At McDain's Restaurant, in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, kids don't eat free. And starting next week, they don't get to eat at all. Mike Vuick, owner of the Pittsburgh area eatery has just announced a ban on children under 6 at his casual dining establishment.
After receiving noise complaints from customers about crying kids at neighboring tables, Vuick decided to institute the policy, which will go into effect July 16.
In an email to customers, Vuick explained: "We feel that McDain's is not a place for young children. Their volume can't be controlled and many, many times, they have disturbed other customers."
The owner of the "upscale, casual and quiet" restaurant explains to WTAE Local News, he's got nothing against kids in general, but their endless screams at public dinner tables are "the height of being impolite and selfish."
Last year, North Carolina's Olde Salty restaurant made a similar decision. Owner Brenda Armes posted a sign that read "Screaming children will not be tolerated", making it clear to parents when their kids scream, they'll be asked to take it outside. Armes said the move has boosted business, and Vuick is confident his ban will benefit McDain's as well.
But not everyone is on board. Some Monroeville locals are offended that they're being singled out for having young kids, and pointing fingers at noisy adults.
"If they're so concerned about noise, what do they plan to do about the loud people at the bar?" asks one local resident.
It's not illegal to ban kids from eating establishments, but some parents consider the move discriminatory, and potentially a violation of rights for certain special needs kids. What do you think: are kid-free restaurants a great idea or flat-out wrong?
My son is one of the best behaved toddlers I have ever seen, and I wouldn't eat here, nor would anyone I know. Its silly to ban children altogether, though I do agree with the other restaurants decision to ask parents to take screaming kids outside.
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.
Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you
Wouldn't that mean racist bastards who denied black people from being served in their store/restaurant/whatever were in the right back before (and for some time after) the civil war?
I have to agree with the owners policy.
I have two children myself, and before they reached an age where they knew how to behave themselves in public, the Missus and I simply either got baby sitters when we wanted to go out to eat...or ordered in.
When my children were old enough to behave, they knew what was expected of them and for the most part did so...but many other patrons children didn't.
I know many people might have " What do you mean my child can't eat here" point of view...but given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
As for infants...it's a simple fact...they scream and cry...ask any parent..I didn't force my screaming kids on others ( as much as I could avoid it) and honestly don't want to hear yours while I'm trying to enjoy a meal..
EDIT:...Wow, I sound like a real ass hole...not my intentions, I guess my point is...Parents..control your kids.
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.
Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you
Wouldn't that mean racist bastards who denied black people from being served in their store/restaurant/whatever were in the right back before (and for some time after) the civil war?
Never said anything about moral right and wrong. Just that a business owner has the right to deny service imo. If they want to do it for arbitrary reasons let them. Its their loss.
I think its a perfectly fine move, they're just telling them early that they would have to leave. If you go to an establisment like that you would expect that you can dine in peace, and thats a service that they want to provide.
FITZZ wrote: I have to agree with the owners policy.
I have two children myself, and before they reached an age where they knew how to behave themselves in public, the Missus and I simply either got baby sitters when we wanted to go out to eat...or ordered in.
When my children were old enough to behave, they knew what was expected of them and for the most part did so...but many other patrons children didn't.
I know many people might have " What do you mean my child can't eat here" point of view...but given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
As for infants...it's a simple fact...they scream and cry...ask any parent..I didn't force my screaming kids on others ( as much as I could avoid it) and honestly don't want to hear yours while I'm trying to enjoy a meal..
EDIT:...Wow, I sound like a real ass hole...not my intentions, I guess my point is...Parents..control your kids.
This. I recognize that in some situations, this is unavoidable (I.E. Air travel), but if it can be helped, you have no reason bringing a small child that will disturb others with their behavior into such an environment. It pisses me off to no end to see infants in a movie theater, where the noise and flashing lights on screen will inevitably trigger a reaction which results in crying and disturbing everyone elses enjoyment. Stay at home and take care of your kid, or get a sitter if you want to go out.
Strangely a tread that was designed to sow seeds of hate for this guys (it looks like it anyway) has backfired and has triggered bunch of defencive comments.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:My son is one of the best behaved toddlers I have ever seen, and I wouldn't eat here, nor would anyone I know. Its silly to ban children altogether, though I do agree with the other restaurants decision to ask parents to take screaming kids outside.
How is it silly exactly? Your post gives me the impression that you're one of those obnoxious parents who simply can't comprehend that other people don't want the sound of screaming children when they go out to a nice dinner, and who enjoys forcing your kid onto people who don't want to be around him. "Ask parents to take screaming kids outside" is complete crap, I don't want to hear the kid screaming in the first place, and the fact that the restaurant would even need to ask, or that you'd think it's reasonable for them to get to the point of asking, highlights exactly why they simply banned children in the first place.
I don't believe for one second that a business has the right to do whatever it wants. If a business opens its doors to the public, it takes on an obligation to not turn someone away for an illegally discriminatory reason.
That said, I have no problem with this. While there are certain discriminatory ways to reject someone, there's plenty of fair and legal reasons as well. You can reject someone for not wearing a nice enough shirt, or crappy shoes, because you get to control the kind of bar or restaraunt you want to have.
If this guys wants to run a quieter, more chilled restaraunt, I can entirely understand not allowing small children. There's plenty of other places for people to eat out with their kids.
It's an unfair blanket policy, like nearly all blanket policies.
But it's hard to really crack down on noisy kids. You have to send staff to deal with the parents, who, if they take the kids out, only lengthen the time spent at table. You're losing revenue because you probably only have two adults, at most one of whom is drinking more than one drink.
So,.. you can spend the most time and labor on groups that have low profits, or you can simply eliminate them entirely.
I have no problem with this. If a business owner wants to bar a certain group from his place of business, in my opinion that is his right. That his justification for it doesn't meet with another`s approval is fine, they will voice their displeasure by not funding the business, followed by the business owner realizing he has just made a major "Oops!" or by continuing on as he was before.
Personally, after looking at the place and its menu, I can fully understand the ban. Certainly looks like a place I would take my lady to for a quiet dinner with the very few money/time opportunities we have to do something...and given that, I would not really want to have to deal with people deciding they want to make noise, regardless of age. However it is a lot easier to lean over and go "Hey man. You mind? I really don't want to know about Aunt Nessie`s 17th colon obstruction." than it is to quiet a toddler who is hell-bent on screaming over...whatever happens to be ticking it off at the time. Half the time when it happens, it seems like the parents just sit there expecting them to get tired of it...which compounds the issue.
Additionally, if his experiences are like mine the owner may very well have ran into the same sort of "How -dare- you!" attitude from parents of misbehaving or extremely young children when informing them that the ear piercing shrieking is, perhaps, causing an issue for the 30-40 other paying customers in the area. In that situation it's a whole lot easier and less stressful to hang a sign on the door and call it good.
SOFDC wrote:I have no problem with this. If a business owner wants to bar a certain group from his place of business, in my opinion that is his right. That his justification for it doesn't meet with another`s approval is fine, they will voice their displeasure by not funding the business, followed by the business owner realizing he has just made a major "Oops!" or by continuing on as he was before.
Personally, after looking at the place and its menu, I can fully understand the ban. Certainly looks like a place I would take my lady to for a quiet dinner with the very few money/time opportunities we have to do something...and given that, I would not really want to have to deal with people deciding they want to make noise, regardless of age. However it is a lot easier to lean over and go "Hey man. You mind? I really don't want to know about Aunt Nessie`s 17th colon obstruction." than it is to quiet a toddler who is hell-bent on screaming over...whatever happens to be ticking it off at the time. Half the time when it happens, it seems like the parents just sit there expecting them to get tired of it...which compounds the issue.
Additionally, if his experiences are like mine the owner may very well have ran into the same sort of "How -dare- you!" attitude from parents of misbehaving or extremely young children when informing them that the ear piercing shrieking is, perhaps, causing an issue for the 30-40 other paying customers in the area. In that situation it's a whole lot easier and less stressful to hang a sign on the door and call it good.
The problem is more with the idiot parents than with the kids.
As a father of two I fully support the restaurant in this. People that don't control their kids in public should be sterilized and their children taken away and sent to Cadia for reform.
sebster wrote:I don't believe for one second that a business has the right to do whatever it wants. If a business opens its doors to the public, it takes on an obligation to not turn someone away for an illegally discriminatory reason.
That said, I have no problem with this. While there are certain discriminatory ways to reject someone, there's plenty of fair and legal reasons as well. You can reject someone for not wearing a nice enough shirt, or crappy shoes, because you get to control the kind of bar or restaraunt you want to have.
If this guys wants to run a quieter, more chilled restaraunt, I can entirely understand not allowing small children. There's plenty of other places for people to eat out with their kids.
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.
Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you
Wouldn't that mean racist bastards who denied black people from being served in their store/restaurant/whatever were in the right back before (and for some time after) the civil war?
Never said anything about moral right and wrong. Just that a business owner has the right to deny service imo. If they want to do it for arbitrary reasons let them. Its their loss.
Oh, I didn't mean you specifically, I was just pointing out that that logic is a very slippery slope.
On the one hand they're getting a lot of publicity for this. On the other hand they're willing to turn away customers at the door which can spiral against you.
Imo kids are annoying in public places like restaurants and movie theaters but there's a lot of money in families too. Good luck golf driving range restaurant.
sebster wrote:I don't believe for one second that a business has the right to do whatever it wants. If a business opens its doors to the public, it takes on an obligation to not turn someone away for an illegally discriminatory reason.
That said, I have no problem with this. While there are certain discriminatory ways to reject someone, there's plenty of fair and legal reasons as well. You can reject someone for not wearing a nice enough shirt, or crappy shoes, because you get to control the kind of bar or restaraunt you want to have.
If this guys wants to run a quieter, more chilled restaraunt, I can entirely understand not allowing small children. There's plenty of other places for people to eat out with their kids.
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.
Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you
Wouldn't that mean racist bastards who denied black people from being served in their store/restaurant/whatever were in the right back before (and for some time after) the civil war?
Never said anything about moral right and wrong. Just that a business owner has the right to deny service imo. If they want to do it for arbitrary reasons let them. Its their loss.
Oh, I didn't mean you specifically, I was just pointing out that that logic is a very slippery slope.
Honestly if someone wants to go that route, I say let them. It's their business. If they want to shrink their consumer market, it's their problem. Perhaps this position however is not a particularly useful one from a social stand point. Segregation and Jim Crowe can cut off an entire segment of a population from commercial pursuits, which is bad for the economy over all. Laws banning such practices thus make sense to me as prudent.
From a standpoint of non-practicality though, I do think that when you own a business you have the right to run it as you please. It's the laws job to ensure that your right to run your business as you want doesn't infringe on the rights of others (that whole balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of the group blah blah). In the case of kids, I don't see a few dinners banning them as being that much of an issue to warrant any real attention from anyone except those who disagree. Meanwhile those who do can go have their nice peaceful meals.
Personally, I've never had much trouble with kids in dining facilities. It's happened a few times and is unpleasant, but I've never had so much of an issue as to warrant a demand that they all stop going out to eat. It's smokers that bug me. The smell drives me crazy, I can't stand it and I can often smell it even in the non-smoking area depending on how close I am. Any establishment that bans smoking gets my preference over a place that does not.
Ledabot wrote:Ignorance is not so much a problem as stupidity.
Once can be fixed the other not so easily.
We have a case of genuine stupidity
Which case is that?
Who knows. This is the art of 3rd party posting.
I see.
LordofHats wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Oddly, I actual approve of the right to deny service for whatever reason you please. It's his business, let him lose or win it.
Personally, I have a rule: No hat no service Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you
Wouldn't that mean racist bastards who denied black people from being served in their store/restaurant/whatever were in the right back before (and for some time after) the civil war?
Never said anything about moral right and wrong. Just that a business owner has the right to deny service imo. If they want to do it for arbitrary reasons let them. Its their loss.
Oh, I didn't mean you specifically, I was just pointing out that that logic is a very slippery slope.
Honestly if someone wants to go that route, I say let them. It's their business. If they want to shrink their consumer market, it's their problem. Perhaps this position however is not a particularly useful one from a social stand point. Segregation and Jim Crowe can cut off an entire segment of a population from commercial pursuits, which is bad for the economy over all. Laws banning such practices thus make sense to me as prudent.
From a standpoint of non-practicality though, I do think that when you own a business you have the right to run it as you please. It's the laws job to ensure that your right to run your business as you want doesn't infringe on the rights of others (that whole balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of the group blah blah). In the case of kids, I don't see a few dinners banning them as being that much of an issue to warrant any real attention from anyone except those who disagree. Meanwhile those who do can go have their nice peaceful meals.
