Reducing Births

[MAGA MAN]

As you're well aware, that's exactly what you tried to do, so there's no point whining when you're called out about it. Social engineering does not mean, and has never meant "not treating everyone the same." If you try to invent your own language, don't be surprised when others refuse to adopt it.



Incorrect. If the system is made less progressive, that will result in more wealth being concentrated into fewer hands, which very much engineers a different society than we have today.



As you know, pure capitalism is not the natural state of man. Stone age tribes look very little like capitalist systems. Rather, there are social rules dictating the flow of goods and services. A tribe's hunters, for example, do not come back from the hunt and auction off the kill to whoever offers them the most. They are expected to share that bounty according to set social rules, which will include feeding children, the injured, and the elderly, who had nothing to do with the hunt, the shaman, and so on. The natural state of man is much closer to a communist ideal, where there is very little private property and generally things are shared from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. Most will have communal housing of various sorts, and there will be a lot of top-down direction of productive activities (e.g., tribal elders deciding when and where to build new huts, when and where to migrate to find new game, and so on).

Now, if you want to socially engineer a less natural situation, by trying to bring about pure capitalism, at least be honest about your social engineering effort.

Your argument continues to be dishonest. We're done.

 

[Mina]

Your argument continues to be dishonest. We're done.

Your surrender is noted and your ignominious retreat has been savored.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It can be frustrating that childless people and people with only one kid wind up subsidizing families with more kids (by way of child tax credits, benefits that are more available for people with more kids, and higher payments for things like public schooling, etc.) Yet, at the same time, we don't want to punish innocent kids by letting them sit in functional poverty just because their parents decided to have a "quiverfull" without an income to afford that without help.

So, here's an idea for a solution: give parents an option of whether or not to claim any benefits for kids beyond the first two (e.g., whether to claim them for child tax credit/welfare purposes, whether to send them to public school, etc.) If the parents opt-in, then they get those things the same as today.... but, in exchange, the parents have their Medicare/SS full eligibility age postponed by 5 years for each such kid.

So, if you want to claim four kids for tax purposes, and send four kids to public school, and so on, that's fine and is your choice. However, you'll effectively pay back the rest of society for your disproportionate take by way of postponing retirement. You'll work until 77 before the government gives you full SS benefits, where most get then them at 67. Want 6 kids? Fine, we'll help out with that, too -- but expect to work until you're 87 (or dead). It sort of takes the form of a loan, where the extra benefits your kids suck up when they're young wind up being partly reimbursed by you in your elder years.

That would discourage people from burdening the environment by overbreeding, but would ultimately leave that decision to the individual. It would avoid punishing the kids. And it would help to prop up SS and Medicare funding.

Feel free to sign up for the lunatic Voluntary Human Extinction Movement then...

https://www.vhemt.org/

Yes, they are serious!

 

[Mina]

Feel free to sign up for the lunatic Voluntary Human Extinction Movement then...

https://www.vhemt.org/

Yes, they are serious!

I certainly don't want to see human extinction. As far as I'm concerned the more humans the better, other things being equal. But the point is that other things aren't equal -- that the higher the human population, the tougher the climate challenges and resource pressures get. So, what I'd like to see is a gradual decline of human population to a point where sustainable use of the environment is more easily attainable while preserving a high quality of life. I think doing that with a few billion humans is something we could pull off just fine, right now, with existing technologies. But it's definitely not something we can do with ten billion of us, at least until we get massive changes in how we generate energy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I certainly don't want to see human extinction. As far as I'm concerned the more humans the better, other things being equal. But the point is that other things aren't equal -- that the higher the human population, the tougher the climate challenges and resource pressures get. So, what I'd like to see is a gradual decline of human population to a point where sustainable use of the environment is more easily attainable while preserving a high quality of life. I think doing that with a few billion humans is something we could pull off just fine, right now, with existing technologies. But it's definitely not something we can do with ten billion of us, at least until we get massive changes in how we generate energy.

We don't need massive changes in how we generate electricity, we need smart ones. That means nuclear power backed by natural gas. Solar and wind are total losers.

 

[Mina]

We don't need massive changes in how we generate electricity, we need smart ones. That means nuclear power backed by natural gas. Solar and wind are total losers.

