might not advance as equally much, though this can be solved using a share-based economy.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Sparky said:


> Overpopulation and "lack of resources" is something they complained about two thousand years ago, as people fought over farmland and grazing grounds. In the future, production will further advance, though people's ability to buy might not advance as equally much, though this can be solved using a share-based economy.


Not really, human population has been fairly constant, until 1800s. When we went from 1 billion to 2 billions in 100 years, and then from 2 billions to 7.7 billions today. It's a huge spike on the chart and we don't know when it will stop.

The problem with a share-based economy is the tragedy ofthe commons.





Even if you would have an arguably good-willing share-based economy, which is a lot harder to do the concept of your ideology is a share-based economy, see communsim and socialism for example. Started out from good ideals, turned to "it would have been better if they wouldn't have been tried in the first place", even if you manage to create a good-willing share-based economic system with uncorrupt people at the top, it's difficult to see how could this be made to work in practice, looking at the real issues.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Dezir said:


> Not really, human population has been fairly constant, until 1800s. When we went from 1 billion to 2 billions in 100 years, and then from 2 billions to 7.7 billions today. It's a huge spike on the chart and we don't know when it will stop.
> 
> The problem with a share-based economy is the tragedy ofthe commons.
> 
> ...


Communist or Socialist economies all rely on having a salary for a living, so a Share-based economy means that people do not rely on having a salary for a living. This can be realized through online information sharing, as people have access to production values, wait time for goods, and other information.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Sparky said:


> Communist or Socialist economies all rely on having a salary for a living, so a Share-based economy means that people do not rely on having a salary for a living. This can be realized through online information sharing, as people have access to production values, wait time for goods, and other information.


True, but that was only a transition process, the goal of communism and socialism was to get to that point of a share-based economy where people do not rely on having a salary for a living. Where money would essentially become useless.

Online information sharing is not exactly the same as food sharing. And just because the information is out there, it doesn't mean some people can screw information, a cargo lost here and there, it happens. And equally, it doesn't mean the people who put those numbers actually put accurate numbers, has they have every incentive not to. Transparency does not guarantee the tragedy of the commons does not occur.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Dezir said:


> True, but that was only a transition process, the goal of communism and socialism was to get to that point of a share-based economy where people do not rely on having a salary for a living. Where money would essentially become useless.
> 
> Online information sharing is not exactly the same as food sharing. And just because the information is out there, it doesn't mean some people can screw information, a cargo lost here and there, it happens. And equally, it doesn't mean the people who put those numbers actually put accurate numbers, has they have every incentive not to. Transparency does not guarantee the tragedy of the commons does not occur.


Tragedy of the Commons is relevant when there is a rich-poor divide caused by a monetary system. Any society that uses money will have a rich-poor divide. Any economy that focuses on profit will have economic instabilities. 

The goal of Communism and Socialism is where the government owns all property and controls the monetary system. It says nothing about running society without money, or basing a living not on a salary.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Sparky said:


> Tragedy of the Commons is relevant when there is a rich-poor divide caused by a monetary system. Any society that uses money will have a rich-poor divide. Any economy that focuses on profit will have economic instabilities.
> 
> The goal of Communism and Socialism is where the government owns all property and controls the monetary system. It says nothing about running society without money, or basing a living not on a salary.


No example from the tragedy of the commons uses money, it's about resources. The goal of communism and socialism is to ultimately be without money.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Dezir said:


> No example from the tragedy of the commons uses money, it's about resources. The goal of communism and socialism is to ultimately be without money.


The goal of Communism and Socialism is where the government controls all money and property. It says nothing about basing a living not on a salary, or running a society where there is no money involved.

Tragedy of the Commons is relevant only in a system with a rich-poor divide caused by a monetary system. It's not about resources, it's about the money supply.


----------



## Ronney (Jul 17, 2016)

You can have as many kids as you want if you find and marry a wealthy man with stable income that wants to suport you and the 9 children the two of you want to have. That would be better than the breading biased socialism that you propose and better for the children them self.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Ronney said:


> You can have as many kids as you want if you find and marry a wealthy man with stable income that wants to suport you and the 9 children the two of you want to have. That would be better than the breading biased socialism that you propose and better for the children them self.


This is about creating the environment where every woman is able to have nine children 😄


----------



## passionate (Jan 7, 2017)

First of all, 9 kids is *a lot*. While having a reasonable number of kids can be cute, it's a massive responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly. 
It's not just about money, but parents need to ensure they're showering every single child with the love and attention they deserve.
Neglecting a child emotionally can deteriorate their mental health and wellbeing even if they're living comfortably under a roof.

Another point is that both parents need to be involved when parenting, all the heavy load shouldn't be thrown on the mother. After all, it's called parenting, not mothering.