Personally, I've never had much trouble with kids in dining facilities. It's happened a few times and is unpleasant, but I've never had so much of an issue as to warrant a demand that they all stop going out to eat. It's smokers that bug me. The smell drives me crazy, I can't stand it and I can often smell it even in the non-smoking area depending on how close I am. Any establishment that bans smoking gets my preference over a place that does not.
True, I suppose your right. Still I felt it had to be said.
As for smokers, Yeah, I have a problem with them at work; we get one thirty minute lunch break, and two 15 minute breaks. Smokers, however, get three Smoke Breaks (that can last anywhere from 5-15 minutes), but Non-Smokers don't get anything....
I could bring this up to management, but since they all smoke......
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:My son is one of the best behaved toddlers I have ever seen, and I wouldn't eat here, nor would anyone I know. Its silly to ban children altogether, though I do agree with the other restaurants decision to ask parents to take screaming kids outside.
How is it silly exactly? Your post gives me the impression that you're one of those obnoxious parents who simply can't comprehend that other people don't want the sound of screaming children when they go out to a nice dinner, and who enjoys forcing your kid onto people who don't want to be around him. "Ask parents to take screaming kids outside" is complete crap, I don't want to hear the kid screaming in the first place, and the fact that the restaurant would even need to ask, or that you'd think it's reasonable for them to get to the point of asking, highlights exactly why they simply banned children in the first place.
Umm, excuse me troll, but calling me an obnoxious parent who enjoys forcing my kid on other people is out of line. State your opinion, don't attack me personally.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Umm, excuse me troll, but calling me an obnoxious parent who enjoys forcing my kid on other people is out of line. State your opinion, don't attack me personally.
You're accusing me of trolling for pointing out that saying that you think it's silly for a restaurant to offer an environment with no kids makes it sound like you enjoy forcing your kids on other people? Explain exactly why it's 'silly' for a restaurant to ban kids, if it's not because you think that everyone should be willing to be around your kids when they're at dinner. That's the only reason I've ever seen put forth to back that sort of criticism. It compounds the impression when you seem to think that families with a screaming member should even need to be told to go outside.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Umm, excuse me troll, but calling me an obnoxious parent who enjoys forcing my kid on other people is out of line. State your opinion, don't attack me personally.
You're accusing me of trolling for pointing out that saying that you think it's silly for a restaurant to offer an environment with no kids makes it sound like you enjoy forcing your kids on other people? Explain exactly why it's 'silly' for a restaurant to ban kids, if it's not because you think that everyone should be willing to be around your kids when they're at dinner. That's the only reason I've ever seen put forth to back that sort of criticism. It compounds the impression when you seem to think that families with a screaming member should even need to be told to go outside.
I think its silly that they named their restaraunt McDaines, to tell the truth.
FITZZ wrote: I have to agree with the owners policy.
I have two children myself, and before they reached an age where they knew how to behave themselves in public, the Missus and I simply either got baby sitters when we wanted to go out to eat...or ordered in.
When my children were old enough to behave, they knew what was expected of them and for the most part did so...but many other patrons children didn't.
I know many people might have " What do you mean my child can't eat here" point of view...but given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
As for infants...it's a simple fact...they scream and cry...ask any parent..I didn't force my screaming kids on others ( as much as I could avoid it) and honestly don't want to hear yours while I'm trying to enjoy a meal..
EDIT:...Wow, I sound like a real ass hole...not my intentions, I guess my point is...Parents..control your kids.
I think you came off just fine. I think parents get so used to tuning their kids out that sometimes they forget where they are. I've thrown people out of my bar for many reasons, my favorite is to just point at a sign that I have that says "NO DOUCHEBAGGERY". I always give a warning first though. That is my prerogative as the owner. If I think you are bad for business and you give me an excuse I'm gonna kick you out.
I find people have an over inflated sense of entitlement, which leads them to believe that they are always being persecuted or discriminated against anytime someone enlightens them. You're not being persecuted, you're just being a douche, comeback when you are no longer a douche and we will talk, hell I'll buy you a drink.
I agree with the owners decision, I hate other peoples children. I also hate how so many people with children seem to think that it's perfectly okay for them and their spawn to inconvenience everyone else.
I don't want to be inconvenienced by your children, that's why they're YOUR children. If I wanted to put up with children screaming all the time, I would have my own.
Of course it isn't all children, just the ones who have idiot parents. If your children are annoying other people on buses, planes and in restaurants (I.E. doing anything that isn't sitting quietly) then you're an idiot. Tell your child to shut-up and behave, before they grow up to be one of those annoying douche bags who talks loudly on a mobile phone, while a whole train carriage is united in wishing they would die.
Children should be banned from more places. I think that would encourage parents to feel guilty more often (like smokers do), and wait outside in segregated areas (like smokers do).
my personal opinion is yes, defiantly ban under 6's (maybe abit harsh, under 5's sounds better).
many a time i have went into a whether spoons, and enjoy the reasonable sound level. Only to have a parent with the most spoilt little brat within 20 miles sit two tables away, screaming his head off to high heaven without the parent even batting an eye-lid.
So what happened when the staff told the lady to quieten him down? she told them to feth off. why they didn't call the police for anti-social behaviour i cannot fathom.
But anyway, I fully agree with this. the old saying for children: "be seen, not heard". I was brought up this way and was better off for it.
Holy feth thats crazy I dont like kids much but to glass someone over a crying babyis just nuts.
Surprisingly enough, this is generally the kind of reaction you get (albeit not to bottling extent) when asking parents of rowdy kids to be quiet. they just cant comprehend how little Jimmy could possibly be causing disruption, oblivious to the 150Db generator a foot away from their ear.
FITZZ wrote:given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
Personally I have no children, but it is more than likely that I will eventually spawn my own nerdlings (well, the gf would want them to be normal humans, but I'm gonna try and sow the seeds of geekery before she even has a chance to introduce them to normality ), but I will guarantee that my kids will sit and behave while at restaurants.
But there is nothing more enraging than when you are out for a nice meal and there are kids screaming, braying and (LITERALLY in several cases witnessed by myself) running around the restaurant, generally getting in the way of the staff (causing disaster and spillage and confusion), knocking things over and generally disturbing other diners.
I am enraged by the fact that these kids are allowed to run amok in a place where people eat and generally want to relax (well I don't know anyone who ever feels the need to go to a restaurant and get stressed out ) and I am also concerned that their feckless parents allow them to run amok in a place where there is a serious risk of injury, considering that it's a crowded room full of people carry very large and heavy trays piled with ceramics, glassware, cutlery and piles of oven-hot food!
If your kids wan't to run around, take them outside to designated play areas (nearly every major-chain restaurant has one). If they are inside the eating area, they should behave appropriately. My parents used to let me take a book/comic/gameboy when we went for a meal out, instead of running around the restaurant pissing everyone off, I was able to entertain myself and not cause disruption to the other diners
Does anyone have a ladder I can borrow? this horse is pretty high!
I am seriously annoyed by people who feel like the world is obligated to put up with their children. You sign away convenience and ease in order to pass along your genes; no one else agreed to put up with them. I was stationed over in Germany for a few years, and there were only about 4-5 showings of movies at the post Theater a day - no less that 3 screaming babies at the 1030 pm showing of Underworld 2.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
You're accusing me of trolling for pointing out that saying that you think it's silly for a restaurant to offer an environment with no kids makes it sound like you enjoy forcing your kids on other people? Explain exactly why it's 'silly' for a restaurant to ban kids, if it's not because you think that everyone should be willing to be around your kids when they're at dinner. That's the only reason I've ever seen put forth to back that sort of criticism. It compounds the impression when you seem to think that families with a screaming member should even need to be told to go outside.
There are numerous possible reasons to believe a child ban is silly. The obvious reason being that its unfair given that not all children scream all the time. The less obvious reasons include that having the opportunity to sequester one's children, voluntarily or otherwise, may be considered a superior choice in terms of business given a particular type of establishment; an Applebees with a no kids policy is going to be a very short-lived Applebees. Then there's criticism of your position regarding your own intent to impose a certain set of standards on social conduct in semi-public spaces while taking a self-righteous tack. In other words, so what if someone wants to impose their screaming children on you? Why do you get to impose your love of the absence of screaming children on them?
In short, you need to use your head and consider why something might not be a good diea, rather than simply limiting yourself to only the things you've heard, particularly if you're going to jump to conclusion and behave in an accusatory fashion.
All that said, child bans are common things in many different restaurants either in accordance with a particular period of time (casual business places tend to ban children during lunch, for example), or in accordance with a particular image (Tavern on the Green bans children, last I heard). This makes sense, as the aim of these establishments is not consistent with a family-friendly atmosphere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leigen_Zero wrote:
But there is nothing more enraging than when you are out for a nice meal and there are kids screaming, braying and (LITERALLY in several cases witnessed by myself) running around the restaurant, generally getting in the way of the staff (causing disaster and spillage and confusion), knocking things over and generally disturbing other diners.
I once saw a toddler run full face into a waitress carrying a fully tray of plastic cups full of water. This caused the waitress to fall backwards, and the contents of the tray to come falling down on the toddler; soaking him, and probably giving him a bump or two. Obviously the kid burst into tears, and the parents came to his defense accosting the waitress, who tried to apologize, but also started crying from the abuse. The manager then got involved, and appeased the parents by giving them free food, and firing the waitress on the spot. Up until that point everyone had been laughing at the kid and the parents, but after the manager's stunt 6 of the 10 seated tables (including mine) walked out on their checks.
dogma wrote:I once saw a toddler run full face into a waitress carrying a fully tray of plastic cups full of water. This caused the waitress to fall backwards, and the contents of the tray to come falling down on the toddler; soaking him, and probably giving him a bump or two. Obviously the kid burst into tears, and the parents came to his defense accosting the waitress, who tried to apologize, but also started crying from the abuse. The manager then got involved, and appeased the parents by giving them free food, and firing the waitress on the spot. Up until that point everyone had been laughing at the kid and the parents, but after the manager's stunt 6 of the 10 seated tables (including mine) walked out on their checks.
And they (and you) were right to. That manager has no business managing staff or dealing with customers. Customer service does not make retail and wait staff the customer's servants. Personally, I don't see a culture in which a patron has the right to complain without just cause until they are given free goods or services as a good one. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way the UK is going, and from the sounds of it, the US too.
If noise is the issue, why not make it a ban on noise and disruption rather than an age thing? I know one or two people that act like children in public (myself undoubtedly amonsgt them) and I am shocked, shocked that people seem to think our behaviour is acceptable simply becuase we are a few years older than the well-behaved toddler in the corner.
I'm shocked to see people think that age discrimination is apparently equivalent to ethnic discrimination. An establishment saying "No Children" doesn't strike me the same as saying "No Chinese". The reason it is an age thing is becuase it is easy to tell an adult to quiet down or call the cops to throw them out, but children aren't reasonable and having the cops toss them out is not very good PR.
There was a place here that was a sit down movie theater where you could order food, drinks (alcoholic), and smoke while watching a first run movie. Every other weekend they would have a kids movie but the rest of the time it was 18+. When the banned smoking and went all ages all the time it was closed down within 6 months.
Considering the number of restaurants that don't have any sort of adults only policy I don't see what the big deal is. Complaining you only have 98 out of 100 restaurants one can take their kids to doesn't seem like a serious issue. Adults occasionally want a (non sleazy) adult atmosphere and I don't think that is to much to ask for.
There was a lot of talk about how they are limiting their customer pool but the last time an establishment did this their business picked up; it is pretty good marketing, actually.
At McDain's Restaurant, in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, kids don't eat free. And starting next week, they don't get to eat at all. Mike Vuick, owner of the Pittsburgh area eatery has just announced a ban on children under 6 at his casual dining establishment.
After receiving noise complaints from customers about crying kids at neighboring tables, Vuick decided to institute the policy, which will go into effect July 16.
In an email to customers, Vuick explained: "We feel that McDain's is not a place for young children. Their volume can't be controlled and many, many times, they have disturbed other customers."
The owner of the "upscale, casual and quiet" restaurant explains to WTAE Local News, he's got nothing against kids in general, but their endless screams at public dinner tables are "the height of being impolite and selfish."
Last year, North Carolina's Olde Salty restaurant made a similar decision. Owner Brenda Armes posted a sign that read "Screaming children will not be tolerated", making it clear to parents when their kids scream, they'll be asked to take it outside. Armes said the move has boosted business, and Vuick is confident his ban will benefit McDain's as well.
But not everyone is on board. Some Monroeville locals are offended that they're being singled out for having young kids, and pointing fingers at noisy adults.
"If they're so concerned about noise, what do they plan to do about the loud people at the bar?" asks one local resident.
It's not illegal to ban kids from eating establishments, but some parents consider the move discriminatory, and potentially a violation of rights for certain special needs kids. What do you think: are kid-free restaurants a great idea or flat-out wrong?
