Shattering the PS myth... Greeks ditching their children

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 23 Jun 2013, 16:48

One of the most insidious myths promoted by some on this forum is that in the future having more children will be an advantage rather than a disdvantage as the advanced industrial economy gradually collapses in the coming decades.

Middle-class jobs will disappear, sending millions into poverty and according to this myth, having lots of children will be a good thing (from a financial-material perspective).

In reality, we don't live in the 16th century and until industrialised civilisation finally dies off, having lots of children will be a disadvantage.

Greece is the most advanced case of this slow eating away of the advanced economy (the future indeed of the West I would argue) and trends there are certainly going to appear in the UK and other countries in the coming decades.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tarve.html

The financial meltdown in Greece has caused pain and suffering throughout the country. But in a nation where the idea of family is central to everyday life, its youngest citizens are bearing some of the heaviest burdens of the crisis.

Scores of children have been put in orphanages and care homes for economic reasons; one charity said 80 of the 100 children in its residential centres were there because their families can no longer provide for them.

Ten per cent of Greek children are said to be at risk of hunger. Teachers talk of cancelling PE lessons because children are underfed and of seeing pupils pick through bins for food.

At the Zanneio Child Care Institution, I was proffered a piece of cake by nine-year-old Nicolas Eleftheriadou. When I asked him how he was, he replied with a shy grin: ‘I’m as tough as a walnut.’

His parents, Olga and Alexandros, had arrived to take their three oldest children home for the weekend; the children attend the unit from Monday to Friday. The friendly couple both lost jobs in catering two years ago; he delivered pizzas, she worked in a sandwich shop.

Of course, the counter argument will be that having children is not a issue of money. Easy to say until you can't afford to feed them!

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 23 Jun 2013, 17:10

Japan also has a very low birth-rate. Though I'm not sure whether that preceded its economic difficulties.

Post by **adam2** » 23 Jun 2013, 17:58

Many feel that the present Greek situation is a foretaste of the future in the UK.
If so, then I am glad that I made the decision some years ago not to have kids.
I felt then that the likely future world was not one into which I wanted to bring children, I am glad that I made that choice.
I also feel that overpopulation is a problem to which I did not want to add.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 23 Jun 2013, 22:05

Fair enough. But for a bloke, the decision not to have kids isn't over til you're about 80. In fact, it may never come to an end.

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 24 Jun 2013, 13:17

RenewableCandy wrote:Fair enough. But for a bloke, the decision not to have kids isn't over til you're about 80. In fact, it may never come to an end.

There's always surgery.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 24 Jun 2013, 14:57

How many children do they have? Yes, that's right, they have FIVE. F**K them. Irresponsible bastards. Should have been sterilised after the first two. Filling up the world with stupid idiots like themselves!

Unfortunately, unless our societies are willing and able to get a grip on this sort of behaviour, SUFFERING will have to teach the perpetrators the lesson, and, unfortunately, their children will also suffer.

featherstick · Post by **featherstick** » 24 Jun 2013, 15:24

UndercoverElephant wrote:How many children do they have? Yes, that's right, they have FIVE. F**K them. Irresponsible bastards. Should have been sterilised after the first two. Filling up the world with stupid idiots like themselves!

Unfortunately, unless our societies are willing and able to get a grip on this sort of behaviour, SUFFERING will have to teach the perpetrators the lesson, and, unfortunately, their children will also suffer.

And this is you better now that you're back on PS? My sympathies to your girlfriend : )

This isn't about the size of their families, it's about technocratic fiat, fundamentally unfair resource allocation decisions, and the failure of a complete political class. Plus, with Ian Birrell writing the article, I'm sure that his own poisonous neo-liberal anti-collective action agenda was seeking to provoke just the sort of reaction you've provided.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 24 Jun 2013, 16:33

As I have mentioned before I got the best option by adopting someone else's. Of course, they come second hand and sligthly damaged (as my dad used to say about almost everything we posessed) but hopefully they will have a better future than they would have had if we hadn't adopted them.

Unfortunately their original parents now have a further five kids between them (that we have identified so far...)

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 24 Jun 2013, 16:47

RalphW wrote:
Unfortunately their original parents now have a further five kids between them (that we have identified so far...)

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 24 Jun 2013, 16:48

featherstick wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:How many children do they have? Yes, that's right, they have FIVE. F**K them. Irresponsible bastards. Should have been sterilised after the first two. Filling up the world with stupid idiots like themselves!

Unfortunately, unless our societies are willing and able to get a grip on this sort of behaviour, SUFFERING will have to teach the perpetrators the lesson, and, unfortunately, their children will also suffer.
And this is you better now that you're back on PS? My sympathies to your girlfriend : )

This isn't about the size of their families, it's about technocratic fiat, fundamentally unfair resource allocation decisions, and the failure of a complete political class. Plus, with Ian Birrell writing the article, I'm sure that his own poisonous neo-liberal anti-collective action agenda was seeking to provoke just the sort of reaction you've provided.

It's about lots of things, but I think it should now be completely and utterly morally unacceptable AND ILLEGAL to have five children.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Jun 2013, 18:05

I know somebody who has had no children at all.

What a disaster if we all behaved like that. The species would die out.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 24 Jun 2013, 18:56

biffvernon wrote:I know somebody who has had no children at all.

What a disaster if we all behaved like that. The species would die out.

Some folk would welcome that.

I prefer my shot at immortality.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 24 Jun 2013, 19:14

UndercoverElephant wrote:
featherstick wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:How many children do they have? Yes, that's right, they have FIVE. F**K them. Irresponsible bastards. Should have been sterilised after the first two. Filling up the world with stupid idiots like themselves!

Unfortunately, unless our societies are willing and able to get a grip on this sort of behaviour, SUFFERING will have to teach the perpetrators the lesson, and, unfortunately, their children will also suffer.
And this is you better now that you're back on PS? My sympathies to your girlfriend : )

This isn't about the size of their families, it's about technocratic fiat, fundamentally unfair resource allocation decisions, and the failure of a complete political class. Plus, with Ian Birrell writing the article, I'm sure that his own poisonous neo-liberal anti-collective action agenda was seeking to provoke just the sort of reaction you've provided.
It's about lots of things, but I think it should now be completely and utterly morally unacceptable AND ILLEGAL to have five children.

The problem is that as long as it is not illegal to procreate more than a given amount and as long as there are people in the world who are ignorant of the population problem and/or do not care about it, then all that anyone who chooses to be responsible in this regard achieves is to diminish the proportion of intelligent altruists in the world and increase the proportion of stupid/ignorant egoists. Meanwhile, the population will have reduced not one jot.

It's the classic prisoner's dilemma. A dilemma which pretty much explains the entirety of the mess we are in. The only way that dilemma is removed is if we get a global dictator to impose new rules of the game. But that's not going to happen because such a global empire be more or less impossible for a single dictator to coordinate assuming they were not utterly corrupted by the power in any event, which they undoubtedly would be.

Basically, we're knackered. It's all just a matter of time. The best we can hope for is that some kick-ass virus knocks us back down to size before we destroy ourselves and half of the rest of life with us. At least that's what I am hoping for.

But, then, I'm an optimist.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Jun 2013, 21:05

I don't understand why being destroyed by a virus is better than being destroyed by 'ourselves'.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 24 Jun 2013, 21:32

biffvernon wrote:I don't understand why being destroyed by a virus is better than being destroyed by 'ourselves'.

Because a virus will not likely destroy us; but merely cut us back down to size. It is also very unlikely to destroy the rest of life.

We humans, though, are quite capable of both and, since I am fond of both humans and the rest of life, I would much rather that didn't happen.