this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
116 points (96.8% liked)

United Kingdom

4039 readers
420 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I'm fine with regular support for people who need it, but not paying for people to create more people. There are WAY too many of us already.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most western states are looking at bleak prospects in terms of keeping their welfare system going unless the citizens have more children.

Either that or accept immigration, which many western states don’t want to do either.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, that's going to suck, but the apparent alternative is continuing massive overconsumption that will eventually cause much worse problems.

Immigration will be a huge problem that's already being exacerbated by climate change and disinformation.

[–] Zip2 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are too many people, I’ll agree.

However you can’t take away peoples biological rights to reproduce.

But you can give fathers a bit more time off early on to help with looking after their family. A few weeks of extra paternity leave funding would probably work out cheaper in the long run for the treasury vs all the alternatives.

Plus you need a constantly supply to refresh the workers who are getting older and cluttering up the top of the population pyramid.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not trying to take anyone's "rights to reproduce," I just don't want someone reaching onto my wallet to incentivize increased population because its a stupid thing to do that harm humanity in the long run

This is coming from somene who supports things like single-payer universal healthcare, broad financial support for education, ensuring housing for people, etc.

[–] Zip2 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How is giving fathers a bit of extra time off incentivising increasing the population??? They were going to have the child anyway!

It’s not reaching into your wallet, it’s everyone’s. And the cost is far offset by the taxes levied on that child when it starts work anyway.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 0 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Its right there in what you typed, its giving them time off. That's what inventivizes them.

I'm part of everyone, so yes, it's reaching into my wallet.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Would you honestly take on at least 18 years of responsibility for another human being in exchange for a couple of weeks off work? Do you seriously consider that an incentive?

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If I knew the goverent would support me like that I'd be more likely to have a child

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 0 points 9 hours ago

I just want to be absolutely clear here, to make sure that you fully understand the question, because your answer suggests you don't: It's not couple of weeks a year, it's just a couple of weeks, right at the start, and it's not a holiday, you have to look after the baby at its most helpless during those extra weeks of leave. Are you sure that you consider a few extra weeks of looking after a child to be worth 18 years of looking after the child? Like I'm not doing a silly hypothetical where I ask if you consider yourself more or less likely to consider having a child in future, I am asking you, personally, if you will be having a child and raising it should men recieve more paternal leave.

[–] Zip2 1 points 23 hours ago

Its right there in what you typed, its giving them time off. That's what inventivizes them.

No it isn’t. I speak from personal experience. Twice.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Says who? Populations are expected the level off. We produce enough food for 10 billion currently before we even get to our advances in green energy and agriculture. Our housing issues are political.

It's a weird angle to take against equality.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

Says the fact that we'd require several more earth size planets just to sustain current human consumption, or the fact that we're killing off other life on the planet at an almost unprecedented rate.

We produce enough food to feed everyone... in a completely unsustainable way.

weird angle to take against equality

Come on, what a shitty strawman.