Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

I'm a liberal but conservatives are right about this


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1
lechwall

lechwall

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • LocationSunny England

I consider myself very liberal politically on social issues. I support gay marriage, I'm pro-choice. Going further beyond the standard talking points I'm pro legalisation of euthanasia, prostitution and drugs heck I'd even legalise polyamory. People should be able to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't hurt others. With that said just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it and while I am liberal politically when it comes to my personal life I definitely believe in traditional values i.e. a two parent nuclear family. While I would never legislate to encourage this (as its none of the government's damn business) Conservatives are definitely right when they speak about the decline of the traditional two parent household being a terrible thing for society. Lets look at the facts study after study show the following:

 

Living in a single parent family is strongly correlated with school failure and problems of delinquency, drug use, teenage pregnancies, poverty, and welfare dependency in the United States. Children living with one single parent have worse well-being in terms of physical health behaviour, mental health, peer friendships, bullying, cultural activities, sports, and family relationships, compared to children from intact families. Children of single parents, after controlling for other variables like family income, are more likely to have problems, including being twice as likely to suffer from mental illness.

 

With this in mind I don't think that anyone should have children before you've achieved each of the following four steps:

You and your partner should both have full time jobs before having kids. Kids are expensive and to give them a good quality of life you really need both parents to work (unless one of the parents is earning a really good wage). You almost certainly both need to be working before kids in order to get a house which leads on to point 2. If one parent decides to go part time or stop working to devote time to the kids once you have them that's fine but you need to build a solid financial base first.

 

You and your partner should own your own home. Children need stability above all and you really need to own your home to do this rather than constantly be facing eviction if the landlord decides to boot you out for whatever reason they choose i.e. they decide to sell your home. A mortgage costs less than renting and you need all the disposable income you can get to give your kids as good a life as possible. If you're unable to afford a house you aren't financially stable enough to have kids yet.

You and your partner should have lived together for a number of years before getting married. While you can't rule out 100% that you won't get divorced, if you're able to happily co-exist living together for a number years your chances are obviously better than if you haven't done this and if you break up during this stage no harm no foul as kids aren't involved yet and a lot cleaner than going through a messy divorce.

 

Perhaps the most controversial point but really you and your partner should get married before having kids. It shows that your partner is committed to you and is just the sensible thing to do as it offers more protection under the law than co-habitation does such as benefits to your surviving spouse should tragedy strike and you suffer an untimely death which help to avoid your surviving family living in poverty and if your surviving spouse works as well this helps to cushion the blow as well.

 

Honestly if no one had kids before following these four steps don't you think society would be much better? While less kids would be born those that would be born would be much more likely to grow up in much more financially secure, loving households which can only be a good thing for society as this will lead to happier more well adjusted kids. Crime will be lower and kids able to fulfil their potential. It would create a virtuous circle as the kids of these individuals will then be well equipped to have kids of their own grow up in similar circumstances to the way that they grew up.


"The future will be better tomorrow.  If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure.   For NASA, space is still a high priority. The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. No, not our nation's, but in World War II. I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century, but in this century's history. Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child. We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."  Dan Quayle

 


#2
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • LocationUK

Yeah, I agree with almost all of that. Children need to be brought up in stable families with two loving parents where at all possible. The main point I'd disagree on is I don't think both parents should have full-time jobs - in fact, that can be detrimental to children if neither parent has enough time to spend with them. Ideally, one parent ought to go out and work and the other ought to stay home to care for the children. Traditionally, nuclear families would be like this when working and middle class families could be supported by one man's wages or otherwise, the mother would earn money through producing goods and services in the home, such as by baking or knitting, etc. That's how it worked in the past, and of course it doesn't need to be as rigid as that, but that general type of arrangement really does seem the best way for raising families. Pro-family policies such as cheaper mortgages for newly married couples and tax breaks for having children would be of great benefit too (with checks and balances so the policies aren't abused, of course). I think Hungary has quite a few good policies like that. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from them. 



#3
lechwall

lechwall

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • LocationSunny England

Yeah, I agree with almost all of that. Children need to be brought up in stable families with two loving parents where at all possible. The main point I'd disagree on is I don't think both parents should have full-time jobs - in fact, that can be detrimental to children if neither parent has enough time to spend with them. Ideally, one parent ought to go out and work and the other ought to stay home to care for the children. Traditionally, nuclear families would be like this when working and middle class families could be supported by one man's wages or otherwise, the mother would earn money through producing goods and services in the home, such as by baking or knitting, etc. That's how it worked in the past, and of course it doesn't need to be as rigid as that, but that general type of arrangement really does seem the best way for raising families. Pro-family policies such as cheaper mortgages for newly married couples and tax breaks for having children would be of great benefit too (with checks and balances so the policies aren't abused, of course). I think Hungary has quite a few good policies like that. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from them. 

