You judge people by the amount of kids they have? So like, if a couple has less than 3 kids, they’re awful people and shouldn’t be around?
Interesting take, if that’s the only way you look at people, and whether you want to be around them or not.
I agree we have fertility problems, but if people don’t have kids, well, that’s so not my business. Every person is different and has their priorities. If a person wants to have 0 or 10 kids, god speed to them.
You understand that majority of people still want to get married, and have a kid? And eventually most do. The problem with fertility is, nobody wants to have >=3 kids because of multiple reasons. So, society, by large, is fine, and people are decent even by weird standards that have been mentioned in this thread.
Anyways, I have no idea how this conversation eventually became a "everyone should have a ton of kids because otherwise society is doomed!", because my entire point was "by large, people are nice, we should strive to be around them, and learn from each other, instead of trying to actively exclude ourselves because we are better than them".
You simply don't understand math if you think that every couple (or even most couples, in practice) having only a single child is sustainable to infinity. You are the only person here who brought up the 3 number; 2 on average is (very obviously) all that's needed to sustain a population, and you chose a higher number (and applied it to the individual instead of as an average) to make the argument look unreasonable.
Also, your assertion that "eventually most do" have at least one kid is already close to statistically false in the US, and if current trends continue, will be false very soon (with the story being the same, or much worse, in all other first-world countries). Go check out /r/ChildFree on Reddit if you want to see just one of the many social movements surrounding this.
You’re correct, it’s not sustainable. But that also means the OP thinks anyone who doesn’t contribute to sustainable model (>=3 children) is an awful person.
Well, 2 is not sustainable on average right now, because we’re below replacement level, so we need to get the average up to like 3, then back down to 2.1 if we want somewhat same amount of people like right now.
Either way, judging people with their ability, want, or need to have children is kinda stupid. I have dear friends who are single, couples with no kids, couples with multiple kids and etc. Actively saying one choice is bad is the reason why some people might actually not want to be around those people. Let people make their own choices, and what they think is right to them.
Again, I’m saying this as a person who is planning to have children.
> that also means the OP thinks anyone who doesn’t contribute to sustainable model (>=3 children) is an awful person.
The OP did not say that, for one thing. You're the only one who's used the "awful people" phrase (which is what makes that a strawman, as I pointed out several comments ago).
OP would prefer to raise his kids to see reproduction as a positive aspect of life, as opposed to the current secular "wellll, you can do whatever you waaaant, but it's a whole lot easier and more fun if you just go ahead and kill your bloodline" that's a logical extension of your pseudo-enlightened "no one choice is better than the others" non-answer (only a logical extension, of course, when ignoring self-preservation and societal preservation as legitimate concerns).
I don't know what country you're in, and I don't know if things are actually different there or if you've just convinced yourself that as long as you don't see a problem with your blinders on, there isn't one. But with regards to "let people make their own choices," someone already threw that argument out (in a different context) elsewhere in the thread, and received lots of good answers explaining how we live in a society and you (and your kids) are affected by everyone else's choices, one way or another: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42705948
Although again, OP didn't even say those people shouldn't exist. He said his family's able to get by without them, and correctly identified that they are not reproducing, expressing optimism that future generations won't have to co-exist with their ideals anyway (I can't say that I share that optimism; there are too many do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do folks around, as well as people like you who may facilitate the spread of bad ideas beyond the bloodlines they kill off out of some sense of respect).
> So like, if a couple has less than 3 kids, they’re awful people and shouldn’t be around?
Wow, what a strawman. No, that's not what he said.
What I will say, though, is if a "couple" has no kids (and does not plan to), they aren't contributing to continuing society and should not receive tax or other marriage benefits.
That's not a punishment, it's treating them the same as everyone else because they have the same burdens as anyone else (and can already take advantage of pooling resources for their earthly pleasure without society bankrolling it). Tax and other financial structure benefits for married couples were meant to encourage and support the raising of families (continuing society), and between several different (and individually well-meaning) social movements, we've lost the plot over the last half-century. Marriage has turned into "best friends with benefits +," which, again, is fine for people to choose if they want to see it that way, but does not deserve any subsidies.