To make things easier for parents, both parents would need some sort of paternity leaves (if both are working) so they can get involved during the child's early stages of development. Nurseries should also be more accessible and affordable.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

passionate said:


> First of all, 9 kids is *a lot*. While having a reasonable number of kids can be cute, it's a massive responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly.
> It's not just about money, but parents need to ensure they're showering every single child with the love and attention they deserve.
> Neglecting a child emotionally can deteriorate their mental health and wellbeing even if they're living comfortably under a roof.
> 
> ...


I just thought of the car space you would need to transport and I already own three dogs. Like imagine packing for a trip? I would tell my inlaws you're coming to my house.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Sparky said:


> The goal of Communism and Socialism is where the government controls all money and property. It says nothing about basing a living not on a salary, or running a society where there is no money involved.
> 
> Tragedy of the Commons is relevant only in a system with a rich-poor divide caused by a monetary system. It's not about resources, it's about the money supply.


No, communists literally said that that's their goal, no money. Communist "economists" belived that by year 2000 they would abolish money altogether in communist states, and would teach that in communist universities.

No, again, all 3 examples from the vidoes are about: a lake, grassland and guns. Literally no example was about money. It's not about money supply, it's about the resources.

Moreover, it has nothing to do with a rich and poor divide. Again, in all 3 examples used in the video, nowhere in the equation was a rich vs. poor person, all participants of the tragedy of the commons experiment were of equal status and equal wealth.

It's not the rich that make the tragedy of the commons happen.


----------



## AkhenatensMummy (Nov 16, 2021)

Sparky said:


> Hi, you are welcome to share your thoughts about how women can be encouraged to have more children, especially from the community perspective.


Thank you but I'll graciously decline the offer. I've said many times that there is a lot of work to be done on earth before we can enjoy the pleasant ideals of boundless familial love. We must first ensure that we have created an environment that fosters growth and development of the being. Too many broken homes, too much government interference, too much egoism. Too little (genuine) care for the lives of others. The community perspective must actually care for development of the individual and vice versa.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Dezir said:


> No, communists literally said that that's their goal, no money. Communist "economists" belived that by year 2000 they would abolish money altogether in communist states, and would teach that in communist universities.
> 
> No, again, all 3 examples from the vidoes are about: a lake, grassland and guns. Literally no example was about money. It's not about money supply, it's about the resources.
> 
> ...


Tragedy of the Commons is all about the money supply, not the resources, especially when considering how much money a resource will bring. Any society that uses money will have a rich-poor divide. Any economy that focuses on profit or monetary gains, will experience economic instability. Any society that bases living on a salary will experience reduced population growth.

Communism is about having government control all the money and property. It says nothing about running society without money, or not basing a living off of a salary. There might be "hippy commies" who promote a non-monetary system, though.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

AkhenatensMummy said:


> Thank you but I'll graciously decline the offer. I've said many times that there is a lot of work to be done on earth before we can enjoy the pleasant ideals of boundless familial love. We must first ensure that we have created an environment that fosters growth and development of the being. Too many broken homes, too much government interference, too much egoism. Too little (genuine) care for the lives of others. The community perspective must actually care for development of the individual and vice versa.


Change takes time, and monumental changes first start with people realizing the problem, and being able to visualize a solution. This entails letting people know, and communicating ideas through writing, audios, visuals, and conversations.


----------



## passionate (Jan 7, 2017)

NIHM said:


> I just thought of the car space you would need to transport and I already own three dogs. Like imagine packing for a trip? I would tell my inlaws you're coming to my house.


oh my god, yes!! this made me imagine outings and how parents would have to keep counting heads every few minutes to not lose a child 😭


----------



## JourneyOfMystery (11 mo ago)

There needs to be more support in not spreading idiocy. 🤣

Sparky got themself in a pickle here. 🥒 Treating women like mere sex machines is a great way to get acquaintancezoned rather than friendzoned. 🚷 Many women can birth 9 children. Considering wealth gaps 💸 that happened internationally for decades to benefit very wealthy elites only, global warming 🪔 from businesses that benefit very wealthy elites only, increasing sweatshops to benefit very wealthy elites only, Orwellian 🧐 online surveillance to benefit very wealthy elites only, wealthy business owners monopolizing the internet by making it hard for people to access popular social network platforms without giving up their online privacy 🦹 , free press ✍ being threatened internationally because of the fascist influence of very wealthy elites, etc, not many women want children in this brutal 😭 world. Especially not during this pandemic. 🦇


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

series0 said:


> So, we disagree as mentioned. Focusing on evil and chaos DOES NOT mean choosing them, and further, they are NOT synonymous.
> 
> In fact one must focus on chaos and avoiding evil, as well as focus on order and confining the chaos to the most free expression of chosen GOOD.
> 
> ...


I understand your insecurity about your sexuality, though as with the advice, "there is a right way to do anything", focusing on the evilness of human nature is not going to help with creating a better world for future generations.