My son is one of the best behaved toddlers I have ever seen, and I wouldn't eat here, nor would anyone I know. Its silly to ban children altogether, though I do agree with the other restaurants decision to ask parents to take screaming kids outside.
Works for me in a big way. There are plently or restaurants that effectively cater to the harried parent and their offspring. If its profitable for some restaurants where you can't take your demonseed I am down with that. Usually thats done unofficially, just by charging a whole lot of money for food kids don't like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ledabot wrote:Strangely a tread that was designed to sow seeds of hate for this guys (it looks like it anyway) has backfired and has triggered bunch of defencive comments.
How did this happen?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:I am seriously annoyed by people who feel like the world is obligated to put up with their children. You sign away convenience and ease in order to pass along your genes; no one else agreed to put up with them. I was stationed over in Germany for a few years, and there were only about 4-5 showings of movies at the post Theater a day - no less that 3 screaming babies at the 1030 pm showing of Underworld 2.
Thats a slightly separate but agreed topic.
R movies should be kid free. Its freaks me and the missus out when some mouthbreather brings in a child to one of those things. Now we've let the kids watch some R rated comedies (because, we're you know bad parents) but we'll rent it and can be as loud as we want. PLus with TBone barking at me to give him popcorn and Rodney stealing my pizza and the inevitable merry chase as I chase him around the house with my pizza in his mouth, its loud to begin with.
I'll never forget when some idiot brought his three year old in to see the Mist. Dude! Thatt kid was SCREAMING within minutes. (it is after all a movie with spiders shooting acid at people and such).
I've been thinking a lot about the divide between people with children and those without. Admittedly, it's probably because I'm a point in my life (early 30's professional) where many of my peers have started having kids, so I'm exposed to it more than when I was in school.
Still though, the difference between a childless person and a parent, in terms of lifestyle, is simply staggering. I work with a guy that's my exact age, but with a wife and two kids. He owns a house that had a mold, his oldest has a gluten allergy, and his is leaving her job to stay home. we do the same job, have the same education, same general sense of humor, and even same taste in movies. But my life is close to that of the average tweaker than to his. I can work late or leave early as I see fit. I can take vacations. I can go to lunch every day if I want to, or take the time to pack lunch. In short, my life is full of incredible freedom, while he's lucky to find time to watch some TV.
I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."
And while it's natural for parents to resent our freedom, I know I'm not the only person without kids that is a little tired of the self rightoeousness and self promotion that some (not all) parents seem to exhibit.
This is nothing like a No-Blacks issue.
Race, sex, and religion are not a choice, but having kids is.
Last year (I think), a hotellier was convicted of kicking a gay couple out of the hotel for being gay.
Where-as there are adult-only or child-free policies in hotels sometimes, and hardly anyone mentions that.
So, if someone who runs a restaurant wants to bar children, or hoddies, or smoking (not an option anymore), it's their choice. The market will tell them whether it was a good choice or not. See Ahtman's cinema comment above for that.
Polonius wrote:I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."
Wait, what?
I just don't see how this follows from your comments above. In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax. Heck, we even create "child-free" zones so they have places where they can avoid kids altogether.
About the only concession demanded of single/childless individuals is that they pay property taxes which benefit schools. However, those taxes are evenly applied to everyone, so I'm not sure it's a particularly offensive discrimination.
Polonius wrote:I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."
Wait, what?
I just don't see how this follows from your comments above. In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax. Heck, we even create "child-free" zones so they have places where they can avoid kids altogether.
About the only concession demanded of single/childless individuals is that they pay property taxes which benefit schools. However, those taxes are evenly applied to everyone, so I'm not sure it's a particularly offensive discrimination.
Polonius wrote:I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."
Wait, what?
I just don't see how this follows from your comments above. In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax. Heck, we even create "child-free" zones so they have places where they can avoid kids altogether.
About the only concession demanded of single/childless individuals is that they pay property taxes which benefit schools. However, those taxes are evenly applied to everyone, so I'm not sure it's a particularly offensive discrimination.
Business owners reserve the right to refuse service, its down to them, if they make the wrong decision, then they pay for it due to a loss of custom.
Frankly, i hate children, I really hate badly behaved children, and I really really hate that an increasing amount of my nation are fat chavs who breed like rats and then bring their fething kids in to places when I am trying to eat and drink and I have to put up with their incessant gak. And when I say "take charge of your bloody children" IM the bad guy!?
If this happened in the UK, i would frequent McDains twice a week to show my support for this decision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote: I have to agree with the owners policy.
I have two children myself, and before they reached an age where they knew how to behave themselves in public, the Missus and I simply either got baby sitters when we wanted to go out to eat...or ordered in.
When my children were old enough to behave, they knew what was expected of them and for the most part did so...but many other patrons children didn't.
I know many people might have " What do you mean my child can't eat here" point of view...but given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
As for infants...it's a simple fact...they scream and cry...ask any parent..I didn't force my screaming kids on others ( as much as I could avoid it) and honestly don't want to hear yours while I'm trying to enjoy a meal..
EDIT:...Wow, I sound like a real ass hole...not my intentions, I guess my point is...Parents..control your kids.
No, you don't sound like an ass hole, you do what I would do, and the fact that most people in modern society are selfish pricks has made you believe that your in the wrong when your actually totally in the right. Just because more people don't do what you do, doesn't mean your in the wrong.
biccat wrote:In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax.
Payment and benefits aren't accorded based on one's obligations outside the work place, so I'm not sure how that is to considered a privilege; particularly given that its a matter of equal consideration. If childless employees were paid more than their with-child counterparts, then it would be a matter of privilege (and, arguably, this happens when considering men vs. women in the workplace).
Additionally, I know of a number of employers who are more accommodating with respect to the needs of parents; allowing for the medical emergencies of children to be considered separately from those of the parent, or allowing parents the freedom to work from home in order to make up for their demands at home.
Polonius wrote:I think my experience ties into the larger phenomenon in which no class of people is extended more privileges by private society than parents (aside from children themselves). A coupel with a two year old can behave in a way that's nearly sociopathic, but everybody understands "well, they have a kid."
Wait, what?
I just don't see how this follows from your comments above. In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax. Heck, we even create "child-free" zones so they have places where they can avoid kids altogether.
About the only concession demanded of single/childless individuals is that they pay property taxes which benefit schools. However, those taxes are evenly applied to everyone, so I'm not sure it's a particularly offensive discrimination.
All of your "advantages" are granted to all, from sick days to property taxes. I don't have more sick days, I simply have less need for them.
I think that society, and government, realize that having kids is a huge drain of resources, and tries to help out. that's not my point, although you can talk about stuff like tax breaks for kids, tax exemptions for dependents, and child care credits if you'd like.
What I meant wasn't so much in terms of policy, but in terms of how society views behavior. If I call in sick because I'm hungover, which is a natural consequence of drinking and chasing strange on a Tuesday, I'm viewed as irrresponsible. If you call in sick because you're child has a fever, which is a natural consequence of having a family, you're viewed as a responsible parent. It's not wrong, it's just there.
Likewise, I went to a friend's house, at the appointed time, for dinner. They were giving their daughter a bath. We spent the first hour talking little while they finished the bath, and eventually put her to bed. I really couldn't say anything, despite the fact that I was sititng there on a work night waiting to eat, because they were taking care of their daughter. If I made people wait an hour in my living room while I finished painting a model, I'd be seen as incredibly churlish.
Again, this isn't a complaint, so much as an observation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:In fact, I think that the privilages afforded by private society to single individuals is well in excess of that extended to parents. They command the same pay, despite not having any obligations to raise or support a family. They get the same number of sick days, but will never have sick kids to attend to, so they can afford to "call in sick" once in a while to stay home and relax.
Payment and benefits aren't accorded based on one's obligations outside the work place, so I'm not sure how that is to considered a privilege; particularly given that its a matter of equal consideration. If childless employees were paid more than their with-child counterparts, then it would be a matter of privilege (and, arguably, this happens when considering men vs. women in the workplace).
Additionally, I know of a number of employers who are more accommodating with respect to the needs of parents; allowing for the medical emergencies of children to be considered separately from those of the parent, or allowing parents the freedom to work from home in order to make up for their demands at home.
Form each according to his to ability to each according to his need, comrade!
Polonius wrote:All of your "advantages" are granted to all, from sick days to property taxes. I don't have more sick days, I simply have less need for them.
I think that society, and government, realize that having kids is a huge drain of resources, and tries to help out. that's not my point, although you can talk about stuff like tax breaks for kids, tax exemptions for dependents, and child care credits if you'd like.
I understand your point, but if you consider the scope of human development, society has always been more accepting of the actions of those who have children. There even used to be a time when people were hired or promoted based on whether they had kids or not. It was easier to lay off the single guy because he didn't have a family to support.
What is new is our tolerance of people who don't have kids. We expect (and rightfully so) that everyone should get paid equally, regardless of their spouses income or whether they have kids. But in doing so, the incentive to not have children and "enjoy life" is more pronounced. If pay is based on what it takes to support a family, then the person who doesn't have a family will necessarily have more disposable income.
There are entire communities for just single people. Others exist that prohibit children entirely. These are new phenomena designed to take advantage of the disposable income of these single people, and cater to their whims.
At least part of the modern acceptance of the chilldless is the matching expectation that fathers be involved as parents. Join that with the rising expectation that women work, and the pros and cons having kids as a professional male have changed dramatically since the 1950s. Even my father worked full time, while my mom stayed home. He was relativly uninvolved with raising me and my brother, but he still had far more domestic duties than his father did. If I were to have kids, I'd be expected (by my partner, society, and myself) to be "a good dad." My career would suffer, my hobbies would be cut back, and my social life would change. These were all less true in the past.
To bring things around on-topic, this restaurant ban illustrates the change: 50 years ago, it would have been acceptable and simple to find a baby sitter and go out. Taking young children out wasn't done. Now, it's a lot harder, and we as a culture understand that young families want to eat out. But, this same rising cost of having kids that leads to these understandings also leads to people chosing not to have kids.
I don't have any children yet but I wouldn't take them to any kind of resurant if they are too young to understand that there are place where you don't scream and cry. It is like when parents bring their babies to some crazy R rated movie. There is something noisy and then the baby cries and I just get pissed. Maybe movie theaters could do something similar to this too.
I'd lay money this is mostly a publicity stunt they hope will boost business. Monroeville is a suburban area and not a nexus of "upscale" dining. I dunno that I'd place the restaurant in the upscale category either from a look at their site and menu. Nothing wrong with it, just looks like an average restaurant in a suburban area...which by definition is going to attract suburban people with kids in tow. That's just how it is in the 'burbs, and why the serious restaurants get opened in city neighborhoods. I dunno if I have a particular problem with the policy, but I expect this may end up biting them in the butt in the long run even if they get a short-term boost in business.
When in Pittsburgh, these are two of my go-to restaurants. Tamari in particular is a real gem.
No, I wouldn't bring my kids to either restaurant. But then, that's kinda obvious based on their location, atmosphere, etc. Unlike McDain's in Monroeville.
This is one of the bestest ideas I've ever heard, seriously.
Bring your kids to Applebees, or olive garden or any of those family friendly places, but the restaurant in question caters to a more upscale crowd and kids just don't belong in fine dining places unless they can behave.
I know it's a broad generalization but kids just can't behave right in public when they're that young. I know there's exceptions, but still. I think it's more the parent's fault though, because parents don't discipline their kids with anything worse than a timeout these days, so the kids think it's ok to scream when their chicken fingers to come fast enough. Or when they get served first and finish eating before everyone else and get bored. And it's the parents that get insulted when they're told their kid is annoying. If I wanna take my GF out for a expensive dinner, I don't want to have kids screaming in my ear all night.
No, sorry, I don't love your kids and I don't want their sticky hand germs anywhere near me or my food. There's a McDonalds in every town, thats where your kid wants to eat anyway, so just take them there instead. Thanks.
And, I agree about the whole thing being a publicity stunt and the restaurant is trying to drum up extra business for what's probably a mediocre menu, but still. I'd go there over a place full of screaming brats any day if the food is the same uninspired stuff you'll get everywhere else.
Other restaurants that have done the same have seen business increase. There is a large class of people who are quite happy to have a place where they're assured of a nice quiet meal - including parents smart enough to hire a babysitter once in a while.
I can't believe this is a news item. Or even the cause of so much discussion.
dogma wrote:There are numerous possible reasons to believe a child ban is silly. The obvious reason being that its unfair given that not all children scream all the time. The less obvious reasons include that having the opportunity to sequester one's children, voluntarily or otherwise, may be considered a superior choice in terms of business given a particular type of establishment; an Applebees with a no kids policy is going to be a very short-lived Applebees. Then there's criticism of your position regarding your own intent to impose a certain set of standards on social conduct in semi-public spaces while taking a self-righteous tack. In other words, so what if someone wants to impose their screaming children on you? Why do you get to impose your love of the absence of screaming children on them?
