Should the ChildFree lifestyle or Birthstrike become common, what is the response of Goverment and us?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HumbleIOughtToBe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HumbleIOughtToBe

Guest
What would the response of the religious right be, should birth-strike should become mainstream movement that 1/3 people are in.

God said be fruitful and prosperous, and I assume the legal system would be used to aid that goal.

Sorry, I should add additional movements in that mix, excluding the tiny birth-strike movement that has almost no impact. Not wanting children is increasing, even without that movement.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think most people are familiar with Birthstrike, but to clarify, it’s a growing movement of people on strike from reproducing until climate change is addressed.
 
Last edited:
Never heard of it. Thank you @Wesrock.

Pagans do what they do. Children are a blessing. If they want to rob themselves of blessings that’s they’re problem. At least they won’t be teaching children their Godless ways. In the meantime, I’ll be happy to try to proselytize them and should they convert they’ll likely have children and be doubly blessed. 😊
 
Last edited:
Is there a unified “religious right” that would come forward to compose a response? I’m guessing not. If some talking points developed in opposition to it I cannot imagine what they would be. Nor would I care.

This birth strike sounds about as well thought out as a Jussie Smollett publicity stunt. It sounds like nothing more than a publicity stunt to generate talk about climate change. Though I’m sure people with sanctimony to spare will still buy into it.
 
Last edited:
What was the response to VHEMT (Voluntary Human Extinction Movement)? What about the decreasing fertility rates in the US and Europe?

You can’t force people to want children.
 
You can force people to get children, through side pressures that are unethical yet not so morally deranged that the United Nations does not get involved.
  • Make children or taxes go up on you.
  • Propaganda
  • Government dating app designed for marriage
  • Zoning laws to force single people away from the resources.
  • etc
None of these acts are so barbaric that other countries would get super involved, plus if all EU countries and North America rolled out these acts one by one, no one country would be innocent enough to feel comfortable pointing the finger. Gradual change year by year, few would notice. My question is how far would CAF users go to get others to “want” children. Also, industry wants a high birth rate for an overabundance of labor that makes the market cut wages, so it would unite the capitalist right and the Christian right.

Not endorsing, rather what is a society capable off, and how far would people be willing to go to make it a reality?
 
Last edited:
I don’t know about that. That’s crossing into coercion.
 
My guess is that over 90% of people ever involved in a birthstrike never had much of a desire for children in the first place.
 
I live in Singapore, and the government is trying to increase the birth rate after their ‘Stop at Two’ campaign became way too successful, lol.

They have incentives for couples with children, basically tax rebates and the like. They also increased maternity/paternity leave. Priorites are given for larger families, and married couples to encourage them to start a family. It’s not that effective tbh. birth rate is still low. Children are a huge deal, and incentives aren’t going to make people change their minds. It only relieves some burden from couples who are already considering children.

I think government measures you mentioned are kind of silly (government dating app???)

Propaganda is probably the go to solution for a government. Portraying happy families instead of satisfied singles would be a lot easier to do than other measures.
 
Why would they do any of that when they have a steady stream of labor pouring across their borders? The UN also supports mass migration. This is all to the good as far as the national governments and UN, which are run by corporate interests are concerned. Have you missed all the lying propaganda about overpopulation and population control? You might ask yourself why so much of that propaganda would be aimed at the countries with the lowest birthrates?
 
Last edited:
“The great defining event of the twenty-first century — one of the great defining events in human history — will occur in three decades, give or take, when the global population starts to decline. Once that decline begins, it will never end. We do not face the challenge of a population bomb but of a population bust — a relentless, generation-after-generation culling of the human herd. Nothing like this has ever happened before.”

From the book “Empty Planet,” by by Darrell Bricker & John Ibbitson.

Given the global declining total fertiliy rates, it seems we’ve already started down the road to voluntary extinction.
 