LGBT Sexual Temperament is not allowed to be openly discussed on this forum, though you can view the following threads, which might ease your angst:

Reincarnation as people cycle between male and female form in 100 year cycles:


https://www.personalitycafe.com/threads/clockwise-and-counterclockwise-energy-as-people-reincarnate-between-male-and-female-forms.1362617/#post-44316385



Allow women to marry people of a different Sexual Temperament as second husband:


https://www.personalitycafe.com/threads/allow-women-and-men-to-marry-people-of-more-than-one-sexual-temperament.1365071/page-2


----------



## Aarya (Mar 29, 2016)

Many people in this thread write as if a single family would be responsible of 9 kids all the time.

In healthy societies, these children would come together and be supervised by a family member or member(s) of the community, spend more time outdoors, perhaps start finding food from younger ages and learn to forage, etc... giving the parents some time to relax. That is how I see it, unless the families choose otherwise. It is nice to know you have many people to count on, IF the family you've nurtured is... kind. If not... it could be torture... So hopefully, there's a good foundation being laid down, in education and humane principles.

The tactic the human species is adopting at the moment is to focus less on birth rate and more on those who are already in the world and need support. But it's so fun to think about a world where we could comfortably have any number of children we wanted... aaah, I think i would sort of like that, but only if we were allowed (expectations-wise) to start later in life, like after... 26. And perhaps if the Planet was... erm, bigger or just with more resources to go around, for humans to play with.


----------



## Boudicca (9 mo ago)

I recognise that there's now a population problem facing most of the developed world, and that's that we are not reproducing enough for population replacement and that's one of the reasons western governments are importing people on masse, although not the only reason.

My nan had 9 kids and my mom reckons it's because there was nothing on TV back in those days, lol. Although I come from an Irish Catholic family and I guess they were very pro life.

I'd rather see countries raise their own children than import others, but in today's world, the cost of living and a change in work & industry generally has greatly changed reproduction habits.

I'm 30 and have one child. My family do think it's a shame that big families seem to be becoming a thing of the past, but I found it sooo hard to find a guy who's child I would have, and then that ended in disaster and he's left me to raise our child alone and offers no support in any form - despite all his previous comments about how important it was for a child to have two loving parents.

I'm in a new relationship and may have more, but certainly no more than 3 - I'll be working full time around the clock to pay the bills. The tedium of motherhood is not something I relish in, but I do love fiercely. I've found the support available for parents today is minimal, what with my friends and family all working around the clock too, it's very hard to get a break and childcare costs a fortune here in Britain.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Boudicca said:


> I recognise that there's now a population problem facing most of the developed world, and that's that we are not reproducing enough for population replacement and that's one of the reasons western governments are importing people on masse, although not the only reason.
> 
> My nan had 9 kids and my mom reckons it's because there was nothing on TV back in those days, lol. Although I come from an Irish Catholic family and I guess they were very pro life.
> 
> ...


I guess it's not asking "which man would I have a child with", it's more like, "which man can raise or take care of the most children (on an emotional level)?"


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Production ability is ever increasing, yet people's ability to buy appears to be decreasing. 

It would be very helpful if the parents and their children are given products instead of money. For example, instead of money for rent and food, it would be one family with how many children are allotted a certain amount of food, clothing and electricity, plus housing. 

Also, given how important it is for children to identify their parents with the Parent Relationship Temperament (instead of Friend Relationship Temperament), it would be helpful that parents are given time to spend with their kids, so they are free to stay (and possibly work from home) until maybe the children are at least five years old, and there are no younger children still need to be raised.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Aarya said:


> In healthy societies,


Wonder what that's like...never seen one.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Sparky said:


> Production ability is ever increasing, yet people's ability to buy appears to be decreasing.
> 
> It would be very helpful if the parents and their children are given products instead of money. For example, instead of money for rent and food, it would be one family with how many children are allotted a certain amount of food, clothing and electricity, plus housing.
> 
> Also, given how important it is for children to identify their parents with the Parent Relationship Temperament (instead of Friend Relationship Temperament), it would be helpful that parents are given time to spend with their kids, so they are free to stay (and possibly work from home) until maybe the children are at least five years old, and there are no younger children still need to be raised.


Giving people free stuff is a big reason for why people's ability to buy appears to be decreasing. Inflation.

Say a farmer makes enough grain for a years supply for 100 families. He sells (or barters if you want to abolish the money system) with this grain to meet his own needs. The system now requires him to give grain to 20 families for free because they have small kids. His only recourse to keep his own household intact is to raise prices 20%.

You might say the government will buy the grain for those 20 families to make him whole, but the government now charges him 25% in taxes to cover it's own costs (the extra 5% is government labor/waste). 