 

Sadly things like housing and just general cost of living in the modern world are so expensive that both parents need to work in a lot of cases. Something that isn't discussed that often is that women being in the workplace has exacerbated this (women should of course be able to do what they want) as with a greater supply of labour this has caused wages to stagnate as with a greater supply of labour available wages go down. Feminism is very good for capitalism. My wife would happily be a stay at home mother but knows we can't afford for that to happen at the minute, she knows a lot of women who are in a similar position, despite what the media portray lots of women would love to be at stay at home mothers of their own free will (no evil husbands keeping them confined to the kitchen) as they find greater meaning in looking after their children than working some pointless job and its hard to disagree with that. A lot of women do have different priorities to men which is why things such as the gender pay gap exists.


"The future will be better tomorrow.  If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure.   For NASA, space is still a high priority. The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. No, not our nation's, but in World War II. I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century, but in this century's history. Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child. We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."  Dan Quayle

 


#4
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts

Did you know that living near a coal fired power plant lowers cognitive capacity which leads to "school failure and problems of delinquency, drug use, teenage pregnancies, poverty, and welfare dependency in the United States." And did you know that lower cognitive capacity also leads to issues with  "physical health behaviour, mental health, peer friendships, bullying, cultural activities, sports, and family relationships."

 

Thus, it is evidently clear that we should conscribe the practice of having children for anyone living within 30 miles of a coal fired power plant. 

 

Yet, the act of creating an exclusionary zone around sources of pollution has never been enacted. It is politically infeasible. Rather, sources of noxious toxicity are thrusted upon the disadvantaged and then, quite predictably, they are blamed for the poor outcomes wrought and bequeathed by their benevolent overlords. If we can't stymie the rampant pollution, profligate consumerism, or bellicose avarice that pervades our society, you mean to tell me that we will enact draconian restrictions on human procreation?

 

There are many things which are true that we nevertheless don't address. The institution of marriage is not a necessity (i.e. Scandinavian countries). Most separations are due to financial discord, so if one wants to solve that issue then you start with economic reform - not unethical restrictions on procreation. 

 

Either way, as a transhumanist I'm more interested in the causal mechanisms behind any adverse outcomes (ultimate cause) than on rather glibly restricting the proximate cause of said detriment. In my view the creation of the next generation of humans should not be constrained by such asinine conventions and evolutionary vestiges as "marriage," "nuclear family", or whatever else may constrain our society in the present.

 

Rather, a society with people grown in test tubes optimized with the appropriate hormones and nutrition will almost certainly have better outcomes than the roundabout strategy of trying to force imperfect humans to create a perfect environment for their children. Besides, it's been shown that parents and environment actually have comparatively little impact as opposed to raw intelligence. 

 

Apposite the idea of legislation and conscription of human activities is not. 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#5
Omosoap

Omosoap

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts

I also think the practice in many cultures in Africa of wearing young babies and having the community involved in caring for the child, in a general sense, is better for the child's well being. It seems to me when babies are close in skin contact with the mom, they get less fussy, from my observations. In some ways, even two parents isn't enough, especially when one parent is working and the other parent is full time caring for the children, there can be burn out. Single parenting is negative because the parent doesn't have enough time for the kids. It isn't so much, I would say, their personality, as much as what road they took for one reason or another. At the same time, even with a community or two parents, it doesn't protect the kid from abuse if the parent/someone trusted in the community is abusive (especially because communities often don't want to deal with it if it is someone they know/have trusted in the past). There are far too many cases of that even in two parent homes/extended family homes. Single parenting just makes kids even more vulnerable to abuse, but as I said, it is all about time. If two parents don't have time for their kids, then that won't work either. And the more kids you have, the harder it gets to spend time with them all fairly.



#6
SeedNotYetSprouted

SeedNotYetSprouted

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

 

 

Either way, as a transhumanist I'm more interested in the causal mechanisms behind any adverse outcomes (ultimate cause) than on rather glibly restricting the proximate cause of said detriment. In my view the creation of the next generation of humans should not be constrained by such asinine conventions and evolutionary vestiges as "marriage," "nuclear family", or whatever else may constrain our society in the present.