Natural gas is an interim measure, at best, unless we come up with better means to have carbon-neutral natural gas (e.g., digester tanks to produce methane for natural gas systems, or manufacturing hydrogen gas by way of low-carbon electricity). Nuclear is a better option, but the political opposition there is intense. So, as a practical matter, we're going to end up relying a lot on wind and solar. Solar, fortunately, has become VASTLY more economical in recent years. The levelized cost of energy with solar is ridiculously low now:

https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/cheap-renewable-energy-vs-fossil-fuels/
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/...st-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

The issue, of course, is intermittency. With solar, you either need a lot of energy storage capacity or a lot of long-distance transmission, or some quick-response option like nuclear that can be used to power the grid when the sun isn't shining locally. But that doesn't make it a "total loser." That's a talking point that's about twenty years out of date, by those who haven't kept up with the energy industry, and are still thinking in terms of what prices looked like around the turn of the millennium. At this point, it's clear we could definitely power the whole country off solar, if we wanted, at an entirely competitive price per unit of energy.... but, as I said, it would take some massive changes, because you'd need to build a smarter grid with a lot more storage and long-range transmission.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Natural gas is an interim measure, at best, unless we come up with better means to have carbon-neutral natural gas (e.g., digester tanks to produce methane for natural gas systems, or manufacturing hydrogen gas by way of low-carbon electricity). Nuclear is a better option, but the political opposition there is intense. So, as a practical matter, we're going to end up relying a lot on wind and solar. Solar, fortunately, has become VASTLY more economical in recent years. The levelized cost of energy with solar is ridiculously low now:

https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/cheap-renewable-energy-vs-fossil-fuels/
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/...st-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

The issue, of course, is intermittency. With solar, you either need a lot of energy storage capacity or a lot of long-distance transmission, or some quick-response option like nuclear that can be used to power the grid when the sun isn't shining locally. But that doesn't make it a "total loser." That's a talking point that's about twenty years out of date, by those who haven't kept up with the energy industry, and are still thinking in terms of what prices looked like around the turn of the millennium. At this point, it's clear we could definitely power the whole country off solar, if we wanted, at an entirely competitive price per unit of energy.... but, as I said, it would take some massive changes, because you'd need to build a smarter grid with a lot more storage and long-range transmission.

Natural gas is a reliable way to produce power for spot and variable load on the grid. This amounts to about 20% of the total load. The other 80% could be produced entirely by nuclear power plants for about 10 to 20% of the cost of solar, wind, and the associated "smart" grid necessary with those. That would drop carbon emissions--if those worry you (which they totally don't for me)--well below 1990 levels.

Solar is a total loser. You can start with the watt density of sunlight and go from there. To produce one kilowatt day of power you need about 5 to 6 kilowatts of installed solar and another 4 kilowatts of installed storage capacity. This has to be backed up by roughly 3 to 4 kilowatts of conventional generation for when the solar array isn't able to produce power due to weather or other issues. All of that means you are paying--again roughly--about 3 to 4 times the cost of simply installing conventional generation by natural gas or nuclear.

Wind is a bit better at about 2 to 3 times the cost.

The problem both wind and solar face is they are not reliable sources of generation and that makes them unsuited for base load. We cannot in the foreseeable future rely on solar and wind to generate the electricity we need. Both should be abandoned almost entirely as they are costly and uselessly small generators.

The proof of that is in the cost of electricity in nations that have heavily invested in solar and wind. These have the most expensive power per kilowatt of any on the planet being on average about triple the cost of nations relying on conventional generation.

Even your own source admits it in the fine print:

When U.S. government subsidies are included, the cost of onshore wind and utility-scale solar continues to be competitive

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/...st-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

So, if the government subsidizes solar and wind to the tune of about 30% endlessly, they are competitive. That doesn't make them competitive. It makes them ungodly expensive.

At .25 cents a kilowatt-hour, it's cheaper for me to install a gas driven generator with current gas prices than buy solar generated electricity. California is headed that direction already. Newsome sees the writing on the wall and is trying to save California's nuclear because he knows what's coming if he doesn't.

Gavin Newsom wants to bail out Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant

https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/newsom-diablo-canyon-bailout

Newsom’s About-Face On Diablo Canyon Underscores Foolishness Of Indian Point Closure And Need To Save Palisades

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...e-and-need-to-save-palisades/?sh=7ee113455690

In Arizona, Palo Verde nuclear produces enough power that to replace it with a solar array that can provide power 24/7 would require the latter to be about 75 miles on a side, not including about $1 trillion in battery storage. Solar is a total loser and stupid.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Maybe, however it takes parents to raise a functioning adult who can contribute.

oh, snap!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post

Maybe reducing the income levels to quality for the child tax credit would be a better idea. If your combined income is $150,000/year why do you need a tax credit for the kids?

your party passed SNAP funding for families earning up to $80k a year........

 

[Minister of Truth]

It can be frustrating that childless people and people with only one kid wind up subsidizing families with more kids (by way of child tax credits, benefits that are more available for people with more kids, and higher payments for things like public schooling, etc.) Yet, at the same time, we don't want to punish innocent kids by letting them sit in functional poverty just because their parents decided to have a "quiverfull" without an income to afford that without help.