You say instead we will just print money, and it works for a little while till the money becomes devalued - AKA inflation. Everyone will lose 20% of their savings to this system through inflation. The people's ability to buy will start to decrease.

There is no such thing as free.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

chad86tsi said:


> Giving people free stuff is a big reason for why people's ability to buy appears to be decreasing. Inflation.
> 
> Say a farmer makes enough grain for a years supply for 100 families. He sells (or barters if you wand to abolish the money system) with this grain to meet his own needs. The system now requires him to give grain to 20 families for free because they have small kids. His only recourse to keep his own household intact is to raise prices 20%.
> 
> There is no such thing as free.


People's ability to buy decreases, because a lot of jobs are replaced by automation, like AI, robots and machines, or the factories and company positions are moving overseas, or online, etc. 

If you hand money to people, that would just increase the price of goods as the amount of money in circulation increases. If you give produce to people, there would not be such a thing as over producing.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Sparky said:


> People's ability to buy decreases, because a lot of jobs are replaced by automation, like AI, robots and machines, or the factories and company positions are moving overseas, or online, etc.
> 
> If you hand money to people, that would just increase the price of goods as the amount of money in circulation increases. If you give produce to people, there would not be such a thing as over producing.


How do you compensate the farmer?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

chad86tsi said:


> How do you compensate the farmer?


Through taxes gained from selling soft drinks, cigarettes, alcohol, guns and drugs.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Sparky said:


> Through taxes gained from selling soft drinks, cigarettes, alcohol, guns and drugs.


Taxes contribute to inflation.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

chad86tsi said:


> Taxes contribute to inflation.


Inflation happens regardless whether there is a tax.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Sparky said:


> Through taxes gained from selling soft drinks, cigarettes, alcohol, guns and drugs.


Not feasible my state increased cigarettes already to the most insane price to cover the costs of stadiums. They cannot afford to increase people higher of the standard wages

They should probably tax companies they give tax breaks to. But I still do not like this whole women plop out 9 kids thing. The world is already heavily populated, and has many people starving. Increasing people I do not think is the solution. The thought of every woman having 9 babies sounds incredibly concerning  .

I'd just like to say aside from the practical reason with population and not bringing more people into a depraved world. Not every woman has the temperament to handle a meet the Duggar scenario. That honestly sounds like a set up that would put me in the nut house. I'd go batshit plopping kids out for a decade, and then raising them for 30 years. Gee what a high quality of life.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Sparky said:


> Inflation happens regardless whether there is a tax.


Yes, and taxes add to it.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

chad86tsi said:


> Yes, and taxes add to it.


Anything having to do with increasing the money supply adds to it.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

0.M.I.A.0 said:


> Not feasible my state increased cigarettes already to the most insane price to cover the costs of stadiums. They cannot afford to increase people higher of the standard wages
> 
> They should probably tax companies they give tax breaks to. But I still do not like this whole women plop out 9 kids thing. The world is already heavily populated, and has many people starving. Increasing people I do not think is the solution. The thought of every woman having 9 babies sounds incredibly concerning  .
> 
> I'd just like to say aside from the practical reason with population and not bringing more people into a depraved world. Not every woman has the temperament to handle a meet the Duggar scenario. That honestly sounds like a set up that would put me in the nut house. I'd go batshit plopping kids out for a decade, and then raising them for 30 years. Gee what a high quality of life.


If you wish others to find the love of their lives, you would not be having those thoughts about overpopulation and too many children. Also, people who complain about overpopulation, and not enough resources, lack the imagination or the ability to realize solutions.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Sparky said:


> Anything having to do with increasing the money supply adds to it.


^ but this simple principle doesn't apply to adding humans to the existing pool of humans?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

chad86tsi said:


> ^ but this simple principle doesn't apply to adding humans to the existing pool of humans?


There is nothing wrong with increasing the money supply, though. It's part of human psychology, as people prefer seeing their wages increasing, even if things cost more, than see their wages remain stagnant or go down, even if things become cheaper.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

Sparky said:


> There is nothing wrong with increasing the money supply, though. It's part of human psychology, as people prefer seeing their wages increasing, even if things cost more, than see their wages remain stagnant or go down, even if things become cheaper.


Increasing money supply causes inflation. Inflation means people's ability to buy appears to be decreasing. 

^ Not my words, your words. Follow your own logic and you end up where you started with : people's ability to buy appears to be decreasing. You are the cause of your own effect.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

chad86tsi said:


> Increasing money supply causes inflation. Inflation means people's ability to buy appears to be decreasing.
> 
> ^ Not my words, your words. Follow your own logic and you end up where you started with : people's ability to buy appears to be decreasing. You are the cause of your own effect.


People's ability to buy decreasing is not necessarily due to inflation. It's also because there are many jobs that are moving overseas, or can be replaced by automation, robots, and AI.


----------

