Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by babyshake 1085 days ago
And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.
4 comments

>sexual fertility

You think our government respects people taking time to rear offspring? Of course not! They're not contributing their labour to our economy while being parents so we've structured the incentives to start families in such a way that they're driven back to work ASAP. Strictly speaking: having children is bad for our labour force and should be avoided.

This is the paradox of the child in modern society.

In terms of across the board consumption, there is nothing as productive as a modern child. Clothes, consumable goods, travel sports, recreations, hobbies, and diversions all lead straight to the consumption that is so vital to our economy.

And yet, with sicknesses, evening activities, and other problems, there is nothing that disrupts an individual worker's productivity as a child.

I'm not sure I am smart enough to come up with an equation, but, it's in there somewhere to tell us whether a child is a net positive or negative influence on our Economy than the other.

That's only true under the orthodox economics misconception that consumption (destruction) equals value ("broken windows" theory of value).

The best economics can only tell you how to convert value into different units. It can't tell you what value is.

> there is nothing that disrupts an individual worker's productivity as a child.

I have two kids and it isn't that bad at all. Very small loss of productivity for me except when I took parental leave for 3 months. I have grandparents that live nearby and they can help with sickness and other babysitting though.

I have a feeling a lot of people don’t have that kind of support network. I certainly don’t. If someone’s taking care of my kids, it’s me (or I’m paying them).

Just so happened that my family had to move for work, health, etc. I love raising my kids so it’s fine. It has been the equivalent of drop kicking my career against a brick wall occasionally, if I’m being honest.

My country quite literally needs every able bodied man or woman in the workforce. People with university degrees sitting at home raising kids is almost treason at this point considering it was the government who paid for their education.
Can I ask which country you’re in? That’s an interesting consideration when education is publicly funded like that. Where I am, it’s a bit of a both… Public money is a major factor up until post secondary school, then it’s part of the picture but there’s also substantial private tuition — especially for international students. I’m not sure anyone considers a duty to their country really, despite how much public money makes their education possible.
Does your country face a demographic cliff due to a less than replacement fertility rate?
It's this line of short-term thinking that has brought us to population collapse we are just starting to see.
The Common (un)Wealth is on a death spiral. CANZUK, muahs.
For all those taking this seriously, the parent comment was sarcastic and this comment is almost a direct quote from Dr. Strangelove about how to repopulate the Earth after a nuclear apocalypse.
This is one of those situation where I wish there was a good loan-word like "schadenfreude": The dilemma of choosing whether to explain a joke/reference for those who aren't getting it, versus playing along and extending it.
First the US has to solve the Mineshaft gap, doctor!
No fighting in the war room!
@babyshake, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?