So, here's an idea for a solution: give parents an option of whether or not to claim any benefits for kids beyond the first two (e.g., whether to claim them for child tax credit/welfare purposes, whether to send them to public school, etc.) If the parents opt-in, then they get those things the same as today.... but, in exchange, the parents have their Medicare/SS full eligibility age postponed by 5 years for each such kid.

So, if you want to claim four kids for tax purposes, and send four kids to public school, and so on, that's fine and is your choice. However, you'll effectively pay back the rest of society for your disproportionate take by way of postponing retirement. You'll work until 77 before the government gives you full SS benefits, where most get then them at 67. Want 6 kids? Fine, we'll help out with that, too -- but expect to work until you're 87 (or dead). It sort of takes the form of a loan, where the extra benefits your kids suck up when they're young wind up being partly reimbursed by you in your elder years.

That would discourage people from burdening the environment by overbreeding, but would ultimately leave that decision to the individual. It would avoid punishing the kids. And it would help to prop up SS and Medicare funding.

Don't worry. The birth rate isn't going up.

 

[Walt]

your party passed SNAP funding for families earning up to $80k a year........

You would need a family of 12, with a total income of $80k, but yes that is vaguely possible. It is a number that could, and probably does exist. SNAP maximum income is adjusted based on family size.

The SNAP card will contribute a bit, but that is going to be a poor family.

 

[Mina]

Don't worry. The birth rate isn't going up.

The problem is that, globally, it continues to be above replacement rate.

 

[Mina]

That would drop carbon emissions

If we could move to mostly nuclear, with natural gas only for peaking, sure. But politically that's unlikely. We know it's possible to push through dramatic investments in solar, because that's just what's been happening. If, instead, we hold out hope that at some point in the distant future the political scene will be conducive to massive increases in nuclear generation, we're screwed.

(which they totally don't for me)

There's the problem. For those who reject the science on climate change, solar will of course look like a "total loser," since its benefits over natural gas are related to emissions.

The problem both wind and solar face is they are not reliable sources of generation and that makes them unsuited for base load.

They can be fine for base load if you have large scale storage -- e.g., pump hydro storage. Solar is now extremely cheap, if you don't factor in that intermittency problem. But even loading in that cost, it's more than competitive with most other options. Natural gas is still cheaper, but that's just because it offloads the majority of its true cost in the form of climate-altering emissions.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Here is a novel idea...

...Let's ban abortions for some kind of political gain or religious whim.......


....so we can have millions upon millions of more unwanted babies every year to find decent homes and provide welfare for!

BRILLIANT!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If we could move to mostly nuclear, with natural gas only for peaking, sure. But politically that's unlikely. We know it's possible to push through dramatic investments in solar, because that's just what's been happening. If, instead, we hold out hope that at some point in the distant future the political scene will be conducive to massive increases in nuclear generation, we're screwed.



There's the problem. For those who reject the science on climate change, solar will of course look like a "total loser," since its benefits over natural gas are related to emissions.



They can be fine for base load if you have large scale storage -- e.g., pump hydro storage. Solar is now extremely cheap, if you don't factor in that intermittency problem. But even loading in that cost, it's more than competitive with most other options. Natural gas is still cheaper, but that's just because it offloads the majority of its true cost in the form of climate-altering emissions.

Solar is a total loser. The math and science prove that. You mention pumped hydro. That means you need more solar panels providing the power to pump that water at far less than 100% efficiency. You then have a small additional loss storing the water through evaporation and leeching into the ground. The net result is to store 1 kw of power using pumped hydro you need more than 1 kw of power to store it. Then there's the limitation on where you can even do this.

Nuclear is safe, reliable, and environmentally friendly compared to solar or wind too. The only thing keeping it from being used is ignorance and fear born of that ignorance. Much of it is fear mongering from the radical Left in the form of outright lies about it.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Nah. Far too draconian, and not in keeping with democratic ideals that we're all in this together. And what about all the states now banning abortion -- should someone who wanted one but couldn't get one be penalized? Besides, like most industrialized nations, our birth rate has been steadily falling.

"Rather, the U.S. birth rate has continued a steady descent. As of 2020, the U.S. birth rate was 55.8 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, a decline of almost 20 percent from the rate of 69.3 in 2007. The decline in births cannot readily be explained by changing population composition."

The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007. This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes.

I honestly think that the Chinese may have had it right with one and done.
And given the trends, who would want to procreate at all in today's environment?

Irresponsible procreation is without question the number one cause of human suffering globally.
World wide, especially in the third world, people without the means to properly take care of themselves feel entitled to be breeders.
Where's the morality in that?

The Gestapo and I, both only children ourselves, had two, basically replacing ourselves, but I would have been financially screwed if I had siblings mooching on my inheritance.
My lifestyle certainly wasn't based on my own income potential!