Didn't your mama ever explain to you that life isn't fair? 'No shirt, no shoes, no service' isn't a silly rule even though some people may look fine with no shirt. The fact that something might or might not be a good business decision is similarly irrelevant to whether the concept of the rule is silly. Naming a restaurant that advertises itself as family friendly and pointing out that it would have trouble if it dropped one of it's selling points doesn't make a lot of sense.
And your idea that I'm somehow obligated to put up with screaming children, and that I'm wrong for wanting a quiet evening in a restaurant puts you squarely into the 'wants to impose kids' camp, thus proving my original supposition correct. You can believe that I'm wrong for thinking that I should be allowed to spend my money and leisure time on restaurants that have an atmosphere I enjoy, but that makes you the silly one.
I think the first time I considered not having children was my first 14 hour plane ride.. That and my older sister had 3 children before I even graduated from high school and I helped take care of them when her husband left her (and them). There's nothing like other people's children to put you off your lunch, so to speak. What is cute and charming to a parent is fingernails on chalkboard to others.
This thread has made me stop and think for a moment about how my wife and I live, specifically how we avoid establishments that cater to or are frequented by families with children. We go to adults-only resorts, eat in slightly nicer than average restaurants, attend early or late movie showings, etc.
After spending so much time in Asia, I've come to appreciate the concept of wa (public harmony). My wife frequently comments on how family-friendly America is when compared to Japan.
My opinion. The policy expressed in the article is ok; I think that parents with small children entering a nice establishment should get the same stink-eye that I would get walking into Chuck E. Cheese's without a child in tow.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Didn't your mama ever explain to you that life isn't fair?
No, I found that out by reading your posts.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
'No shirt, no shoes, no service' isn't a silly rule even though some people may look fine with no shirt.
Some people might consider it to be silly. "Silly" isn't a quality which exists objectively in things.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
The fact that something might or might not be a good business decision is similarly irrelevant to whether the concept of the rule is silly. Naming a restaurant that advertises itself as family friendly and pointing out that it would have trouble if it dropped one of it's selling points doesn't make a lot of sense.
I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, because that make perfect sense. When people call things "silly" they aren't making an empirical determination in accordance with some objective truth. They're making a determination according to aesthetic or qualitative reason.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
And your idea that I'm somehow obligated to put up with screaming children, and that I'm wrong for wanting a quiet evening in a restaurant puts you squarely into the 'wants to impose kids' camp, thus proving my original supposition correct. You can believe that I'm wrong for thinking that I should be allowed to spend my money and leisure time on restaurants that have an atmosphere I enjoy, but that makes you the silly one.
That isn't what I said. I said you were taking a self-righteous tack regarding other people imposing their will on you while making an argument which entailed you imposing your will on them.
I'm not even really addressing your stance on the ability of restaurants and their ability to ban children, I'm addressing the reasons why your conclusions regarding what someone else said were poorly drawn, and rather humorous given their self-righteousness.
Hmm this is a situation I'm sure many have anticipated for years. (for future reference the quotes I'm about to use are directly from the OP's quoted article)
""If they're so concerned about noise, what do they plan to do about the loud people at the bar?" asks one local resident."
"It's not illegal to ban kids from eating establishments, but some parents consider the move discriminatory, and potentially a violation of rights for certain special needs kids."
Okay so with the first one the bar people. It could be they are loud/somewhat louder trying to talk over the screaming children? Regardless people talking somewhat loudly at a bar is normal and generally accepted it is a generally social area to begin with (unless you are depressed and just downing the shots) and nobody likes a screaming child when trying to enjoy a meal you simply cannot compare a screaming child to people being social at a bar it is illogical and just trying to pass the blame elsewhere.
Now with the second one yes it is somewhat discriminatory but so is roughly everything else in life is it not? And screaming children simply do not belong in a more quiet restaurant area it is insulting to not only the owner but the other customers just minding their own business. a violation of rights for certain special needs kids? A screaming child is a screaming child regardless unless they are mentally insane any child can at least be taught when they can and cannot yell, no these parents for the most part are just embarrassed by their children actions and try to place the blame elsewhere. Granted some toddlers are very very quiet my friends daughter whom I babysit often for him is a great kid and I love babysitting her but that still does not change my mind that maybe this ban is not such a bad idea.
Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents.
That said, I've got no problem with banning children from a restaurant. A nice, quiet restaurant for adults obviously doesn't want a lot of children running around screaming.
It is balanced by plenty of restaurants who go out of their way to make parents and young children welcome, with high chairs, a special menu (usually fishfingers and chips, unfortunately) and amenities such as colouring in paper and crayons.
Carluccio's is particularly good in this respect and enables children to experience a proper restaurant atmosphere and hopefully learn proper social behaviour. Of course that depends on the parents too, which is where it all starts to fall apart.
Kilkrazy wrote:Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents.
Different times have different needs. When we were a predominantly agrarian society, go forth and multiply made some sense. Today? There are seven billion people on the planet and the figure is growing all the time. All our environmental issues can be tracked back to population explosions. The single best thing you can do for the planet is opt not to have children, and the single largest increase to ones carbon footprint is having another child. Realistically, it's time to add incentives for not having kids, not further subsidize those who choose to with tax credits.
Kilkrazy wrote:Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents.
Did I miss anybody bitching? I know I specifically said I wasn't complaining.
That said, this is exactly the sort of mentality that drives me up a wall sometimes. My parents chose to have me, for their own reasons. I don't have to respect other people's choices simply because my ancestors made their own choice. My grandfather personally killed Japanese soldiers, can I still argue that people shouldn't kill japanese soldiers?
So, no, I think it's totally ok to bitch about unfair consideration if you're not enjoying those considerations yourself.
I will be completely honest when I say I have almost no clue what this means "Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents." or who it is directed towards. Everything else I agree with, though I have never in my life heard of a place called Carluccio's.
ShadowZetki wrote:I will be completely honest when I say I have almost no clue what this means "Given that you only exist because all of your forebears had children I think it's a bit rich to start bitching about society's unfair consideration given to parents." or who it is directed towards. Everything else I agree with, though I have never in my life heard of a place called Carluccio's.
I think it was a combination strawman/flame, to be honest.
Redbeard wrote:Different times have different needs. When we were a predominantly agrarian society, go forth and multiply made some sense. Today? There are seven billion people on the planet and the figure is growing all the time. All our environmental issues can be tracked back to population explosions. The single best thing you can do for the planet is opt not to have children, and the single largest increase to ones carbon footprint is having another child. Realistically, it's time to add incentives for not having kids, not further subsidize those who choose to with tax credits.
Sorry, but this is completely wrongheaded.
Birthrates in first world countries are generally at or below sustainable levels. This means that the real population growth is occurring in places without good education, health services, and, most importantly, high productivity jobs. Assuming technological advancement is a good thing, it's better to have population growth in countries where children will be raised with a higher level of education and ability to contribute to the advancement of the human condition.
Even more, given pension, social security, and medical care services promised by western governments, countries that have a welfare state require ever-increasing numbers of contributors in order to sustain these programs at the preferred level. If birthrates decrease, there are fewer taxpayers to satisfy the burden imposed on them by the older generations. This can be taken up for a short time by immigrants, but they tend to have lower paying jobs (since they will typically come from a poorer nation) and eventually the tax burden imposed by the older generations will eliminate the incentive to immigrate.
So in short, we need to do more to encourage the highly-educated and higher earners in the middle class to have kids, not less.
"it's better to have population growth in countries where children will be raised with a higher level of education and ability to contribute to the advancement of the human condition." IF one's existence is solely based on the advancement of human condition and to sustain a system with pensions, medical care, and social security why even bother living?
"So in short, we need to do more to encourage the highly-educated and higher earners in the middle class to have kids, not less" Why only middle class? why not everyone else? Sorry man but if financial status dictates who should and should not have kids then there is a serious issue
ShadowZetki wrote:"it's better to have population growth in countries where children will be raised with a higher level of education and ability to contribute to the advancement of the human condition."
IF one's existence is solely based on the advancement of human condition and to sustain a system with pensions, medical care, and social security why even bother living?
You have to find your own reasons for living. Neither I nor the government can give them to you.
Hower, from a social policy perspective, these are important aims.
ShadowZetki wrote:"So in short, we need to do more to encourage the highly-educated and higher earners in the middle class to have kids, not less"
Why only middle class? why not everyone else? Sorry man but if financial status dictates who can and cannot have kids then there is a serious issue
Well, because (1) the wealthy don't need the incentives, and (2) the poor don't need the incentives. And - I'm going to come off like a dick here - middle class people tend to have middle class kids. Poor people tend to have poor kids. If your objective is to maximize productivity and wealth, you don't incentivize poverty.
Now, there are obviously strong political and moral arguments against such a system, but governments should be picky about what they should choose to incentivize.
If only, if only. Don't get me wrong advancement of human condition is noble but is it always a good idea?
Im not sure what to think of 1 and 2 so I unfortunately have no comment regarding that. And no I do understand what you are saying Ive taken economic classes and the like, seen the patterns concerning families finances and the future of their spawn etc. However wouldn't the advancement of human condition include helping these families out of poverty?
biccat wrote:
Birthrates in first world countries are generally at or below sustainable levels. This means that the real population growth is occurring in places without good education, health services, and, most importantly, high productivity jobs. Assuming technological advancement is a good thing, it's better to have population growth in countries where children will be raised with a higher level of education and ability to contribute to the advancement of the human condition.
More people is more people. The world cannot support the number of people it has currently, including in this statement their infrastructure needs. Climate Change is directly tied to the demands of population, and is the world's way of letting us know that we're doing something wrong. We, humans, are taking more space every year. We're driving more other species to extinction every year. And claiming that we need to encourage more of this behaviour among any class of people, educated, 1st world, whatever, is what is completely wrongheaded.
Even more, given pension, social security, and medical care services promised by western governments, countries that have a welfare state require ever-increasing numbers of contributors in order to sustain these programs at the preferred level. If birthrates decrease, there are fewer taxpayers to satisfy the burden imposed on them by the older generations. This can be taken up for a short time by immigrants, but they tend to have lower paying jobs (since they will typically come from a poorer nation) and eventually the tax burden imposed by the older generations will eliminate the incentive to immigrate.
You say this like it is a bad thing. Maybe what is actually completely wrongheaded is a government program that requires never-ending increases in population in order to be viable.
So in short, we need to do more to encourage the highly-educated and higher earners in the middle class to have kids, not less.
This is so wrong, it's not even funny. Highly-educated, high income people don't need incentives to reproduce, can support their offspring without handouts if they choose to have them, and will do so at responsible levels. We can leave the educated, well-off alone and they'll be fine. What we need to do is de-incentivize those who cannot afford children from having them, at all. The people who do the math and figure out that the government will give them more money if they pop out another. You say the first-world western governments cannot afford lower population growth rates. I say the world cannot afford higher population growth rates, and if the governments need to change to meet this reality, so be it.
Redbeard does have a point we are WAY over the sustainable limit for the human species only reason we have been able to sustain such a population is by mass agriculture, hunting, ect.
I have a child, but I can understand the sentiment. There have been occasional times in restaurants where I've asked to sit somewhere specific to get farther away from a screaming baby or toddler. I don't really object to the idea of a "no screaming babies" restaurant as long as it's doesn't get out of hand and become a trend such that there is suddenly an inability for people to take their babies to restaurants hardly at anywhere. After all, taking children to restaurants from an early age is how you teach them to behave in restaurants. Kids that start training early generally do better, it certainly worked for us. Every child is different and some handle things like that early better than others.
As for the overpopulation discussion, don't get me started, we'll be here all day. Let's just say I only have one child and I'd like for there to be enough food and water for people in 50 years time. Resources are limited and getting more so all the time. Quality of life is just as if not more important than quantity. Don't create more human misery by overpopulating the planet even more than it already is in some areas. There, I said it and I'd say it again.
ShadowZetki wrote:Redbeard does have a point we are WAY over the sustainable limit for the human species only reason we have been able to sustain such a population is by mass agriculture, hunting, ect.
The United States alone could supply all of the food that the world needs for the foreseeable future. If that's not sustainable, then I'm not sure what is.
Redbeard wrote:More people is more people. The world cannot support the number of people it has currently, including in this statement their infrastructure needs. Climate Change is directly tied to the demands of population, and is the world's way of letting us know that we're doing something wrong. We, humans, are taking more space every year. We're driving more other species to extinction every year. And claiming that we need to encourage more of this behaviour among any class of people, educated, 1st world, whatever, is what is completely wrongheaded.
Are you suggesting that poverty is a good thing because it consumes fewer resources?
