[paulcole]

> Otherwise 1 kid per parent (on average) is what is sustainable.

Says who? People are responsible for climate change. I mean have a kid if you want to and think it'll be fun or whatever, but the idea that it's "sustainable" decision is a joke.

[eveningcoffee]

Well, if you want to work till death then be my guest.

If you believe that society should somehow support their old then I think that one should provide at least one replacement.

If you expect that somebodies else children should support you then I question your sanity. Why should they choose to do so?

If you think that you will be supported by riches you collect during your life time then keep in mind that riches are imaginary.

If you will have no children but 10 others will have 10 children (each) then which genes will prevail? Sustainable or not sustainable?

Edit: I think that it is sustainable to have 1 child per parent. It will keep the population constant. What is not sustainable is to have more than 1 per parent. If we could convince the majority of the world to follow this then the prospects will be much better than today.

What I consider a joke is a belief that if you die out next to the society with very high fertility then it somehow helps the planet. It does not make a dent.

[paulcole]

How does forcing kids to care for dying parents have any impact on the sustainability/environmental impact of having kids.

> If you expect that somebodies else children should support you then I question your sanity. Why should they choose to do so?

Why are you so sure your own kids would choose to do so? Aren't you making a hundred-thousand-dollar-plus child-rearing bet that they'll feel guilty enough to care for you? Why not just spend that money on a paid caretaker?

> If you will have no children but 10 others will have 10 children (each) then which genes will prevail? Sustainable or not sustainable?

Just because other people are making a bad decision doesn't mean you have to make it, too.

[eveningcoffee]

>Aren't you making a hundred-thousand-dollar-plus child-rearing bet that they'll feel guilty enough to care for you?

This is not how the things work.

>Why not just spend that money on a paid caretaker?

Lets imagine that single generation just stops having children. Where exactly does this caretaker come from?

Now imagine that just half does so. What will happen to the economic output and therefore with the accumulated value (money, stock, real estate) you plan to use to pay for these services? If the society is struggling to just keep up with itself then where exactly does this caretaker come from?

Economy is not a fixed state. It is a living organism. Riches are imaginary. If you have no sustainable economy then your riches will vanish.

>Just because other people are making a bad decision doesn't mean you have to make it, too.

I was pointing out that if sustainable thinking just dies out then perhaps that is not the outcome you would expect.

[paulcole]

> This is not how the things work.

Of course that’s how things work! You really think that having a kid is a guarantee that kid’ll take care of you as you die?

I watched my parents care for their dying parents and that’s just not something I’m interested in. I live 2000 miles away and told them to sort their own plans out when the time comes.

[eveningcoffee]

I am sorry.

I did not mean that children should personally take care of me. Rather they will provide to the economy and this will keep the system running. If everybody is busy dying then not much is left for other activities.

What I mean by sustainable society is that it can keep its populace in constant size on its own.

India is not sustainable, Arab countries are not sustainable. But so are also not most European countries because they need heavy immigration to maintain the population size.