4477Re: Time magazine catches on to the childfree movement, misses the green angle
- Aug 14, 2013Well all right I will give you one concrete example of how it costs more to have kids for the rich. In Canada, and I suspect the US as well, mandatory child support payments are legislated, including a formula for minimum payments based on the gross income of the parent paying child support. So the more income you have, the more you will pay for child support. This is based on the premise that a child with an absent parent is entitled to the same relative standard of living they would have if both parents were living together.
You say, based on your case study of one, that because you are satisfied to live frugally and that it is working well for you that everyone else should do so. Like all the other hbuta social theorists you conveniently ignore how the majority of humanity behaves. That is why every designed society based on social theory to date has failed miserably. That is not to say they have to fail, but the design must take into account that humanity will always tend to behave in certain ways, and to understand that behavior and take that into account for the design. You can't design a sewage disposal system that fails to take into account that shit runs downhill, the same goes for engineering Utopias that ignore how humans interact with each other. That is why Evpsych is the proper way to study human behavior, the acceptance that we are hairless apes.
Nobody gets that better than the advertising industry, and they to date are the most successful in manipulating society - all of it - including the political system. Unfortunately they pretty much only do it for personal gain, which in our culture translates to wealth.
There is little point in having wealth in our society. Our wealth consists of either electronically stored concepts or stuff we don't really need, except that we can use it to bump our status relative to others, so off we go.
Diogenes supposedly conducted an experiment of doing without, and lived in a rain barrel (apparently he had a nagging wife as well, so maybe the experiment had more than one purpose to it). His one possession was a cup, until he saw someone using his hands as a cup to drink, so he happily tossed away his cup as well. So if you are serious about living frugally give that Haiti hovel a shot, and let us know how it works out for you :-)
--- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:
> Well, note I didn't mention my own Ph.D., because I don't have one--or any
> degree other than a high school diploma. However, I do have a lot of
> knowledge rattling around in my noggin, and that was my point. (It is
> perhaps possible that I did not answer every question correctly on the SAT;
> but I did get the highest *score* possible.)
> That "most people's outgo equals or exceeds their income" I do not dispute.
> But it is still a leap too far to say "it *costs *more to be rich".
> Webster defines the intransitive verb "to cost" as "to require expenditure
> or payment". Similarly, American Heritage says it means "To require a
> specified payment, expenditure, effort, or loss". Just because most people
> do something does not mean they are *required *to do it.
> And yes: compared to someone living in a hovel in Haiti, I am "rich". What
> does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>