Record childlessness

	posted by D on Tuesday October 28, @02:06PM from the Fatherhood dept.
	Matt writes "As many of us know/suspected: I submitted this link under "Fatherhood" because I wasn't sure where else to submit it under. After all, if women aren't having kids, neither are men! Anthropological suicide in action. Make it too risky for men to have kids and incent women not to, and what do you expect the result to be?"

<  Gendercide web site | Women-only floors in hotels...  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Exactly (Score:1) by Kirran on Tuesday October 28, @03:36PM EST (#1) (User #1338 Info) Because the Birth rate has fallen, there are not enough children being born to replace all the adults in society. There will be greater problems caused by this such as taxes being increased to support the aging elderly population which is living longer and longer thanks to science and technology. Because there are a distinct lack of children being born greater numbers of immigrants will be needed to support the population.

Senescence sucks (Score:0) by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 28, @04:01PM EST (#2) I guess we will have to find a way to stop the aging process altogether.

Re:Exactly (Score:0) by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 28, @07:08PM EST (#3) The solution is extrauterine embryonic and fetal development, which is scientifically feasible.

hrmmm (Score:1) by crescentluna (evil_maiden@yahoo.com) on Tuesday October 28, @11:34PM EST (#4) (User #665 Info) Several questions are raised, are we overpopulated? In a way, sure. In another way, no. We aren't on each other's heads, there is still plenty of space and theoretically plenty of resources. That does depend on the kind of life you want. I can totally see where child-free by choice and single child families come from, figuring it is selfish to have a kid that's going to, probably, put several thousands, hundreds of thousands of garbage into over-crowded landfills, take up lots food, fossil fuels, etc. BUT, projected, in 2020 [might be a little off there] but then 1 in 4 people will be 65+ ... basically, not working. Will that be better for jobs? Maybe, we'll have more jobs to go around, but we'll see less money from them, as most of it will go to keeping people on life support, in one or another. One of the teachers at my college advocates shooting persons who have reached 75. They've gotten ten "good" years of retirement, they've had a pretty long life... But then again, what about someone on welfare or disability at 20? should they only get 10 years and then be shot? Bleeerg. This is barely relating to men's rights anyway. I fully support the right of an individual man to decide what is enough kids, whether 0, 2, 12... At least to have a say in regulating it.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]