Who will you vote for? Australian political parties (1 Viewer)

[black_kat_meow]

Very few parents are ever going to say that the lifestyle is more important to them then their children.

Then explain the increasing numbers of people choosing to have no, or only few children?

And you've contradicted yourself, before you were likening changes in birth rate to fashion, now you're saying children always come first. If so, then why the low birth rates now?

 

[Graney]

-You can't separate the emotions from the child production issue. Emotion plays an incredible part.

Then why don't people act on that emotion and have an average of three children now?

 

[black_kat_meow]

Then why don't people act on that emotion and have an average of three children now?

Exactly.

 

[Lentern]

- From where? Which countries are we going to import from? If the rate of population grows exponentially in all other countries, places like China and India won't be reliable for agriculture and water ... Aren't we better off trying to sustain ourselves as much as possible? Even if that means growing/producing more to export as a means of income?

- I think you can. The average age of women bearing children has grown to ~30 years. People aren't getting married, on average until 27. This is drastically different to even 40 years ago. Do you think emotion plays a big part of it, or are these people wanting children but acknowledging that financial stability is paramount over bringing children into the world?

- The highest birthrates are in third world countries, not because of desire, but because of lack of education.

-How should I know, the monsoonal countries. And I have a little trouble with the idea of feathering our nice little nest whilst the rest of the forest comes tumbling down.

-The world has gone through materialistic phases before and then humanist ones and then religious ones. So we're going through a materialistic one right now, it will only go so far.

-How on earth do you figure that one out? Is it just a correlation or is there actually some kind of causation that we can prove?

 

[katie tully]

I'll use me as an example.

I've got one kid, 2 in December. I'd like to have another one, if only for him to have a play mate. In reality, I could get pregnant tomorrow and pop out another one in 9 months. My desire to maintain/build income, finish uni and keep my current lifestyle overrides my desire to have another child.

 

[Graney]

Looking at it philosophically, global population has to plateau or decline at some point. You can't have exponential global population growth for an infinite timeframe. Even with the best technology and management, you reach a maximum carrying capacity of the land, something the best estimates say we've already drastically exceeded in Australia.

The truth of this premise is undeniable.

 

[withoutaface]

Out of interest, why didn't you abort the first?

 

[Lentern]

I challenge you to ask any Gen Y person whether lifestyle is more important than having children.

I challenge you to find a parent whom would give up their child for any amount of money. One you know personally not some whacko on the news.

 

[black_kat_meow]

-How should I know, the monsoonal countries. And I have a little trouble with the idea of feathering our nice little nest whilst the rest of the forest comes tumbling down.

-The world has gone through materialistic phases before and then humanist ones and then religious ones. So we're going through a materialistic one right now, it will only go so far.

-How on earth do you figure that one out? Is it just a correlation or is there actually some kind of causation that we can prove?

There are actually studies on it. I mentioned this before. Lower education=more children. Someone else will have to dig up some for you, I am heading off to work soon.

 

[Lentern]

Then why don't people act on that emotion and have an average of three children now?

I said it's a lull, what matters to me today won't matter all that much tommorow.

 

[katie tully]

-How should I know, the monsoonal countries. And I have a little trouble with the idea of feathering our nice little nest whilst the rest of the forest comes tumbling down.

-The world has gone through materialistic phases before and then humanist ones and then religious ones. So we're going through a materialistic one right now, it will only go so far.

-How on earth do you figure that one out? Is it just a correlation or is there actually some kind of causation that we can prove?

- How should you know? You're the idiot proposing such things. Tell me what monsoonal areas are good for growing? If anything, it'd be seasonal. We already have monsoonal/seasonal areas in Australia, why don't we utilise these for sustainability before we go and deforest other areas of the world?

- The earths population has never been 6 billion and growing before, either. And when did these materialistic phases occur? Before or after the Industrial Revolution? Do you honestly think that this phase of materialism will die down somewhere and that the rest of the world will follow?

Do you realise that, where we are today ... there is no going back to a more 'simple' time? Each generation has tried (and has) managed to out do its predecessors (in terms of technology, possessions, etc)... Do you really think it's going to stop?

- I'll find the article, but people in Africa who are starving aren't having kids coz they like kids. They're having kids because they've got no access to, or understanding of contraception. Do you think Starvin Marvin really wants 6 kids she can't feed, just because she likes kids? Does she want the HIV as well, because I'm quite sure if they fully understood the transmission and pathology of HIV they wouldn't be popping out AIDS babies either.

 

[Graney]

I said it's a lull, what matters to me today won't matter all that much tommorow.

Why is there a lull? And why would it change?

 

[katie tully]

Out of interest, why didn't you abort the first?

Several reasons.
Financial stability, emotional stability, sense of responsibility. I advocate abortion, or atleast pro choice... but in reality, I doubt I could ever go through with one, if only for medical reasons..

 

[katie tully]

I challenge you to find a parent whom would give up their child for any amount of money. One you know personally not some whacko on the news.

Trading living babies and withholding from birthing more because of lifestyle/financial restraints are not the same thing

 

[Lentern]

Then explain the increasing numbers of people choosing to have no, or only few children?

And you've contradicted yourself, before you were likening changes in birth rate to fashion, now you're saying children always come first. If so, then why the low birth rates now?

It isn't possible they both play a part? I think availability of employment will also play a part. I just can't for the life of me imagine any mother or father I know personally who would let hell or high water come between them and their child and I also can't imagine that all these people who are having children at a later age these days will for the large part be satisfied with just one.

 

[Graney]

Do you realise that, where we are today ... there is no going back to a more 'simple' time? Each generation has tried (and has) managed to out do its predecessors (in terms of technology, possessions, etc)... Do you really think it's going to stop?

I think it could. It's idealistic, difficult mabye, but it's not impossible. It's possible people could become less materialistic globally.

I hold out hope.

 

[black_kat_meow]

Trading living babies and withholding from birthing more because of lifestyle/financial restraints are not the same thing

He's just restricted his posts to "emotional" rants now, don't worry.

 

[black_kat_meow]

It isn't possible they both play a part? I think availability of employment will also play a part. I just can't for the life of me imagine any mother or father I know personally who would let hell or high water come between them and their child and I also can't imagine that all these people who are having children at a later age these days will for the large part be satisfied with just one.

Why can't you imagine that? You must be exposed to a very uneducated background if you know so many women who have that many kids and that's all that matters.

And letting something come between parents and children is completely different to not having one because they can't keep their lifestyle then.

 

[Graney]

I don't think having 3 children would be significantly more satisfying than one or two, and it would place a much higher burden on freedom, independence, finance.

This is the perspective of most Australians.

 

[black_kat_meow]

I don't think having 3 children would be significantly more satisfying than one or two, and it would place a much higher burden on freedom, independence, finance.

This is the perspective of most Australians.

Go Graney and Katie Tully, keep talking sense into him. I am going to work, bye.