 

Rather, a society with people grown in test tubes optimized with the appropriate hormones and nutrition will almost certainly have better outcomes than the roundabout strategy of trying to force imperfect humans to create a perfect environment for their children. Besides, it's been shown that parents and environment actually have comparatively little impact as opposed to raw intelligence. 

 

 

You understand. 

 

+1



#7
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,322 posts

In my view the creation of the next generation of humans should not be constrained by such asinine conventions and evolutionary vestiges as "marriage," "nuclear family", or whatever else may constrain our society in the present.

 

Rather, a society with people grown in test tubes optimized with the appropriate hormones and nutrition will almost certainly have better outcomes than the roundabout strategy of trying to force imperfect humans to create a perfect environment for their children. Besides, it's been shown that parents and environment actually have comparatively little impact as opposed to raw intelligence.

 

Sigh... you're the madman.

 

Yet, don't worry, in this regard I'm fully liberal. I deeply believe the people like TG must be allowed to follow their ways. Moreover: they should be given a piece of territory (like recent CHAZ, but million times larger) to reveal their limitless potential and construct their own society free of "evolutionary vestiges" and "asinine conventions".

 

The rest of the world should not meddle into this, under no conditions. Just watch, be horrified, draw conclusions...



#8
Erowind

Erowind

    Kronstadt sailors did nothing wrong!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,646 posts

 

The nuclear family has major problems that reductionist conservatism does not address, nevermind that correlation does not equal causation. What happens if the father or mother are abusive? In these cases why are they abusive? What co-inhibiting factors affect the conditions of single-parent families? What of economic pressures ascribed to single-parent families? Why do they not get economic support from capitalist societies? Does this not only amplify the problem presented? Why has western society historically overtly, in many societies still overtly, and today subtly still act with prejudice towards single mothers and or fathers? What effect does this prejudice have on a child's upbringing?

 

Is the problem of eviction not one of "unstable families" for one reason or another, but instead of feudal rent-seeking shitlord excuses of human beings that we refer to as landlords. Were not whole revolutions of our various "liberal" democracies fought to abolish lords! Are the police, officials and rentseekers who actually tear families (single or otherwise) from their homes not responsible for their monstrous actions? Are we to simply imply that poor people are ethically wrong for having children? Inequality is baked into the economic system, it feeds on it. Hence, there will be poverty. Since some cannot escape poverty, therefore, the reductionist claims they should not have children. The people being exploited, they are clearly at fault to the reductionist who cares only for idealizations of what the family even is. 

 

Have both parents in clans, hamlets and villages of eons past not labored? Has the village, nay! The whole community not raised children together when their parents are needed in the both the fields and on the battlements? Has the community not come to the aid of children with abusive parents, instead of assuming that the burden of responsibilities can be reduced to mere direct parentage? What of aunts, grandfathers and cousins? What of neighbors and our fellow women? What of sending children whether peasant, tradesmen or nobility to learn under a half dozen apprenticeships across the land as the English did in the 16th century to be raised by the whole people?(1) What of raising the children of others as our own, as part of their apprenticeships, soas to prepare them to make their own stake in life? Where is such comprehensive care today? How can two mere people provide it no matter their blood relation? The nuclear family is a mockery of a human community, a reduced image of its former glory cut down to an industrial unit to be objectified and sold on the marketplace like everything else. 

 

The nuclear family presents its invitation for exploitation. Two parents are vulnerable to the economic forces imposed on them, unable to demand dignity for fear of losing home and at the mercy of their oppressors. Where extended families are to militias, villages to platoons, and clans to armies, the nuclear family can only wait helplessly to die. There is no dignity in the nuclear family, its only honor can be in abolition, and its idealizations only make us weaker as a society. This does not mean parents shouldn't raise their own children, of course they should take part, though, they can only raise them so much and their childrens upbringing relies on so much more than what they could ever provide. Implying ill-capability on the part of even further atomized single-parent families only ignores the deeper problem, not to mention that it harms single-parent families. Conservatism for the nuclear family only guarantees the atomization that arose from the nuclear family. The nuclear family failed for a reason, there is no returning to it and there is no preserving it nomatter how hard reaction demands blood for this cause. A new society must be built! 

 

I speak only to a cultural background to which I am familiar. Many cultures have suffered similar fates as that of the English and were equally if not more robust in their communities throughout history. The horrific irony of the British Empire and industrialization (as it has been practiced) is that this cultural beast unleashed upon the world did not only destroy the fabric of other societies but also of the English themselves.

