Regnes said:
I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population, but since there are factors such as early death, sterility, homosexuality inhibiting us, couple must produce above 2 children or the population will dwindle over the years. Then of course there's the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is not equal, so even more children need to be produced.
Lowering the national reproductive rates to below the par required for sustaining to population results in age demographic imbalances. China is famous for it's one child policy they introduced to help counter overpopulation. This has been disastrous because it actually worked to an extent and since people stopped producing enough children, the country's average age is very high compared to most countries, it's a big problem when your country mostly contains seniors for obvious reasons.
Canada's population is actually at risk because too many people don't feel it's worth their time to have kids. Personally I think the government needs to offer more incentives to parents. Sure you will have welfare bums who will only benefit further from this, but more good will come of it than bad I think.
Former Premiere of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell made the situation a little worse in 2010 with the introduction of the new tax system. Yeah, let's tax all children's clothing and goods, I'm sure more people will have kids if we do that.
Mmm... no. Your point is wrong on several counts. See, on the one hand, I fail to see how choosing adoption over giving birth constitutes "jeapordizing the economy and stability of your country". If anything, you're giving someone a better life and turning someone who, from your point of view, would be a drag on society, into a benefit. Net gain, from your point of view, even assuming that your point is valid.
Which it isn't, because countries aren't closed systems. If there's one thing that Canada is big on (funny you should mention it), it's immigration. If you look at the demographic history of Canada, it's immigration that does all the damn work - not counting the First Nations peoples, EVERYBODY here is descended from immigrants. The immigration rate EXPLODED in the late 1800s, and it's been fluxing back and forth since, and once we stopped being racist about it, it's kept going. Yeah, people are saying they don't necessarily want to produce kids as much. But where are you getting those statistics? Cities, that are constantly expanding in order to keep up with the rising populations? It's not a CONCERN in cities, it's a concern in areas with lower populations, and they don't die out because "people don't feel like having kids any more", it's because changing economic factors.
Furthermore, this in no way is a patriotic duty, but I see you've already shifted your position towards a stance of a global necessity to maintain a certain population level. This ALSO makes no sense as the global population continues to grow massively, and while the growth rate in Canada may be slowing (Yeah, we do still have a birth rate higher than the death rate), it is MORE than balanced out by the fact that other global regions are growing like wildfire due to the increasing standard of living there.
And you're also operating on the assumption that the current global population level SHOULDN'T shrink, when there is no reason to think that. The points we should be concerned about are when the global population is too low to sustain sufficient genetic diversity (not happening short of uber-plague), or so high that resources become strained. As it is, there are many countries with high rates of malnutrition, and a few notable ENORMOUS countries that are industrializing, and as such will have the power to demand and acquire more resources. In short, maybe having less people, globally, might work out better?
By your logic, all women should be required, by law, to have children. There's clearly no need for this, despite your posturing, but this is such an enormous infringement upon personal liberties, basic human rights, that it boggles the mind.
So yeah, I sort of think your point isn't that good.
OT: I don't think I've ever encountered this attitude. Frankly, though I'll likely want kids in the future, I'll seriously consider adoption, because given the option, I'd rather that my children not be burdened with my genetic frailties. An attitude I do often encounter that I find somewhat confusing is the conviction not to have kids on the grounds that the person in question hates children. I don't really understand that, beyond an unfair projection of childhood troubles and insecurities onto children as a general group. Kids are people too, and it's always seemed rude that people discriminate against them as a group, just because they find some of them annoying.
