Proposed Liberal child benefit calculator

[BC_chick]

I'm not saying that humans don't have potential. They do, only we aren't living up to it by destroying the biosphere.

You and I have chatted about our shared views of animal-rights so I know you get this but I don't think we will respect other humans until we respect all life and unforuntately, we are nowhere near that point.

To bring this point back to fertility rates, I think it would be insanity to disarm at this point in human history and until the time comes (if it ever comes) where we can disarm, then maybe we can review the fertility theory. For the time being, we do need kids.

[hitops]

I recognize the destructive tendencies within myself being a human and try to mitigate them.

I would suggest contempt for other humans might be one of those. I have talked with several of the childless vegan variety and heard them directly suggest it would be good if huge sections of humanity died. Hopefully you do not subscribe to that.

"We spend almost nothing on the military in relative terms."

The military budget in 2012 was 20 billion dollars. That's a lot of money.

It is not even 1/10 of what we spend on healthcare. Compared to other countries, our military expenditure per capita is quite low. We don't even beat Denmark or Holland.

[Wilber]

Are we running Canada or other countries?

Canada, other countries will not be looking to us for advice on measures to ensure their own security.

[hitops]

We've been engaged in overseas wars for most of the last 2 decades.

That is part of being peaceful. Peace is not gained by weakness. People like ISIS don't just go away because we want everyone to be friendly.

Edited November 1, 2015 by hitops

[G Huxley]

"You and I have chatted about our shared views of animal-rights so I know you get this but I don't think we will respect other humans until we respect all life and unforuntately, we are nowhere near that point."

I agree. As Gandhi said a nation's greatness can be judged by the way it treats it's animals.

"To bring this point back to fertility rates, I think it would be insanity to disarm at this point in human history"

I'm not calling for full disarmament, but for minimal armament and the lack of overseas military use.

"For the time being, we do need kids."

Why do we need more kids if it furthers the destruction of the biosphere? I'm not saying humans should have no kids, but I am saying that humans should decrease the population.

[G Huxley]

"I would suggest contempt for other humans might be one of those. I have talked with several of the childless vegan variety and heard them directly suggest it would be good if huge sections of humanity died. Hopefully you do not subscribe to that."

Every human dies. What matters is whether or not we are reproducing at a level that increases or decreases the population.

"It is not even 1/10 of what we spend on healthcare. Compared to other countries, our military expenditure per capita is quite low. We don't even beat Denmark or Holland."

This is a strength of Canada.

Edited November 1, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

That is part of being peaceful. Peace is not gained by weakness. People like ISIS don't just go away because we want everyone to be friendly.

ISIS was created as a direct result of Western Imperialism and non peacefulness.

Edited November 1, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

Canada, other countries will not be looking to us for advice on measures to ensure their own security.

And?

[hitops]

ISIS was created as a direct result of Western Imperialism and non peacefulness.

Let's accept that. It doesn't make them go away.

But it is not about ISIS. Threats will exist, and just saying we hope everyone loves each other will not stop them.

This is a strength of Canada.

So it's a strength of Canada that we spend so little? But you said we spend so much. Which is it?

Edited November 1, 2015 by hitops

[G Huxley]

"Let's accept that. It doesn't make them go away."

So it demonstrates my point. Hawkishness leads to more violence, while demonstrating peace leads to a reduction in violence.

"So it's a strength of Canada that we spend so little? But you said we spend so much. Which is it?"

We can spend even less.

Edited November 1, 2015 by G Huxley

[hitops]

"Let's accept that. It doesn't make them go away."

So it demonstrates my point. Hawkishness leads to more violence, while demonstrating peace leads to a reduction in violence.

Proven false so many times, not the least of which is Nazi Germany.

"So it's a strength of Canada that we spend so little? But you said we spend so much. Which is it?"

We can spend even less.

There are no countries on earth that can exist like that. You either defend yourself, or contribute to an alliance. Otherwise you just go away or are destroyed. That is the lesson of history. The only nation that actively does what you are suggesting in foreign policy is Tibet, and they do not have sovereignty over their own borders as a result.

There are tons of historical examples of people gaining freedom through force, and virtually none through being passive. The only exception I can think of is India, and there was tons of internal violence even there.

[Wilber]

And?

And what?

[Wilber]

Proven false so many times, not the least of which is Nazi Germany.

There are no countries on earth that can exist like that. You either defend yourself, or contribute to an alliance. Otherwise you just go away or are destroyed. That is the lesson of history. The only nation that actively does what you are suggesting in foreign policy is Tibet, and they do not have sovereignty over their own borders as a result.

