THE MACHINES AND THE UNPRODUCTIVE HUMANS.- The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible
accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective "fair". Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it
is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that
both the less-productive people
and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get money from the state, thus the taxpayers who have few or no children (so in the end there are merely less-productive people). Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human population will be less-productive which actually means
unproductive? If you say "yes", then you have to say "yes" too when it comes to this question:
Will machines completely replace all human beings?.
- The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right, Gib - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (
and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in "short time", "middle time", and "long time". What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this "global society" lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of our children, as I already said (
here).
- The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is
reasonably fair. The invisible
accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective "fair", Gib. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don't want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings, and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class,
not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.
- The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence (cp.
2.2.2.). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.
Gib wrote:I'm not sure I quite got that. Sounds like you're say that all the money that has to be spent on the less-productive's huge families will be unnecessary when they limit the number of children they have to one/adult, and so that money will be redistributed to the more-productive, meaning that they don't have to spend as much time working for it and therefore can use that extra time to raise children.
Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive.
Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive.
Ab) If you have no children and do
not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are
not a more-productive.
Bb) If you have many children and do
not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are
not a more-productive because you do
not want to be a more-productive.
Gib wrote:But some things don't add up ....
No - because they also add up.
Gib wrote:How is it that a couple without children has to spend all their time working just to scrape by while a couple with several children and who work less (because of lack of time [and in many cases also because of the lack of the will to work]) has enough money to feed several mouths (these mouths are mainly feeded by the taxpayers, the more-productive people [see above])? I would think the trend would work in reverse. Having several children would force a couple to work long hours just to make enough money to feed all those little mouths, whereas a couple without children wouldn't have to work nearly as hard just to feed themselves.
Egoism is on
both sides, Gib. You can't eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.
The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don't want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.
You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.
The scapegoat is
not always the typical Western middle class "bourgeois", Gib.
Gib wrote:And why do you imagine wealth being redistributed the way you describe? Suppose we take a couple from your "less-productive" class. They're less productive because, with all their children, they have no time to work [and in many cases also because of the lack of the will to work {see above}]). But we limit the number of children they can have to one/adult. Now they have more time. They become more productive. They earn more money and become more wealthy. Seems like the wealth got "redistributed" back to themselves, not to the "more-productive" class.
Yes
and no - because in that case the more-productive people have to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc.. It is logical. So
both the more-productive people
and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive who have become part of the more-productiveare more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.