Also, the world doesn't "let us know that we're doing something wrong." It reacts to an astonishing number of variables, of which humanity is only one. You are free to believe that anthropomorphic climate change is a problem worth solving, but it isn't an inherent problem requiring our attention.
Redbeard wrote:You say this like it is a bad thing. Maybe what is actually completely wrongheaded is a government program that requires never-ending increases in population in order to be viable.
Like what is a bad thing? A welfare state? Yes. Failure of the industrialized world due to lack of population growth? Yes.
If you want universal 'free' benefits, it is always going to require more contributors than recipients. This will always require never-ending increases in population to sustain. But you're right, maybe first world countries should get rid of programs like social security, medicare, and nationalized health insurance.
Redbeard wrote:This is so wrong, it's not even funny. Highly-educated, high income people don't need incentives to reproduce, can support their offspring without handouts if they choose to have them, and will do so at responsible levels.
But highly-educated, high-income people (group 1) don't reproduce at sustainable levels. This means that their families will eventually decrease or be eliminated. Poorly-educated, low-income people (group 2) reproduce above sustainable leves, which means that their families will eventually dominate.
Therefore, we can conclude that the incentives for group 1 to have kids are lower than those for group 2 to have kids. If we want to encourage group 1, then we need to increase their incentives. Note that this might be as simple as eliminating disincentives (e.g. high taxation, high tuition rates, etc.).
Redbeard wrote:We can leave the educated, well-off alone and they'll be fine. What we need to do is de-incentivize those who cannot afford children from having them, at all. The people who do the math and figure out that the government will give them more money if they pop out another.
Except for the part where you're wrong that the "educated, well-off" will be fine if left alone (well, they will, their lack of offspring may create a problem down the road), I see no problem here.
Redbeard wrote:You say the first-world western governments cannot afford lower population growth rates. I say the world cannot afford higher population growth rates, and if the governments need to change to meet this reality, so be it.
OK, so how do you propose reducing population growth in Africa, the Middle East, and India? I can think of a few ideas.
To the original topic: I have no problem at all with banning kids. If you want to take your kids out for dinner, go to Friday's, Chuck E Cheese, The Olive Garden, McDonalds, or somewhere else that caters to screaming little kids. When I want a nice diner out with the wife or friends, I don't want your screaming kids bothering me. They crawl all over the furniture, and run around the restaurant, and are very annoying.
I'd also give my business exclusively to any airlines that institute a simular policy. (Really! Please, any airline executives reading this, think about it! You'd get every business traveler's business and make a fortune!)
For the fellow Chicago posters, you should check out Sprout in Lincoln Park. They have an amazing Sunday brunch that is ages 12 and up only! It's a great experience.
I think the population in Africa lowers itself faster than it reproduces (warlords, blood diamonds, civil wars, cannibalism, South Africa) why is it that the solution is always have the rich reproduce rather than help the poor escape poverty. Im not sure people living in poverty choose to do so but are forced to.
A couple who took their baby son on a seven-hour drinking session have been given a two-year community order.
Mark and Petra Tyler, 46 and 24, of Reindeer Street, Mansfield, were arrested in September after being refused entry to a pub.
The couple, who appeared at Mansfield Magistrates' Court, pleaded guilty at a previous hearing to being drunk in charge of the four-month-old boy.
They were told if they reoffended they could expect to go to prison.
The couple were also ordered to pay £60 costs.
A landlord alerted CCTV operators who then called police when they saw the boy's buggy tipping from side to side.
The child was described by police as hungry and had a filthy bottle filled with sour milk in his pushchair.
Yes that's right, thanks the Labour party encouraging poor people not to work, we now have millions of citizens that think going on a bender with your child and your dole money is acceptable behaviour.
For this reason, I think in the UK they should ban kids from anywhere you can possibly get an alcoholic drink, and they should also frisk us all for cans and hip flasks.
If you really want to conserve resources then don't have any kids AT ALL. There are plenty that are available for adoption.
All in all I agree with biccat's take on some of the population issues worldwide. The problem with overpopulation lies in areas and peoples that can't support it. While seemingly over-crowded but upscale countries like Japan want their citizens to reproduce because their population has been declining IIRC
Gotta say I'm a little surprised at some of the strong reactions about children in this thread. Yes, children misbehave in public sometimes. But you also can't keep them locked in the basement. Exposing them to new things and settings is how they learn to behave in said places. Remember that *WE* were all young children once too. And although we might think *WE* were well-behaved in a given setting, odds are we acted terribly at least a few times there. Didn't make us monsters, nor did it mean we had bad parents.
I completely agree there are some restaurants that clearly aren't suitable for small children. But in my single days (in which I ate at a ton of restaurants in Philadelphia & Pittsburgh), I honestly don't remember small children being an issue at that level of restaurant. *shrug*
I think the restaurant is question isn't nearly as "upscale" and "fine" as people are making it out to be, and that's probably part of the issue here. Looks like a middling restaurant next to a driving range...IMO it's probably borderline in terms of what people would consider a "no kids" atmosphere.
IMO, this is almost certainly a PR stunt, and may indicate the restaurant is struggling. Because even though they might see some short-term business from this, they're going to get some negative attention -- especially in the 'burbs -- and I dunno that a really successful restaurant would be willing to take that on, even if they wanted to enact such a policy.
I lean towards letting owners choose who they allow into their establishment, and I have kids. I used to take my daughter into restaurants when she was a baby. If my daughter seemed to be getting ready to fuss and we couldn’t immediately defuse it, one of us would rush her outside to avoid disrupting people’s meals. But my daughter was usually quite well behaved. If I had had a particularly rambunctious or active child I would not have taken her out in the first place.
An interesting thing about theatres, I heard from someone that “back in the day” they had special rooms for people with infants. It was sound proofed with a window and speakers so parents can watch and no one outside could hear their kids. They should bring that concept back.
I have one thought about smokers though, even though I don’t smoke. If everyone hates smokers so much (seems to be the only group it’s ok to be openly and aggressively bigoted against) and hates the thought of them at restaurants why can’t they have designated smoking establishments? I see no reason why a bar owner couldn’t have a place where smoking is acceptable and if you don’t like it, don’t come in. You could have a waiver for employees acknowledging that smoking takes place here and they are ok working there. I’m sure plenty of smokers who would be willing to work somewhere like that and it would give smokers a place hang without people staring daggers at them.
gorgon wrote:I completely agree there are some restaurants that clearly aren't suitable for small children. But in my single days (in which I ate at a ton of restaurants in Philadelphia & Pittsburgh), I honestly don't remember small children being an issue at that level of restaurant. *shrug*
I don't know if it's a more recent development, but it does seem that this particular problem has gotten worse over the last 20 years or so.
All I know is that my father would have beaten me within an inch of my death if I had caused that kind of a ruckus in public. And I would have deserved it.
I work in a supermarket, and I truly wish they could ban children from there too. We are very busy all the time and have lots and lots of cages/dollies on the shop floor at any one time. The thing you notice in this situation is children have no sense of spacial awareness. You're pulling a heavy cage and mummy's little darling comes running in front of you and you have to stop very quickly, this is VERY difficult with one with say, Bananas on it, which weigh about 300 kilos per cage. Try stopping that quickly.
If you come a cropper, which you will. Guess who is to blame? Same goes for kids using the aforementioned Cages AND the shelving as climbing frames...
That and there appears to be a certain generation of kids that can only communicate by screaming, no words, just inaudible shrieks. I can accept this if this is a toddler, but these are kids that are 4-6 years old. It boggles the mind why parents let them do it. If I did that when I was a kid I would've got a swift clip round the ear.
gorgon wrote:I completely agree there are some restaurants that clearly aren't suitable for small children. But in my single days (in which I ate at a ton of restaurants in Philadelphia & Pittsburgh), I honestly don't remember small children being an issue at that level of restaurant. *shrug*
I don't know if it's a more recent development, but it does seem that this particular problem has gotten worse over the last 20 years or so.
All I know is that my father would have beaten me within an inch of my death if I had caused that kind of a ruckus in public. And I would have deserved it.
...I won't claim to have been the best behaved child, but I knew better than to start screaming and running about in a restaurant (or store), and if for some reason I "forgot" ...I was quickly "reminded".
What I see a lot of now is people who have children but can't seem to be bothered to actually take the time to teach them how to behave ( or pay much attention to them at all).
Yep. Mom and dad are texting other people while little Johnny climbs up the back of the seat and informs the rest of the patrons that he "WANTS ICE CREAM."
Monster Rain wrote:Yep. Mom and dad are texting other people while little Johnny climbs up the back of the seat and informs the rest of the patrons that he "WANTS ICE CREAM."
Exactly ...
I absolutely dread going to Wal-Mart due to the fact that there is almost always a small "heard?, gaggle?...brood?" of screaching children rushing about at the speed of light...knocking things off of shelves...running into folks..etc.
Meanwhile...where's mom...or dad?...oh, there they are...chit chatting with friends and blocking the aisle...guess the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree.
Monster Rain wrote:Let us coin the term "annoyance" for a large group of children in a store.
An "annoyance of children."
I have two children and I usually dread seeing kids on the loose in public.
An " Annoyance" works...fits perfectly as well.
....I've got two kids myself Monster...most of the time when they see their " peers" misbehaving in public they look at me and ask "what's wrong with them?"...
Now, my kids are far from little angels...but it makes me happy that they recognize crap behavior when they see it...
FITZZ wrote: I have to agree with the owners policy.
I have two children myself, and before they reached an age where they knew how to behave themselves in public, the Missus and I simply either got baby sitters when we wanted to go out to eat...or ordered in.
When my children were old enough to behave, they knew what was expected of them and for the most part did so...but many other patrons children didn't.
I know many people might have " What do you mean my child can't eat here" point of view...but given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
As for infants...it's a simple fact...they scream and cry...ask any parent..I didn't force my screaming kids on others ( as much as I could avoid it) and honestly don't want to hear yours while I'm trying to enjoy a meal..
EDIT:...Wow, I sound like a real ass hole...not my intentions, I guess my point is...Parents..control your kids.
I'm in complete agreement with you buddy,me and the wife have created four extra earthlings ranging from age 12-3 and have pretty much done the same as you.
Screaming children awakes the inner devil in me.
Of all the things on this earth, this cosmos, this universe, screaming children makes me the most angry of anything.
I can see it in public places, where they generally are, like Wal-Mart.
But if I'm at the midnight screening of The Dark Knight and you decide to bring your screaming spawn to a violent movie early in the A.M. you have literally no reason to not shut the fether up. (true story)
I absolutely adore this restaurant owner, and I wished that more places did, honestly.
biccat wrote:
The United States alone could supply all of the food that the world needs for the foreseeable future. If that's not sustainable, then I'm not sure what is.
Seriously? You've got to have some sort of source to make a claim like that. You think that the US could feed seven billion people indefinitely? You are aware that parts of the country, parts used for food production, are currently experiencing drought conditions as our water tables are depleting, right? We're doing okay now, but sustainably? Not so much. We're not going to have the water resources to make enough food for ourselves, let alone the entire world. Maybe not tomorrow, but looking forward to 2050. We're not even long-term sustainable today.
Are you suggesting that poverty is a good thing because it consumes fewer resources?
No, never said anything to that effect, don't put words in my mouth.
But highly-educated, high-income people (group 1) don't reproduce at sustainable levels. This means that their families will eventually decrease or be eliminated. Poorly-educated, low-income people (group 2) reproduce above sustainable leves, which means that their families will eventually dominate.
Yes, some families may end. I fail to see what the issue with that is. Others will take their place. Einstein's father wasn't a genius. Newton's father wasn't a genius. Some smart people have average kids, some average people have smart kids (some have dumb kids). There will be no lack for intelligence. Gates' father wasn't a billionaire either. There will always be a wealthy class, and it don't have to come from inheritances. In fact, it's probably better when it doesn't or we end up with Paris Hilton and her ilk.
Therefore, we can conclude that the incentives for group 1 to have kids are lower than those for group 2 to have kids. If we want to encourage group 1, then we need to increase their incentives. Note that this might be as simple as eliminating disincentives (e.g. high taxation, high tuition rates, etc.).
So you're suggesting cutting the tax rates for the wealthy to encourage them to have more children? That's brilliant. Meanwhile, you haven't denied that the lower income/education classes are reproducing at higher-than-sustainable levels, so maybe you're suggesting that reproduction should be restricted to only those who are wealthy or intelligent?
There's a reason that smart people are having fewer children...
OK, so how do you propose reducing population growth in Africa, the Middle East, and India? I can think of a few ideas.
Well, if we stopped exporting food there, then their population would eventually trend to it's locally sustainable levels.
biccat wrote:
The United States alone could supply all of the food that the world needs for the foreseeable future. If that's not sustainable, then I'm not sure what is.