There are tons of historical examples of people gaining freedom through force, and virtually none through being passive. The only exception I can think of is India, and there was tons of internal violence even there.

India may have gained independence through non violence but it is worth noting who they gained independence from. Regardless of how India gained independence, they maintain it with a strong military. No moats, just borders with China and Pakistan.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Wilber

[G Huxley]

"Proven false so many times, not the least of which is Nazi Germany."

Nazi Germany of course proves the failure of hawkishness. Nazi Germany were non peaceful hawks.

"There are no countries on earth that can exist like that. You either defend yourself, or contribute to an alliance. Otherwise you just go away or are destroyed. That is the lesson of history. The only nation that actively does what you are suggesting in foreign policy is Tibet, and they do not have sovereignty over their own borders as a result."

Canada doesn't defend it's sovereignty as it is. It's military policy is more often than not an extension of American imperialism. It sells the control of it's resources to foreign entities, is lax on immigration and signs free trade agreements further giving up it's sovereignty.

"There are tons of historical examples of people gaining freedom through force, and virtually none through being passive."

The Indians gained freedom as a result of Gandhi's policies of civil disobedience.

The Americans who used force aren't free. They live in an Orwellian permanent war surveillance state with the world's largest prison population by far.

The Romans themselves didn't view themselves as free but saw themselves as Slavish the only free peoples being the Scythians and Germans who didn't have borders.

"The only exception I can think of is India, and there was tons of internal violence even there."

Mandela gave up violence. Malta gained it's independence without violence. Actually there are tons of examples of countries getting independence without violence. Most of Africa were colonies until the mid 20th century when most were given up without violence.

Edited November 1, 2015 by G Huxley

[Wilber]

The Americans who used force aren't free. They live in an Orwellian permanent war surveillance state with the world's largest prison population by far.

But not the highest rate if incarceration. Believe it or not, the Seychelles have them beat.

[G Huxley]

Something to be proud of for sure.

[Wilber]

Mandela gave up violence. Malta gained it's independence without violence. Actually there are tons of examples of countries getting independence without violence. Most of Africa were colonies until the mid 20th century when most were given up without violence.

Mostly because the British Labour government of the time made a conscious decision to divest itself of most of Britain's empire.

South Africa was already an independent state. Mandela had nothing to do with independence.

[G Huxley]

Yeah an 'independent' apartheid state.

"Proven false so many times, not the least of which is Nazi Germany.

"Mostly because the British Labour government of the time made a conscious decision to divest itself of most of Britain's empire."

So the British Labour government demonstrated peace. That's the idea.

Edited November 1, 2015 by G Huxley

[Wilber]

Yeah an 'independent' apartheid state.

So the British Labour government demonstrated peace. That's the idea.

Time to learn the difference between and independent country and one with personal freedoms. The two are not related.

Much of post war Britain looked at the Empire as a burden they weren't willing to bear any longer. They didn't demonstrate peace, they cut those countries loose to fend for themselves. Their peace would be their own problem in future.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Wilber

[G Huxley]

"Time to learn the difference between and independent country and one with personal freedoms. The two are not related."

It certainly wasn't the country of the Africans.

Imperialism is a burden yes I agree.

Edited November 1, 2015 by G Huxley

[Wilber]

"Time to learn the difference between and independent country and one with personal freedoms. The two are not related."

It certainly wasn't the country of the Africans.

I

Sure it was, just not all Africans. White Africans are Africans to.

[BC_chick]

And for the last 20 or so, someone else's kids will have to look after you.

That's a terrible reason to have kids. What if your kids don't have the financial or emotional means to take care of you?

[Wilber]

That's a terrible reason to have kids. What if your kids don't have the financial or emotional means to take care of you?

It's a reason we need to constantly renew our population. You can't have a single generation of geriatrics looking after each other, followed by nothing. Well I guess you could but then there would be no one left to disgust GH, not even other GH's.

I respect a persons right to decide whether they have children or not and they don't have to justify it, but spare me this BS about doing the right thing for the world.

[BC_chick]

It's a reason we need to constantly renew our population. You can't have a single generation of geriatrics looking after each other, followed by nothing. Well I guess you could but then there would be no one left to disgust GH, not even other GH's.

I totally agree and I think Huxley's argument, though ideal, is not really feasible. However, what you're saying here contradicts your post earlier which I quoted.

Society as a whole needs to be replenished but having kids to take care of us specifically is a terrible idea (as well as a big gamble).

[ToadBrother]

That's a terrible reason to have kids. What if your kids don't have the financial or emotional means to take care of you?

It's the reason people have had children since before there were people.