I meant it in the context of global issues. That was why I mentioned it alongside global issues and some typical items like ‘save the whales’.

Well, you said that education of young women was the best line of attack for these sort of problems-it was not "alongside" global issues. Do i need to quote you?
Again, your main claim was that we should focus our resources on the education of young women as a way to combat overpopulation. "Saving whales" and "saving carbon footprint" was mentioned alongside the problems it can adress.

I'm simply asking you why brought gender up spesifically when 1) It was not really relevant. 2) Solving gender discrimination in education isn't the main problem-educating people in general is.
I do not understand how you do not get this.

I have a Step-son and me and my partner are trying for our own. You’re not the only parent here for sure. Also Congrats on the Grandkids!

Despair. Their rugrats are effigies of hope. — 180 Proof

Now THAT is a very good oxymoron.

Feel free to quote my initial post and reply to a question asking for further clarity in full. I’m not saying any more on the matter (unless the person who asked wants to engage). Thanks

:up:

My bingo is not necessarily "alt-right", but your criticism is certainly classified as "left": — alcontali

That's a very weird distraction you're mounting there. Anyways, I don't think anyone outside the alt-right, with the exception of the people mocking them, is using the term "soy-boys", so this is rather a shibboleth.

he chain is quite simple. In countries where women are educated social inequality falls, family sizes fall, poverty decreases, etc.,. The knock-on effect of this is people in extreme poverty are not chopping down forests in order to grow crops and there is less strain on healthcare and education, less strain on law and order too. Family planning is a key issue. — I like sushi

Is this based on some resarch you're familiar with or are you extrapolating?

My main point for asking in this vein is less that I disagree with the idea of focusing on the education and women, and more that I am sceptical that lowering birthrates is something we should worry about, rather than just something that happens as we improve other, more relevant things.

My bingo is not necessarily "alt-right", but your criticism is certainly classified as "left":

— alcontali

That's a very weird distraction you're mounting there. Anyways, I don't think anyone outside the alt-right, with the exception of the people mocking them, is using the term "soy-boys", so this is rather a shibboleth.

Have to agree with you there. It’s a pretty strange way to phrase things. “Not necessarily alt-right” is very strange and to generalise to just “left” as opposed to “alt-left” is suspicious too. I feel like people who are centre left or centre right or centre don’t blankety imply right or left is bad. They tend to imply alt, meaning to the extreme end of either demographic as bad.

I’m not going to pretend I’ve gone over the research in detail. Generally though lots of unseen bonuses appear in areas where young women are given better education. Kerela is a specific study and the link I gave on the other page to the UN foundation points out the knock-on effects albeit without the research presented.

I’m not suggesting lowering birthrates. Birthrates naturally reduce when living standards go up. It’s more a matter of empowering women so they can raise children well rather than being stretched thin and badly educated (if they cannot read or write then they cannot help their children learn) this has been recorded in Africa so that isn’t an extrapolation on my part. It may be a far throw from modern western society, but a serious issue when you look at places like India, Brasil or many African nations.

The estimates are the population will level out at around 11 billion. I’m not against more people I’m against large sections of the population living in poverty and ill health (such would put further strain on the environment as person survival trumps not cutting down a tree).

Is physical health the only standard to judge weather to procreate? I know that's the knee jerk response and popular opinion, but 0erhaps there are more subtle reasons and arguments to be made why it is indeed never good.

Birthrates naturally reduce when living standards go up.

This here is true, however let me show you something:

I think this presents what you’re trying to say without focusing on any one demographic and it will do you much better to understand from a wholistic viewpoint than such a focused one.

I hope you understand you are preaching to the choir here, pretty sure most here are aware and sympathise with the plight of women. They are our mothers, sisters and partners plights after all. Standing up for women’s rights is a good and important thing to do... but it isn’t the only good and important thing that needs done.

Have you thought about trying to write essays and send them into human rights magazines and publications? 1500 words or less could see you in Mother Jones if you apply with the editor. I’d welcome seeing an article focusing on women there but unfortunately here on the philosophy forum we do try to gain a holistic and deep view of everything.

Also, if you started a discussion here to discuss women’s rights across the world I’d speak positively to that.

Thanks. Given your explanation, I wholly agree :up:

I wasn’t even nearly trying suggest that. Child mortality is not a great thing. I wasn’t thinking much beyond that and women being able to manage their families (family planning).

The main thrust of my initial post was that people may complain about destroying rainforests and such, but they don’t generally think “I know! Let’s educate young women to stop the destruction,” because they don’t equate the symptom to the underlying cause of social unrest. Of course there are other factors but this one is a hefty weight for tipping the scales.

Gapminder is a very useful site for sure. Sad the guy is dead now. Was such a positive force.

wait he’s dead now? :( this makes me sad

Don’t worry! Everyone else is going to die too :D

IQ strongly correlates with the number of years of public-school indoctrination camp. It does not necessarily correlate with anything else. It is therefore mostly a measure for how often a local feminazi herded you into the school's lecture hall in order to listen to a transvestite pornstar expounding the virtues of gender fluidity. Next, you grow up to become a soyboy that no girl wants to have kids with, or an aggressive lesbian that no man would want in his house. Total number of kids: zero. — alcontali

Lmao. Found the /r/The_Donald Reddit edgelord user. I don't know what university you went to, but.