Seriously? You've got to have some sort of source to make a claim like that. You think that the US could feed seven billion people indefinitely? You are aware that parts of the country, parts used for food production, are currently experiencing drought conditions as our water tables are depleting, right? We're doing okay now, but sustainably? Not so much. We're not going to have the water resources to make enough food for ourselves, let alone the entire world. Maybe not tomorrow, but looking forward to 2050. We're not even long-term sustainable today.
Indefinitely? No, eventually the sun will give out. Or maybe we'll all go extinct. But for a while? Yes.
As for water, I hope you understand that water is a renewable resource. Sure there's a fixed amount, but once it's used, it gets recycled.
Redbeard wrote:
biccat wrote:Are you suggesting that poverty is a good thing because it consumes fewer resources?
No, never said anything to that effect, don't put words in my mouth.
Simply asking the question for you to clarify your comment that: "claiming that we need to encourage more of this behaviour among any class of people, educated, 1st world, whatever, is what is completely wrongheaded."
This argument was promoted by Krugman in one of his books. He basically says that we can't all live like today's Americans. The question we should ask then is: who has to get the short end of the stick? If America can live in the relative luxury, why can't others?
There's a very simple way to keep energy consumption down, reduce pollution, and maintain a "sustainable" lifestyle. Humans were doing it for thousands of years. But you can't have a sustainable life and enjoy the wealth, comforts, and security that the West enjoys today.
Redbeard wrote:Yes, some families may end. I fail to see what the issue with that is. Others will take their place. Einstein's father wasn't a genius. Newton's father wasn't a genius. Some smart people have average kids, some average people have smart kids (some have dumb kids). There will be no lack for intelligence. Gates' father wasn't a billionaire either. There will always be a wealthy class, and it don't have to come from inheritances. In fact, it's probably better when it doesn't or we end up with Paris Hilton and her ilk.
I didn't say that billionaires breed billionaires. Einstein may not have come from a genius family, but he also didn't come from poverty. He was able to attain a good education thanks to his parents. Same with Newton. Same with Gates.
Further, the largest indicator of whether someone will be "poor" is the economics of their parents. Being poor isn't simply a condition, but it is created from a lot of things, including poor education, illiteracy, poor money management, etc. Parents that lack necessary skills to live above the poverty line pass these traits onto their children (not through genes, but through lack of teaching). As an example, if mom and dad can't read, a kid isn't going to be exposed to reading at an early age, or possibly at all. If the parent's don't value education, the kids won't either.
Now, I'm not going on a Sanger-esque crusade to eliminate poor people, I think that they should have the same rights as everyone else. However, there is similarly no reason to encourage people to have children if they can't provide their kids opportunities to be successful. Besides, like I said, the "poor and undereducated" already have above-sustainable levels of children, so they don't need any more incentives.
Redbeard wrote:So you're suggesting cutting the tax rates for the wealthy to encourage them to have more children? That's brilliant. Meanwhile, you haven't denied that the lower income/education classes are reproducing at higher-than-sustainable levels, so maybe you're suggesting that reproduction should be restricted to only those who are wealthy or intelligent?
No, I didn't suggest anything of the sort. To quote another poster, "don't put words in my mouth." First, I said that the "wealthy" (and by this I assume you mean upper-class, those whose children will never need to work if they so desire) shouldn't get tax breaks. They don't need the incentives. If they want to keep wealth "in the family," they will. Further, wealthy heirs and heiresses don't tend to be wealth producers. Yes, there's value to capitalists, but wealth (generally) isn't destroyed when a person dies without heirs. It is simply transferred (although it may be depleted).
The point I was making is that since the middle class (those who aren't poor but need to work to live) doesn't breed at sustainable levels, and they provide better advantages to succeeding generations, there needs to be an incentive to change the cost-benefit analysis so that kids are worth having.
Redbeard wrote:There's a reason that smart people are having fewer children...
Really? Perhaps you could educate the rest of us, rather than trailing off in an ellipsis.
Redbeard wrote:Well, if we stopped exporting food there, then their population would eventually trend to it's locally sustainable levels.
While I agree we should stop exporting "free" food to those countries (and, in principle, end foreign aid in general), I don't see a problem with food exports in general. Some economies produce goods more efficiently, and if it's more efficient to produce widgets in Africa and food in the US and trade between the two, there's no problem.
Parents should actually really support this. Imagine you are going out for your anniversary dinner, you have cooked and fed the kids, fought with the younger ones to get them to go to bed, waited for the baby sitter to show up. You've gotten dressed up for a nice night out. Now you have 3 kids, so spending $400 on dinner while not out of the question, is deemed irresponsible. You go to a nice non chain restaurant, maybe an Italian place where they use old Chianti bottles to hold candles. It's nice, reminds you of some of your first dates together. Your alone at a table with your wife.
Cane wrote:The problem with overpopulation lies in areas and peoples that can't support it. While seemingly over-crowded but upscale countries like Japan want their citizens to reproduce because their population has been declining IIRC
An important thing to remember is that in rural areas children are a net asset, as they can provide cheap labor, while in urban centers they are a burden because cheap labor is generally not necessary. The same is true of developed, versus undeveloped economies.
FITZZ wrote: I have to agree with the owners policy.
I have two children myself, and before they reached an age where they knew how to behave themselves in public, the Missus and I simply either got baby sitters when we wanted to go out to eat...or ordered in.
When my children were old enough to behave, they knew what was expected of them and for the most part did so...but many other patrons children didn't.
I know many people might have " What do you mean my child can't eat here" point of view...but given number of times I've seen parents allowing their children to run wild in restaurants ( and in public in general)...all I can say is if you control your kids this wouldn't be an issue.
As for infants...it's a simple fact...they scream and cry...ask any parent..I didn't force my screaming kids on others ( as much as I could avoid it) and honestly don't want to hear yours while I'm trying to enjoy a meal..
EDIT:...Wow, I sound like a real ass hole...not my intentions, I guess my point is...Parents..control your kids.
Best post in this thread.
You dont go out paying money to enjoy a meal or movie etc only to have it completely ruined by some screaming parcel sitting next to you.
Redbeard wrote:
More people is more people. The world cannot support the number of people it has currently, including in this statement their infrastructure needs.
The Malthusian argument has been consistently refuted by history every time its cropped up. Eventually it will correct, as there are intrinsic ecological limits on the number of people the planet can sustain, but it doesn't appear we'll be hitting it any time soon. Notably, the UN recently adjusted its estimate for the global population ceiling from 9 billion to 15 billion because we're expected to hit 7 billion at least 5 years ahead of the previous schedule.
Redbeard wrote:
You say this like it is a bad thing. Maybe what is actually completely wrongheaded is a government program that requires never-ending increases in population in order to be viable.
In general any consistent increase in quality of life requires, at least, a general increase in global population. At least in any economic system predicated on consumption. Its not an issue of government policy, its a natural ramification of scarcity as a mechanism for valuation.
Redbeard wrote:
I say the world cannot afford higher population growth rates, and if the governments need to change to meet this reality, so be it.
Paying people to not have children is, generally, a bad idea considering that any given economic system is going to require more people of relatively low education than people of relatively high education. Not to mention that when you have an abundance of people with strong educational backgrounds who are doing work best performed by the relatively uneducated you end up with Egypt, among other places.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
As for water, I hope you understand that water is a renewable resource. Sure there's a fixed amount, but once it's used, it gets recycled.
The problem of water is two-fold.
First is the issue of natural contamination that comes from mass habitation. Because any large concentration of humans will contaminate its readily available sources of drinking water in fairly short order said population must either find an alternative source, or clean up the current one; a the former task becomes increasingly difficult as the population increases, and the former runs into the second issue of energy.
Second, purifying water requires energy, regardless of whether that purification involves the removal of waste products, or desalination. Energy is both expensive, and a scarce resource which is, at this moment, nonrenewable (renewable sources may as well be irrelevant). This not only creates yet another scarcity conundrum, but because no energy production process is particularly clean, one of pollution as well. This doesn't necessarily decrease the net amount of potable water available, but it does increase the cost of potable water, which is essentially the same problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:
Seriously? You've got to have some sort of source to make a claim like that. You think that the US could feed seven billion people indefinitely? You are aware that parts of the country, parts used for food production, are currently experiencing drought conditions as our water tables are depleting, right? We're doing okay now, but sustainably? Not so much. We're not going to have the water resources to make enough food for ourselves, let alone the entire world. Maybe not tomorrow, but looking forward to 2050. We're not even long-term sustainable today.
Grain production world-wide is enough to provide every person on the planet with a diet of ~3800 calories per day. When you account for everything else that number jumps to ~7000. The problem isn't availability, its cost.
Redbeard wrote:
Seriously? You've got to have some sort of source to make a claim like that. You think that the US could feed seven billion people indefinitely? You are aware that parts of the country, parts used for food production, are currently experiencing drought conditions as our water tables are depleting, right? We're doing okay now, but sustainably? Not so much. We're not going to have the water resources to make enough food for ourselves, let alone the entire world. Maybe not tomorrow, but looking forward to 2050. We're not even long-term sustainable today.
I agree with Redbeard, intelligent people today dont get 15 kids...for a good reason!
While I agree we should stop exporting "free" food to those countries (and, in principle, end foreign aid in general), I don't see a problem with food exports in general. Some economies produce goods more efficiently, and if it's more efficient to produce widgets in Africa and food in the US and trade between the two, there's no problem.
Grain production world-wide is enough to provide every person on the planet with a diet of ~3800 calories per day. When you account for everything else that number jumps to ~7000. The problem isn't availability, its cost.
Really? Should we do it just because we can?
Sustaining any country with artificial food is simply idiocy in its purest form. I even claim it to be an act of sheer evil spawned from ignorance and utter lack of any trace of intellect (describing the majority of do-gooder people who vote with their "feelings").
Lets take Ethiopia, a country that had a population of around 35 million back in 1975-ish.
This was coined to be t h e most food needing country on the face of the planet, entire campaigns and popular movements were started to get unthinking people to give money for food, the so famous pictures of children with swollen stomachs and flies in their eyes originate there and how could you not want to pump thousands of tons of food and aid to the country after seeing those pictures.
What would happen if we simply left that place to its deserved darwinism, it would stabilize itself as the stupidity of every family spawning 15 kids each would by nature be culled to sustainable levels for that region.
The help we could have given could have been in the form of teaching them to grow stuff or build better irrigation, you know, teach a man how to fish and give him one fishing pole will make him hungry at first but happy and smart later on.
But no, we poured food into that place and keep doing that since nobody dares to pull the plug out of fear of not being re elected by the feel-good sheep that voted for this madness in the first place. Now (2004) they have a population of over 72 million after having started at 32 million just some 35 years previously with the by then population already being
unattainable.
UN predicts them reaching 115 millions by the year 2015. That is the population growth of 4-5 entire Swedish populations in just 9 years on a planet already overpopulated.
This is what happens when a regions natural population-to-food mechanism is totally screwed by us educated and oh so well meaning do-gooders in west.
Do you think their education, health, living standards, mortality and freaking common sense has kept up with this food aid backed growth madness when we keep encouraging 15 kid families?
At the same time sending UN personell to teach them the importance of not having 20 kids each is like pouring water by the teaspoon on a raging gasoline fire that you pump gas on at the same time.
What happens when/if we pull the food plug you think? Instead of a self correcting famine where a million or two will starve to death we will get a mass death on a 50 million scale with the ensuring wars that will plague the region as a fallout.
I am totally against any form of food aid that goes beyond what is naturally sustainable for any country other then during natural catastrophes etc. Solving stale aging populations by adding even more people to this world is like solving the financial debt crisis by printing more money, eventually there will just be to many of them.
ShumaGorath wrote:I don't like noisy children, I aprove of this and would eat there.
This.
If you can't keep the volume of your children under control, then too damn bad. Teach them to be quiet when told, or else you'll be asked to leave. Banning kids completely does seem a -little- harsh, as there are lots of good parents with well-behaved children that understand the concept of 'eat quietly and act mature', but the result - not the means - is what really matters in the end here.
Really?
Sustaining any country with artificial food is simply idiocy in its purest form. I even claim it to be an act of sheer evil spawned from ignorance and utter lack of any trace of intellect (describing the majority of do-gooder people who vote with their "feelings").
What the hell is artificial food? Japan imports the vast majority of it's food, is that insanity?
Lets take Ethiopia, a country that had a population of around 35 million back in 1975-ish.
This was coined to be t h e most food needing country on the face of the planet, entire campaigns and popular movements were started to get unthinking people to give money for food, the so famous pictures of children with swollen stomachs and flies in their eyes originate there and how could you not want to pump thousands of tons of food and aid to the country after seeing those pictures.
What would happen if we simply left that place to its deserved darwinism, it would stabilize itself as the stupidity of every family spawning 15 kids each would by nature be culled to sustainable levels for that region.
