You must log in or register to comment.
Wrong thread. Im drunk
Been there. What are you drinking? I’m sipping on some Bushmills Black (sherry cask). Got a bit project out today. Spent a year writing this beast:
There was a theory that roughly 15 years after Roe v Wade crime started decreasing because people who weren’t ready for or didn’t want children could now have an abortion. Many of those kids that were previously born “unwanted” were in poor households and so the kids getting to about 15 years old in those conditions would start getting into trouble and start committing crimes.
For any fuckwit that says “make better decisions then! Use protection!” I’m the result of a broken condom, that shit absolutely happens. I was a “pleasant surprise.” Honestly I wish they’d have just had the abortion.
I fail to see how this crime fighting measure involves more cops, guns and racism so I don’t think you’ll be able to convince the “tough on crime” “pro life” GOP supreme court on this.
My sister had her first child because her birth control failed due to another medication making it less effective.
No one warned her about that being a thing that can happen with that particular med. Not her doctor. Not the pharmacist. No one said a thing… which is super fucked up. She was married at the time, but still. They were not ready for a kid(their words)
This was almost 20 years ago so I don’t remember which med it was, and I’m hoping the medical community is better about this now.
It doesn’t get brought up because it’s not useful to anyone politically. Already support abortion rights? Well then lower crime rates is just a positive unintended side effect of a policy that grants women their inherent right to bodily autonomy. Already oppose abortion rights? Then you probably don’t care about crime rates because you already think that abortion itself is a crime.
Probably not, but I just thought it was interesting to bring up in relation to young age births that may or may not have been intentional.
I think the 20-24 line is hinting at a bad economy.
You just can’t hear that hint over the hint of the constant torment of the growing lower class
TIL that America’s birth rates have been traditionally driven by teen pregnancies. Nobody tell Tallarico, but ooof.wav
“Driven” suggest more than half of total pregnancies, which is not true looking at the graph given above. It was solidly
thirdfourth* in terms of totals, which is still unsettling, but not as pronounced as your comment suggests.*I overlooked 25-29
Who told you that drivers have to be 51%?
That’s not what a driver is. Driver is a general term, ten pregnancies are a driver of total birth rate, as they have impacted total fertility significantly.
Less than 20% of a total is “significant”?
When it comes to teen pregnancies, 1 is 1 too many. ~20% is significant.
Yeah, that’s not what I said.
Yes. For example, 60 million people in the US (less than 20% of our total population) is a significant amount of people.
The amount the percentage represents is irrelevant. A billion people could be involved, but if the total is 7 billion, it’s not going to be a significant part of the total trend.
5% can be a driver if it’s having a decent impact on your results. This is kind of a stats 101 thing man. You might even look for those outliers in your results and find a way to specifically exclude them if you find that the information you’re getting is being skewed. Do that too hard and it’s called P-hacking.
“We found that the bottom 5% of respondents were driving results negatively and so excluded the top and bottom 5%.”
Think about it as a literal driver. It’s a driver. It’s not the driver and also half the passengers. You can drive a motorcycle, you can drive a bus, and how much of the occupancy you are of those two things can change dramatically but you’re still a driver.
Obviously even 1 extreme outlier can skew things, but that’s not the case here.
In the terms of your analogy, this is about 3 people out of 20 pedaling a (weirdly long) bike and steered by all of them (somehow). Would you say that group of 3 are driving? Or would you concede it’s the two groups of 6 that are mostly driving the bike?
Yes it is…
Don’t worry, Republicans will solve this by banning abortion and birth control nationwide!
They are always thinking of the children.
Uh, yeah, about that. Republicans need to stop thinking so much about children, mmkay?
please stop having babies ffs
And what then, the human race just dies out? I get the pessimistic feeling, but we may very well be the only sapient species in this galaxy. It would be such a waste to just give up and perish because of momentary hardships.
We are literally sapient stardust, and I’m certainly not going to give up and throw away the efforts and struggles on millions of ancestors just because of some current corporate greed and fascism is in fashion.
i also think people are probably good yes
We are in no way at risk of dying out from negative population growth. If we start to go down below a few million, then maybe let’s talk.
World population is still increasing, and is set to maybe stabilize in a couple decades. Fingers crossed. If we could (gently, without mass starvation) reduce the population down to a more sustainable level, that is an unmitigatedly good thing.
What might kill us is infertility from pollution or disease, but this won’t do it.
gently, without mass starvation
Even more gently if you want to make sure there’s enough younger people to care for the elderly
A fuckton of people work bullshit jobs that should not exist. We could run the same society with much, much less people working.
Then fix that first instead of delaying it. Climate change is more directly caused by capitalism than it is caused by natalism. It’s easier to (proverbially) eat the rich than it is to tell people to stop having the children you need to wipe your grandparent’s ass.
I’n not telling anyone to have kids or not, I’m actually saying that having kids is a personal decision, and society should not care beyond making sure those kids grow up safe in loving families.
I totally agree with you. I just hate all of these “don’t have kids” arguments from liberal people. It’s not a viable solution, because the fascists and the idiots are gong to have kids. We need at least some sane people to continue on.
But the is all emotional and subjective, I’ll admit that. I’m not really thinking about this topic with a clear head anymore.
And it doesn’t work, either. When they tell you we need half the population, they don’t tell you how to reach that objective, when the objective is considered to be achieved.
They might recognize that some people will have to suffer, but they don’t tell you who will suffer and how.
Malthusianism is yet another unclear ideology that offers vague promises but assured hardships from dilettantes that are spared enough to not feel the full weight of capitalism.
Nothing that stands rigorous scrutiny.
That talking point died decades ago. We have a clear path to reducing our population. Well-off people with access to contraceptives don’t have high birth rates. We can roll back the human birth rate to sub-replacement levels and over time, reduce it.
There will be a problem with increasing population in 2250 or so, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
The moral thing to do is to ensure that all humans have access to clean water and food, contraceptives, and comfortable lives. The population will naturally go down and we can stabilize it over time.
The Earth can sustain the current population levels. Imagine we decrease those, at what point do we stop?
The problem with malthusianism is that it doesn’t give any tangible answer to the issues it claims to solve.
First off, when do we stop that decrease? Secondly, when we reach the coveted equilibrium point, how do we stop the plundering of resources capitalists will still subject us to?
I’m not arguing for an ever-increasing demography, but I’m against a system that’s unattainable (because, even with violent rule enforcement, people will keep having kids), does not meaningfully address the issue with the plundering of terrestrial resources, and means the lower class will have to bear the brunt of the work of dealing with an aging population.
I don’t think it can sustain the current population levels, at our North American standard of living. If we could distribute resources evenly, sure, we could keep everyone alive, but energy consumption, plastic production, all that adds up to an ecological footprint of resource use that isn’t sustainable.
World wildlife levels have gone down dramatically. We’re expanding human life at the expense of all other life. The other life on earth isn’t superfluous: it’s an ecosystem that keeps us alive, recycles our waste, provides our medicines and cultural wealth of all sorts.
We can’t keep our wealthy lifestyle and at the same time tell the poor people of the world that they have to stay poor so that we can remain wealthy.
We’re upright locusts. Stop stroking your ego and look at the state of the world. Humanity doesn’t justify itself.
I don’t share this view. Life is an interesting pattern created by matter, but no need to be spiritual about it. If life ceased to exist, no one would be sad about it. Actually a lot of struggle and pain would be over which is positive in my opinion. In practice, we should value quality of life of conscious beings instead of quantity. Having less is better.
Just here to say I feel you and agree with your sentiment.
What do you know. If it takes two people to pay the rent them two people have to work to pay the rent…