HumbleIOughtToBe said:
God said be fruitful and prosperous, and I assume the legal system would be used to aid that goal.
Click to expand...
Why would the legal system be used to aid the goal of people fulfilling a commandment from God? Except perhaps in some kind of totalitarian state based on a religious fundamentalist ideology. I don’t know where you are from, but that is never going to happen in the United States, EU, Commonwealth, etc. Possibly the Taliban or Islamic State have looked into these possibilities.
HumbleIOughtToBe said:
You can force people to get children, through side pressures that are unethical yet not so morally deranged that the United Nations does not get involved.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the United Nations getting involved, but I imagine that most of the suggestions that you make would be overruled by the US Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, or other relevant supreme judicial authority in the various jurisdictions.

I don’t think the government can impose an additional tax on childless people. This would be discriminatory against both people who do not have children out of choice and people who cannot have children. On the other hand, many (perhaps most) jurisdictions do offer benefits and/or tax incentives to people who have children. There is a difference between the government offering financial help to people who have to bear the costs involved in bringing up children and the government punishing people for not having children. Also, at what point would the financial penalties begin and end? By what age would the tax system start punishing people for not having children? Would single people be punished or only couples?

Propaganda and a government dating app aren’t totally ridiculous. Denmark has had an advertising campaign encouraging people to have babies, although it wasn’t sponsored by the government. How acceptable it would be would depend upon the tone and content of the advertising. I don’t think the government could guilt trip people into having babies, but it could send out positive and encouraging messages about how having babies is a good thing. Dating apps are probably something the private sector does better than the government could do. People choose the dating app that suits them best. Putting all those people on one government-owned dating app sounds impractical.

Forcing single people to live as far as possible from resources? That sounds like a terrible idea and one that would surely be illegal almost anywhere in the world. Maybe the North Koreans have tried it, I don’t know. People are single for all kinds of reasons. In Britain we had a whole generation of women who were single because their fiancés were killed in the First World War. Perhaps they didn’t suffer enough and ought to have been further punished by being forced to live in special singles zones. At what age would people be made to live in the singles zone? Would you be allowed a certain number of years in which to get married? Or would you be put in the singles zone at 18 and only allowed to leave when you got married?

Most of these ideas are barbaric and illegal.
 
Paragraph 1: The critiques of the Catholic Church, I am not one of those, try to say that America is a semi-theocracy. Next, when industry and the church are aligned on an issue, one lobby can help the other.

Paragraph 2: True

Paragraph 3: If done right, their is no difference between the government offering financial help to families and punishing those who do not have children. Both have the same effect.
Tax rates with a nice GovernmentTax rates with a mean Goverment.
Singles: 20%
Couples with Kids: 20%		Singles: 20%
Couples with Kids: 20%
Singles: 45%
Couples with Kids: 45%		(Skip this stage)
Singles: 45%
Couples with Kids: 15%		Single: 45%
Couples with Kids: 15%
Even without this table,
Government Tax Income = (Family Tax * Family Tax Rate) + (Single Tax * Single Tax Rate) + …
That part on the left is meant to be a constant.

Paragraph 4: Corporate dating apps yield a fragmented dating landscape, resulting in people using the least optimal app. Also, dating app companies have a financial incentive to keep you single or hooking up continuously, while a government dating app can have more authoritarian controls.

Paragraph 5: You don’t ban single people, you ban the buildings that commonly house single people, randomly, over the course of decades. By the way, what laws must urban planners follow? What priorities do urban planners submit to?
 
Last edited:
Isn’t this good since some of the people might come from dysfunctional families and broken homes and they wish to end the cycle with them? Like they had bad experiences growing up and they wish not to have a repeat, this is why they wish not to have families, what would be your response to that angle?
 
I do not demand Child-Free people have children, rather knowing industries demand for abundant people thus cheap labor combined with assorted Christian groups that have large lobbying power, I expect something would go down. This is a place to see what could happen.
 
HumbleIOughtToBe said:
What would the response of the religious right be, should birth-strike should become mainstream movement that 1/3 people are in.
Click to expand...
But wouldn’t Catholics be proportionately under-represented in such groups? Meaning that the birthrate among Catholics should exceed the birthrate of the population in general. So over time Catholics should come to rule the world.
 
Last edited:
Society is all about coercion. The only question is, in a given situation, how much coercion can be justified.

ICXC NIKA
 
Higher taxes for those without children… That is simply cruel to the infertile. It will send the numbers who try for immoral fertility treatments soaring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top