So you advocate aiding the starving by letting them die, thus fixing the problem because they aren't starving any more. You're a fething genius.
The help we could have given could have been in the form of teaching them to grow stuff or build better irrigation, you know, teach a man how to fish and give him one fishing pole will make him hungry at first but happy and smart later on.
So you would instead enforce farm education on a starving and dying population without equipment that is roughly 50% illiterate. Say, would they have time to till the fields while you educate them? How would your educators deal with the reoccurring civil and foreign wars? The repeated droughts? WOULD YOU JUST TEACH THEM IRRIGATION AGAIN AFTER THEY ALL STARVED TO DEATH AS PER YOUR FIRST PLAN? SEEMS A LITTLE REDUNDANT. WHY NOT JUST BOMB THEM IF WE'RE GONNA SPEND THE MONEY..
But no, we poured food into that place and keep doing that since nobody dares to pull the plug out of fear of not being re elected by the feel-good sheep that voted for this madness in the first place.
Who the hell are you talking about?
Now (2004) they have a population of over 72 million after having started at 32 million just some 35 years previously with the by then population already being
unattainable.
Yes, they have a high population growth rate. Thats what happens in under educated agrarian populations. More kids counteracts infant death and children work the fields.
UN predicts them reaching 115 millions by the year 2015. That is the population growth of 4-5 entire Swedish populations in just 9 years on a planet already overpopulated.
Interesting fact, ethiopian birth rates have fallen steadily since 1975.
This is what happens when a regions natural population-to-food mechanism is totally screwed by us educated and oh so well meaning do-gooders in west.
Did you just argue that agrarian food growth is natural? Really? Is that a thing you just tried to do?
Do you think their education, health, living standards, mortality and freaking common sense has kept up with this food aid backed growth madness when we keep encouraging 15 kid families?
Actually the number is 5 and birth rates have nothing to do with the declining health of ethiopian farming and according to historic trends would logically aid it were it functional.
At the same time sending UN personell to teach them the importance of not having 20 kids each is like pouring water by the teaspoon on a raging gasoline fire that you pump gas on at the same time.
Well thats nice. So we're back to your solution of "just let them die". How civilized.
What happens when/if we pull the food plug you think? Instead of a self correcting famine where a million or two will starve to death we will get a mass death on a 50 million scale with the ensuring wars that will plague the region as a fallout.
Logically there would be a mass exodus from ethiopia as historically occurs during famines. Fifty million people wouldn't just drop down and have gold coins come out of their corpses.
I am totally against any form of food aid that goes beyond what is naturally sustainable for any country other then during natural catastrophes etc.
Yes, and you're only stated reason is because "It prevents people from dying". Thats not a very good argument when the stated intention of the food aid is to prevent people from dying.
Solving stale aging populations by adding even more people to this world is like solving the financial debt crisis by printing more money, eventually there will just be to many of them.
Solving stale, aging populations by lowering population growth leads to economic failure and generation gaps. You have to have new people to replace the old ones and either way it has nothing the hell to do with ethiopia in either case.
Necros wrote:I used to eat artificial food at mcdonalds all the time.
Wow. I can't believe how well that -actually- fit. I mean, usually there's some degree of chafing between the post and the lol/img, but in this case it fit like a glove.
Pyriel- wrote:I agree with Redbeard, intelligent people today dont get 15 kids...for a good reason!
While I agree we should stop exporting "free" food to those countries (and, in principle, end foreign aid in general), I don't see a problem with food exports in general. Some economies produce goods more efficiently, and if it's more efficient to produce widgets in Africa and food in the US and trade between the two, there's no problem.
Grain production world-wide is enough to provide every person on the planet with a diet of ~3800 calories per day. When you account for everything else that number jumps to ~7000. The problem isn't availability, its cost.
Really? Should we do it just because we can?
Sustaining any country with artificial food is simply idiocy in its purest form. I even claim it to be an act of sheer evil spawned from ignorance and utter lack of any trace of intellect (describing the majority of do-gooder people who vote with their "feelings").
Lets take Ethiopia, a country that had a population of around 35 million back in 1975-ish.
This was coined to be t h e most food needing country on the face of the planet, entire campaigns and popular movements were started to get unthinking people to give money for food, the so famous pictures of children with swollen stomachs and flies in their eyes originate there and how could you not want to pump thousands of tons of food and aid to the country after seeing those pictures.
What would happen if we simply left that place to its deserved darwinism, it would stabilize itself as the stupidity of every family spawning 15 kids each would by nature be culled to sustainable levels for that region.
The help we could have given could have been in the form of teaching them to grow stuff or build better irrigation, you know, teach a man how to fish and give him one fishing pole will make him hungry at first but happy and smart later on.
But no, we poured food into that place and keep doing that since nobody dares to pull the plug out of fear of not being re elected by the feel-good sheep that voted for this madness in the first place. Now (2004) they have a population of over 72 million after having started at 32 million just some 35 years previously with the by then population already being
unattainable.
UN predicts them reaching 115 millions by the year 2015. That is the population growth of 4-5 entire Swedish populations in just 9 years on a planet already overpopulated.
This is what happens when a regions natural population-to-food mechanism is totally screwed by us educated and oh so well meaning do-gooders in west.
Do you think their education, health, living standards, mortality and freaking common sense has kept up with this food aid backed growth madness when we keep encouraging 15 kid families?
At the same time sending UN personell to teach them the importance of not having 20 kids each is like pouring water by the teaspoon on a raging gasoline fire that you pump gas on at the same time.
What happens when/if we pull the food plug you think? Instead of a self correcting famine where a million or two will starve to death we will get a mass death on a 50 million scale with the ensuring wars that will plague the region as a fallout.
I am totally against any form of food aid that goes beyond what is naturally sustainable for any country other then during natural catastrophes etc. Solving stale aging populations by adding even more people to this world is like solving the financial debt crisis by printing more money, eventually there will just be to many of them.
I have a modest proposal for all these hungry people.
Pyriel- wrote:
Really? Should we do it just because we can?
Sustaining any country with artificial food is simply idiocy in its purest form. I even claim it to be an act of sheer evil spawned from ignorance and utter lack of any trace of intellect (describing the majority of do-gooder people who vote with their "feelings").
What?
There's nothing artificial about food produced outside nation X being consumed inside nation X.
Pyriel- wrote:
What would happen if we simply left that place to its deserved darwinism, it would stabilize itself as the stupidity of every family spawning 15 kids each would by nature be culled to sustainable levels for that region.
Perhaps you should look into the actual causes of the Ethiopian famines before you start recommending alternative courses of action. In any case, to get you started, I'll tell you that it had nothing to do with the inability of the country to produce food.
Pyriel- wrote:
The help we could have given could have been in the form of teaching them to grow stuff or build better irrigation, you know, teach a man how to fish and give him one fishing pole will make him hungry at first but happy and smart later on.
Since 2001 the arable land in Ethiopia has increased by nearly 40%.
Pyriel- wrote:
UN predicts them reaching 115 millions by the year 2015. That is the population growth of 4-5 entire Swedish populations in just 9 years on a planet already overpopulated.
Thomas Malthus was wrong 180 years ago, and he's still wrong today.
Pyriel- wrote:
Do you think their education, health, living standards, mortality and freaking common sense has kept up with this food aid backed growth madness when we keep encouraging 15 kid families?
My God, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Birth rate always, always increases in excess of rates of education, standard of living, and morality in any undeveloped economy. That's how it worked in the West up until about 150 years ago.
dogma wrote:
Thomas Malthus was wrong 180 years ago, and he's still wrong today.
I'm not sure I agree with you. Malthus stated a concept. He didn't say it would happen in 10, or even 50 years. That principle still holds true. Populations do grow faster than food supplies, and food supplies can be stretched. I think that the depletion of the water tables through over-use to produce food in the short term may well lend itself to that. I posted a link to this data earlier in the thread. I think there was one response, saying 'water is renewable'. Clearly, whoever wrote that didn't read the link, because that's the whole point. We're using water faster than it is being renewed through natural cycles, and have been for years. That's why the ground water is receding, and droughts are becoming more prevalent. And that will impact food production.
When talking about sustainability, there are still other things to consider. More people means more land to house people, and more land used to feed people. As we expand, any species that has not developed a symbiotic relationship with us (rats, dogs, cows, for example, in three different ways) gets pushed further out. The first species to become threatened are the predators, whose territory must necessarily be larger than that of the prey, and the megafauna, who need more size and sustenance based on their size. Humans won't be the first species to suffer from human overpopulation (or perhaps the correct tense here is weren't), and evidence of the impact of human population growth on the other species that we share the planet with is quite easy to find.
If you're so self-centered that you believe another million humans is worth the existence of the other species on this planet, then sure, we're haven't reached a population cap - Yet. But realistically, I think we're well over-populated already. Our species current state (including our growth rate) is not sustainable, because we do end up consuming more and more land year after year. And we do end up driving other species to extinction, to satisfy our seeming unquenchable need to keep going.
I'd support this guy, just as I support the local cinema that has a 21+ theater room. Nothing better than having a meal or watching a movie and never having an unruly child spoil my time.
I will say one thing though, if there are a lot of droughts in the near future then hopefully the flooding caused by global warming will take care of it.
Redbeard wrote:
Populations do grow faster than food supplies, and food supplies can be stretched.
But they don't, that's why Malthus was wrong.
He was right in the sense that there is a point at which consumption will exceed production, but that point isn't necessarily now or in the near future.
Redbeard wrote:
I think that the depletion of the water tables through over-use to produce food in the short term may well lend itself to that. I posted a link to this data earlier in the thread. I think there was one response, saying 'water is renewable'. Clearly, whoever wrote that didn't read the link, because that's the whole point. We're using water faster than it is being renewed through natural cycles, and have been for years. That's why the ground water is receding, and droughts are becoming more prevalent. And that will impact food production.
Well, we're using cheap water faster than it can be replenished. There are ways to use otherwise non-potable water which do not impact the water table (brackish water in particular is relatively easy to desalinate), they're just more expensive. Which is why I mentioned to said person that the real issue is not availability, but cost; and, by extension, energy production.
Its also worth noting that issues with water tables tend to be in places like Nevada and Southern California which only became habitable due to the diversion of potable water from other sources.
Redbeard wrote:
When talking about sustainability, there are still other things to consider. More people means more land to house people, and more land used to feed people. As we expand, any species that has not developed a symbiotic relationship with us (rats, dogs, cows, for example, in three different ways) gets pushed further out. The first species to become threatened are the predators, whose territory must necessarily be larger than that of the prey, and the megafauna, who need more size and sustenance based on their size. Humans won't be the first species to suffer from human overpopulation (or perhaps the correct tense here is weren't), and evidence of the impact of human population growth on the other species that we share the planet with is quite easy to find.
I think you've got two different arguments going on there. The first relates to sustainability of homo sapiens sapiens, and the second relates to the sustainability of species other than homo sapiens sapiens. I'm not convinced that they're clearly interlinked any more than the survival of wolves is necessarily connected to the survival of one of its prey species; particularly given the human potential for adaptation.
Redbeard wrote:
If you're so self-centered that you believe another million humans is worth the existence of the other species on this planet, then sure, we're haven't reached a population cap - Yet.
To be perfectly frank, I don't particularly care about the vast majority of humans that die every day, let alone the non-human animals that do.
Keep in mind, I say this as a guy that used to earn his keep by soliciting people on the behalf of Greenpeace.
Redbeard wrote:
But realistically, I think we're well over-populated already. Our species current state (including our growth rate) is not sustainable, because we do end up consuming more and more land year after year. And we do end up driving other species to extinction, to satisfy our seeming unquenchable need to keep going.
I don't know what you mean by "not sustainable" because, to my mind, nothing is sustainable in a permanent sense. Can you clarify?
I honestly never thought I would want kids. For years and years I've laughed at the idea. Somehow, Redbeard's arguments have made me want to spawn a couple of little bastards (cause I still refuse to get married), just to stick it to 'Mother' Earth. If you think there are too many people, move to Wyoming or Montana.
How did we get to ths topic! I was inly gone for 1 day and look whats happened in my absence.
On Pyriel-'s comment, I often wondered when i was younger why people kept having children if it ment that they had to share their food around, causing them all to be hungery, then I took economics as a subject. We need poor people to make our stuff, but africa seems to be one giant hole, what does anyone get out of it. nothing.
Do you know how hard it is to talk about this without being racist?
Ledabot wrote:Do you know how hard it is to talk about this without being racist?
Really not very difficult at all, unless you ascribe the cause of Africa's current problems to the majority of residents being black. You can criticise the governments, comment on the state of the economy, point out the viability of Western style government, farming, and social control techniques, or the counter, but not once do you have to say 'because they're black.' Sorted, racism free observations on the subject.
Ledabot wrote:Do you know how hard it is to talk about this without being racist?