That's a very weird distraction you're mounting there. Anyways, I don't think anyone outside the alt-right, with the exception of the people mocking them, is using the term "soy-boys", so this is rather a shibboleth. — Echarmion

Lmao. Found the /r/The_Donald Reddit edgelord user. I don't know what university you went to, but. — Swan

I reject both alt-right and radical left.

Neither view reflects that I believe in the primacy of religious law.

Furthermore, neither view is a documented system, but rather a hodgepodge of changing, circumstantial opinions. Their very structure is already utterly inferior. There is no need to even look at their content to condemn these things.

"Alt-right" and "radical left" are very western ways of seeing things, that emerged in just the last decades, while I have largely switched to centuries-old, non-western ways of thinking on these matters. I have learned a lot from studying Islamic sources and from living 10+ years in a Buddhist country, to the extent that I consider concoctions such as "alt-right" and "radical left" to be mere bullshit.

During the day, I spend most of my time with people who only speak an Asian language. Few people speak English over here.

Absolutely nobody over here would believe in the "alt-right" and "radical left" bullshit. What's more, these terms reflect the worst of western society, i.e. that what is utterly wrong with it.

:cool:

You want to save the whales or lower the average carbon footprint of humans? Educating young women is probably your best choice of attack. Long term it’s cost effective and will drive equality in a better direction - already has in many cases (look to countries outside the ‘western realms’). — I like sushi

↪HereToDisscuss Because when resources are focused toward the education of young women the outcomes are far greater in many areas of society (as mentioned).

Poorly educated women are more likely (by far) to have more children. Families with too many children mean a new generation comes through perpetuating the problem. — I like sushi

:clap: :clap:

??????????????

I'm guessing you spend most of your time in shady parts of Thailand, as well.

I'm guessing you spend most of your time in shady parts of Thailand, as well. — Swan

I only transit in Thailand when flying relatively far, and not even always, because Malaysia and Singapore are also large hubs. Talk to people in these places and you will quickly understand that they thoroughly despise your way of thinking, your view on life, your view on how society should work, and so on. After over a decade of living here, I ended up agreeing with them. As far as I am concerned, they are right while you are wrong.

3.5k

↪iolo
If we are social creatures, it's about propaganda. — schopenhauer1

Most things are, I suppose!

As far as I am concerned, the final solution for the problem of public-school indoctrination camps, i.e. die Endlösung der Indoktrinationsfrage, is to shut them down. We simply need a "final solution" for that problem.

No need to evoke “final solutions” in regards to public education. Families can supplement public education with their own training.

No need to evoke “final solutions” in regards to public education. Families can supplement public education with their own training. — NOS4A2

Adding insult to injury, the politicians even collect taxes for that public-school depravity. I don't want to use it and I don't want to pay for it. There is only one solution for the problem of the arrogance of these politicians, because all respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals.

But then again, it is much more than a conflict between politicians and the people who are sick and tired of them. The reason why that kind of politicians exists, is because there is a demographic, a part of the population, that wants them around. Therefore, merely getting rid of these politicians is not enough to solve the problem. If that part of the population "democratically" uses their head count to harass other people, then the problem of their excess head count will need to be addressed.

IQ strongly correlates with the number of years of public-school indoctrination camp. — alcontali

Does it? I would guess private schools would be at least as high on IQ. I think homeschooled children do at least as well on IQ as public school students. There are many factors in all of this, but I am wondering where you got your data and if it's true why it is the case.Or maybe you mean negative correlation.

It is therefore mostly a measure for how often a local feminazi herded you into the school's lecture hall in order to listen to a transvestite pornstar expounding the virtues of gender fluidity. Next, you grow up to become a soyboy that no girl wants to have kids with, or an aggressive lesbian that no man would want in his house. — alcontali

I know there is some truth to this, but my decades ago public school education was mostly quite patriotic with terrible pedagogy. I would guess the latter at least is still the same. Of course private schools tend to have terrible pedagogy also, but the parents tend to be better educated, so the kids have more options, grew up in the midst of larger vocabularies and less damaged parents, so this isn't a big surprise.

This is an interesting idea. We can see that human population is growing exponentially, so too are our impoverished humans, global warming, mass overpopulation, etc. From that point of view it may seem illogical to have children from this point until we have found permanent measure to plateau population rates, as well as care for the human beings who have already been brought into this world.
However, in defense of having children I have two propositions:
1. The first being that evolutionary traits enable humans to desire a family. For means of sustaining their bloodline, populating their community, and sustaining humankind. Without this evolutionary drive humans would simply go extinct. This seems to evidently be against the nature of humans.
2. Which is simply an extension of #1 is the society has the status quo of procreation. As societies evolved, our evolutionary instincts have evolved into the idea of the nuclear family, and (in some cases) aversion or distaste for those who wish to remain childless. Humans are majorly expected to have children and continue their bloodline. This perpetuates the society and is thus a good thing.
So, given the two reasons above, it would seem that it is logical to have children. This does not seem to be fallacious in the problem of over-population, for example. Rather, we can see it logical to have children if there is an intelligent design behind the procreation.
Let me know what you think, these are just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

Is it because of overpopulation? Forgoing children to quell problems of overpopulation is a task for the self-appointed caretakers of the world, the logic of obeying this moral imperative is questionable at best - the claim it's illogical to not obey is humorous. You can deceive yourself into thinking you're part of the solution but you're ignoring the obvious truth that you know there aren't going to be enough people who think like you to make a difference.

I don't know why you think it's illogical to have children but since I don't think it's obvious that it's illogical, I have to just point to all the obvious reasons that don't really need listing.