 

One may proclaim my post incredibly dogmatic. To which I say most of this thread is dogmatic. One should view their own ideology and ask if it is mere image or something real before railing against anothers. They should question the nature of this thread and what birds of paradise have shown their wings here today. 

 

An applause from the invisible audience for Omosoap for displaying empathy and nuance. And redoubled for TranscendingGod for daring to think outside narrow bounds whether or not all find them agreeable!  :clapping:  :takeexample:

The song below was written in the 1600s

 

Declaration001.gif

 

(SOURCE) https://www.galumph....eclaration1.php https://www.galumph.nl/index.php



#9
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts

In my view the creation of the next generation of humans should not be constrained by such asinine conventions and evolutionary vestiges as "marriage," "nuclear family", or whatever else may constrain our society in the present.

Rather, a society with people grown in test tubes optimized with the appropriate hormones and nutrition will almost certainly have better outcomes than the roundabout strategy of trying to force imperfect humans to create a perfect environment for their children. Besides, it's been shown that parents and environment actually have comparatively little impact as opposed to raw intelligence.


Sigh... you're the madman.

Yet, don't worry, in this regard I'm fully liberal. I deeply believe the people like TG must be allowed to follow their ways. Moreover: they should be given a piece of territory (like recent CHAZ, but million times larger) to reveal their limitless potential and construct their own society free of "evolutionary vestiges" and "asinine conventions".

The rest of the world should not meddle into this, under no conditions. Just watch, be horrified, draw conclusions...
The last time someone watched evolution occur, they were either subjugated, eradicated, or subsumed. I wouldn't recommend it.
The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#10
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,322 posts

The last time someone watched evolution occur, they were either subjugated, eradicated, or subsumed. I wouldn't recommend it.

 

This is a bit bold to see your personal fantasies (marginal, deeply misanthropic, and never even tried in real world) as "higher stage of evolution". Your "people from test tubes" wil not become Supermen, rather they will be sick and deeply unhappy bastards, incapable of forming a properly functioning human society. We (normal human beigns) will have nothing to afraid.



#11
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts

 

The last time someone watched evolution occur, they were either subjugated, eradicated, or subsumed. I wouldn't recommend it.

 

This is a bit bold to see your personal fantasies (marginal, deeply misanthropic, and never even tried in real world) as "higher stage of evolution". Your "people from test tubes" wil not become Supermen, rather they will be sick and deeply unhappy bastards, incapable of forming a properly functioning human society. We (normal human beigns) will have nothing to afraid.

 

On the contraire, my "fantasies" are highly humanistic and driven by a data centric approach to solving the world's most intractable issues. While you may venerate our limited, primal psyche that compels us to live our circumspect lives, others are impelled by the suffering that they view as unconscionable, to change the status quo. 

 

We don't have to talk in hypotheticals though. Why are you so opposed to a test tube baby? We are all, in some sense, test tube babies, except that the test tubes are our mothers. Being able to be engendered in an artificial womb (the test tube portion) doesn't preclude maintaining filial ties if that is what one so desires. Rather, my argument here is that we will be better able to control conditions for the zygotes and embryos than we would in vivo. 

 

The argument about familial connections being of eminent importance is of a different nature. While I would argue that human evolution has placed too large of a role in the connection between immediate genetic progenitors and kin, that doesn't mean that I want to eliminate the strong ties that bind us to each other as humans. No, don't misinterpret my intentions, because if anything I wish to broaden these feelings that give rise to some of the most compellingly altruistic behavior that exists. To feel like this towards complete strangers may be beneficial to create a less divisive society. 

 

We fear what we don't understand; we shy away from what is novel. Humanity will and must change. The definition of a normal human being has never been static. Yes, it is evolution, but evolution guided by (hopefully) people like you and me. 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#12
SeedNotYetSprouted

SeedNotYetSprouted

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

I will repeat what I have said numerous times on this forum:

 

Ectogenesis, including but not limited to test-tube babies, coupled with AI, is the only way to ensure the continued survival and progression of not just "human" life but the entirety of Terragen ( Earth-originating) existence.

 

Kudos once again to TranscendingGod for some refreshing rationality and to Erowind for some empathic creativity.



#13
Set and Meet Goals

Set and Meet Goals

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts

If it hasn't already been said one parent is better than being a orphan we live in a imperfect world where not all children get a single parent.

 

I agree that two parents are better.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users