Really not very difficult at all, unless you ascribe the cause of Africa's current problems to the majority of residents being black. You can criticise the governments, comment on the state of the economy, point out the viability of Western style government, farming, and social control techniques, or the counter, but not once do you have to say 'because they're black.' Sorted, racism free observations on the subject.
The sad fact of the matter is that 80% of the time, any mention of something negative + any african nation in the same sentence will immediately cause the other person to play the racist card, you don't even need to mention skin colour etc, it's immediately assumed that because you are having a negative conversation about africa you must therefore be racist...
What the hell is artificial food? Japan imports the vast majority of it's food, is that insanity?
Japan dont get 15 kids per family smartass.
So you advocate aiding the starving by letting them die, thus fixing the problem because they aren't starving any more. You're a fething genius.
I advocate teaching them how to farm and build irrigation, not to drown them in artificial food when they arent even able to sustain themselves and the same problem still remains even after they are now 3 times as many. Who is the genius again.
So you would instead enforce farm education on a starving and dying population without equipment that is roughly 50% illiterate. Say, would they have time to till the fields while you educate them? How would your educators deal with the reoccurring civil and foreign wars? The repeated droughts? WOULD YOU JUST TEACH THEM IRRIGATION AGAIN AFTER THEY ALL STARVED TO DEATH AS PER YOUR FIRST PLAN? SEEMS A LITTLE REDUNDANT. WHY NOT JUST BOMB THEM IF WE'RE GONNA SPEND THE MONEY..
If I keep getting 15 kids with each generation, then whine about 7 of them not having enough food and then some bleeding heart imbecil "solves" my moronic lack of intellect by giving me as much free food as I want well how is the future going to look then?
Keep hiding your head in the sand singing lalala, as long as you feel good it´s ok right?
Now the result is a 110 million large population in a country whose people doesnt even have the intellect, social maturity, education or technical progress to even uphold a 30 million populace.
Great job do-gooder.
Yes, they have a high population growth rate. Thats what happens in under educated agrarian populations. More kids counteracts infant death and children work the fields.
And letting every one survive by throwing food at them without any counter demands (like birth control) is better then teaching them to sustain a balance that lets them better their society in their own pace? 6% of them are suffering from AIDS today but I guess you are ok with a miserable 115 million population as long as 1 million didint have to starve and learn 35 years ago.
Interesting fact, ethiopian birth rates have fallen steadily since 1975.
Still a fact. Not having fallen enough abviously. Your oh so dear massive aid campaign that is still ongoing (still UN is asking for food aid or else 3 million people risk starving over there)
didnt do squad, the country is still amongs the 12 poorest on earth, has massive illiteracy problems and STILL breads like mad but hey, lets keep throwing food and aid at them and by now I fully agree, stopping the aid idiocy will effectively kill of dozens and dozens of millions of people as contrary to 35 years ago when they at least had a chance of being thought how to do right.
This idiotic feel-good aid thinking has created a monster of a country with people suffering like never before and still they cant feed themselves.
Actually the number is 5 and birth rates have nothing to do with the declining health of ethiopian farming and according to historic trends would logically aid it were it functional.
It´s very simple.
If farming and/or other national means of producing food are inadequate to upkeep a certain population what happens then?
Throwing more food from the outside to artificially create a population three times as big in virtually no time at all while maintaining the illiteracy levels is intelligent?
Allow me to laugh.
Well thats nice. So we're back to your solution of "just let them die". How civilized.
Thanks for making it sound like I wanted to mass murder all 32 millions of ethiopians.
Maybe you should think a bit more on what foreign policies you yourself have voted into power in your own country first you hypocrite.
Besides, blame Darwin and nature not me.
Letting 1 person of 11 people die so that the 10 left can handle their future and learn how to live is not "evil".
Irresponsibly letting the 11 people grow to be 35 in just two generations while STILL having as little food as when they were 11 IS pure and simple, evil and we can all thank feel-good people like yourself for this.
So dont pretend to lecture me on being civilized, I havent voted a leadership into power (US) that is and acts oh so civilized in the name of oil under cover of "democracy" and "liberty" in other countries.
Logically there would be a mass exodus from ethiopia as historically occurs during famines. Fifty million people wouldn't just drop down and have gold coins come out of their corpses.
Logically? Logically you are the winner of the most naive dakkaite in history.
A 50 million people exodus on what air conditioned lorries? More likely donkeys or on foot across hundreds of miles of barren land?
Through where, bordering countries that were recently at war with one another?
50 million people forcefully moving in africa would result in deaths and wars that would put the congo massacres to shame.
Yes, and you're only stated reason is because "It prevents people from dying". Thats not a very good argument when the stated intention of the food aid is to prevent people from dying.
I´d rather have 10 persons die of natural causes due to their own stupidity today and help the rest by teaching them how to fish then wait a couple of years only to have situation where 600 people stand on the brink of death tomorrow with regional wars as a side effect should I slip up one of my food transports or go bankrupt myself and not afford foreign aid for a period of time.
Solving stale, aging populations by lowering population growth leads to economic failure and generation gaps. You have to have new people to replace the old ones and either way it has nothing the hell to do with ethiopia in either case.
I never said replacing was bad, I said growth was.
You can never, ever solve anything long term in a closed system by adding never ending growth to it. A child understands that.
Ledabot wrote:Do you know how hard it is to talk about this without being racist?
Really not very difficult at all, unless you ascribe the cause of Africa's current problems to the majority of residents being black. You can criticise the governments, comment on the state of the economy, point out the viability of Western style government, farming, and social control techniques, or the counter, but not once do you have to say 'because they're black.' Sorted, racism free observations on the subject.
The sad fact of the matter is that 80% of the time, any mention of something negative + any african nation in the same sentence will immediately cause the other person to play the racist card, you don't even need to mention skin colour etc, it's immediately assumed that because you are having a negative conversation about africa you must therefore be racist...
This is true, and you're right, it is sad. Knee jerk name calling is always the easier way out. But, calling an argument racist does not make it racist. It just makes the caller ignorant. And then we can safely ignore their comments!
Since 2001 the arable land in Ethiopia has increased by nearly 40%.
Irrelevant since the population has increased so much the country is deemed still not being able to produce enough food for themselves for at least one whole generation.
Still UN asks for food aid since people are in need of it.
The whole arable land improvements should have been started before supporting the mass growth of the population.
My God, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Birth rate always, always increases in excess of rates of education, standard of living, and morality in any undeveloped economy. That's how it worked in the West up until about 150 years ago.
The whole west 150 years ago when "it worked like that" didnt have food aid the size of what ethiopia was given from some magical outside source.
Besides, encouraging birth rates by throwing more food on the fire created such a wonderful place they have right now.
So you advocate aiding the starving by letting them die, thus fixing the problem because they aren't starving any more. You're a fething genius.
I advocate teaching them how to farm and build irrigation, not to drown them in artificial food when they arent even able to sustain themselves and the same problem still remains even after they are now 3 times as many. Who is the genius again.
The starvation in Ethiopia wasn't due to a lack of intelligence, knowledge of proper farming techniques, or social maturity. A drought caused a small (relatively, compared to what came next) famine. The government tried to step in and made things worse. Then there was a revolution, the socialists won, and they made things even worse.
Ethiopia is a prime example where witholding food is used as a weapon of war (or subverting the population, depending on the state of civil war). And it worked.
If you're so self-centered that you believe another million humans is worth the existence of the other species on this planet, then sure, we're haven't reached a population cap - Yet. But realistically, I think we're well over-populated already. Our species current state (including our growth rate) is not sustainable, because we do end up consuming more and more land year after year. And we do end up driving other species to extinction, to satisfy our seeming unquenchable need to keep going.
Exactly. The problem is people are to sheltered and full of arrogance today. Ntural laws governing balance and population sizes are thrown out of the window since intellectually challenged people voting with their "feelings" only see the immediate future or dont have the right education to make a wise choice.
Wherever I look I see the same thing, Oh its so cruel to let a million people die today, lets stick our heads in the sand and throw money at the problem to make us feel good not caring that they just created crap a hundred times worse in the future.
The current economy is a prime example of this albeit with different resources.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But they don't, that's why Malthus was wrong.
He was right in the sense that there is a point at which consumption will exceed production, but that point isn't necessarily now or in the near future.
Oh, did he include massive sources of food aid thrown at the demographical problem?
I think you've got two different arguments going on there. The first relates to sustainability of homo sapiens sapiens, and the second relates to the sustainability of species other than homo sapiens sapiens. I'm not convinced that they're clearly interlinked any more than the survival of wolves is necessarily connected to the survival of one of its prey species; particularly given the human potential for adaptation.
I´d very much like to see other species preserved.
They might not be interlinked but they are certainly pushed out towards and even outside of their natural habitats by ever growing humans and that causes friction and problems for other species.
I don't know what you mean by "not sustainable" because, to my mind, nothing is sustainable in a permanent sense. Can you clarify?
Pyriel- wrote:
Irrelevant since the population has increased so much the country is deemed still not being able to produce enough food for themselves for at least one whole generation.
No, no it isn't. The rough necessity rate of survival for non-industrial agricultural production in any possible nation is 5%. Ethiopia triples that.
Pyriel- wrote:
Still UN asks for food aid since people are in need of it.
No, the UN provides food aid because food is expensive, and Ethiopia is poor.
Pyriel- wrote:
The whole arable land improvements should have been started before supporting the mass growth of the population.
On Pyriel-'s comment, I often wondered when i was younger why people kept having children if it ment that they had to share their food around, causing them all to be hungery, then I took economics as a subject. We need poor people to make our stuff, but africa seems to be one giant hole, what does anyone get out of it. nothing.
Do you know how hard it is to talk about this without being racist?
You are 100% correct.
Unless we in the developed world change our entire economical system and I mean to its very core, these problems and poor people/countries will by default ever be part of the equation.
Sucks but this is reality and unless something of an extraordinary magnitude happens we wont change.
Pyriel- wrote:
I´d very much like to see other species preserved.
Too bad.
Pyriel- wrote:
They might not be interlinked but they are certainly pushed out towards and even outside of their natural habitats by ever growing humans and that causes friction and problems for other species.
So?
Pyriel- wrote:
LOL Then a growing state is even worse...
Cute, you don't know what words mean. Perhaps you should leave this to native speakers.
Me? I don't pretend being multilingual has any bearing on facts or moral superiority. I certainly don't use it as a crutch when I've been consistently shown to be ill informed as some sort of "I win" button. I suppose when you can't argue anything relevant it is worth leaning on though if you need the rush/crutch.
Serio? Je parle Francais, arabic, potugues, catala, y un pequeno mandarina.
Cool dude Mowie po polsku, moi czeski je dostacujici, lite norsk, english of course och så svenska.
I wont even mention the german as I am far from proficient in that but enough to get by.
Do you not understand the difference between domestic production and food aid
Yes why?
I dont like you mixing in food production and population growth theories with outside sources like outside aid.
Me? I don't pretend being multilingual has any bearing on facts or moral superiority. I certainly don't use it as a crutch when I've been consistently shown to be ill informed as some sort of "I win" button. I suppose when you can't argue anything relevant it is worth leaning on though if you need the rush/crutch.
You must have me mistaken with somebody who takes you seriously.
Me? I don't pretend being multilingual has any bearing on facts or moral superiority. I certainly don't use it as a crutch when I've been consistently shown to be ill informed as some sort of "I win" button. I suppose when you can't argue anything relevant it is worth leaning on though if you need the rush/crutch.
You must have me mistaken with somebody who takes you seriously.
It was your question and in response to your silly statement. Or are you admitting to not meaning anything you have said this entire time? Or perhaps, as has been stated, you don't actually know what you are talking about so you have to fall back on these sort of juvenile retorts instead of either being thoughtful or clever.
It was your question and in response to your silly statement. Or are you admitting to not meaning anything you have said this entire time? Or perhaps, as has been stated, you don't actually know what you are talking about so you have to fall back on these sort of juvenile retorts instead of either being thoughtful or clever.
I am aware of your opinion, take your juvenile crap else where.
You take a thing I mentioned as a fun fact and try to twist it into some sort of last effort attempt at crushing my opponents or some other smoked up dream you have going on.
Are you that insecure that you need to find little comments and blow them out of their proportions in order to feed your self righteous self?
See, I can also play around with stupid assumptions so please take yours and shove them somewhere I dont want to look for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you manufacture/grow all your own food?
Certainly not.
Do you demand free aid after spending all your money on candy the first day of the month?
Walk in butt naked if you like, but there'd better be a hat somewhere on you 
), but I will guarantee that my kids will sit and behave while at restaurants.
...I won't claim to have been the best behaved child, but I knew better than to start screaming and running about in a restaurant (or store), and if for some reason I "forgot" ...I was quickly "reminded".