My kids must have agreed with my point of view because, to the disappointment of the Gestapo, neither of them wanted kids of their own.
I would have probably been a lousy grandfather anyway. It's dogs with whom I do well.

As an aside, golf season is back and I can't seem to play for shit anymore. I was once a seven handicap. [That's very good recreational level golf for you non-linksters.]
Now my goal is mainly to not have back spasms. Sometimes we stick around for too long, perhaps.

 

[Mina]

Solar is a total loser.

Solar is winning-- no energy source is being rolled out more rapidly right now.

That means you need more solar panels providing the power to pump that water at far less than 100% efficiency.

Yes. With pumps, or any storage, you lose some of that power to inefficiency. But, with solar, the cost of the power is low enough that you have power to burn -- even after factoring in the losses to storage, you wind up with competitive prices.

Nuclear is safe, reliable, and environmentally friendly compared to solar or wind too.

I don't have an issue with nuclear. If there were any reason to think major expansion of nuclear was politically viable, I'd be on board with it. But the momentum there is the other way, unlike with solar. Sometimes you have to go with a practically achievable solution, rather than fixating on something you'd rather have that just isn't in the cards any time soon.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Solar is winning-- no energy source is being rolled out more rapidly right now.

An irrelevant appeal to popularity. Solar is winning because idiots on the Left have been able to market it. It is a loser solution.

Yes. With pumps, or any storage, you lose some of that power to inefficiency. But, with solar, the cost of the power is low enough that you have power to burn -- even after factoring in the losses to storage, you wind up with competitive prices.

Again, not true. Solar is not reliable so you need other, reliable, sources to back it up. That is duplication of generation and adds cost. Solar arrays are not free, the land they sit on isn't free. For pumped solar you need a retention system like a dam constructed along with DC to AC conversion systems, pumps, piping, etc. It all adds up to a high cost per installed KW output and that's before having to duplicate the generation for reliability.

I don't have an issue with nuclear. If there were any reason to think major expansion of nuclear was politically viable, I'd be on board with it. But the momentum there is the other way, unlike with solar. Sometimes you have to go with a practically achievable solution, rather than fixating on something you'd rather have that just isn't in the cards any time soon.

Good, then advocate for it and oppose solar. Solar is not a practical or achievable solution, and never will be. It's that simple.

 

[Mina]

An irrelevant appeal to popularity

Popularity is entirely relevant to my point. I'm trying to figure out a practical way forward to an environmentally sustainable energy future. Options that are unpopular (e.g., we should give up on the idea of single-family homes and just move everyone into big, energy-efficient apartment buildings) may work just fine on paper, in terms of the economics and the science, but if they're political non-starters, then it's all just theoretical chatter. Solar is popular and growing more so, and that makes an environmentally sustainable future with it more realistically achievable than trying to reverse massive momentum against nuclear to revive and then grow that dying industry.

Solar is not reliable so you need other, reliable, sources to back it up

Yes -- and those sources can include things like pumped storage.

That is duplication of generation and adds cost.

Yes, and solar is so cheap now that it remains economically viable even after considering that duplication.

Good, then advocate for it and oppose solar.

I advocate for both. But when it comes to solar, I'm urging along a phenomenon that already has accelerating momentum behind it, which makes me hopeful it really will be a big part of the medium-term solution. With nuclear, it's more like trying to slow a rapid move in the opposite direction. Trying to create momentum for new nuclear generation is like trying to push a vehicle up and icy hill into a headwind with the parking brake on. Even if I can manage to get that brake to disengage, it's still a lot of effort that may see no return.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I honestly think that the Chinese may have had it right with one and done.
And given the trends, who would want to procreate at all in today's environment?

Irresponsible procreation is without question the number one cause of human suffering globally.
World wide, especially in the third world, people without the means to properly take care of themselves feel entitled to be breeders.
Where's the morality in that?

The Gestapo and I, both only children ourselves, had two, basically replacing ourselves, but I would have been financially screwed if I had siblings mooching on my inheritance.
My lifestyle certainly wasn't based on my own income potential!

My kids must have agreed with my point of view because, to the disappointment of the Gestapo, neither of them wanted kids of their own.
I would have probably been a lousy grandfather anyway. It's dogs with whom I do well.

As an aside, golf season is back and I can't seem to play for shit anymore. I was once a seven handicap. [That's very good recreational level golf for you non-linksters.]
Now my goal is mainly to not have back spasms. Sometimes we stick around for too long, perhaps.

Maybe keep at it and see if you don't limber up a bit.

Mr. Owl came from a large family of six kids. He and one brother have no kids. One brother has one, the other three. His two sisters each have only one child. For him, having a masters degree and no kids left him with a very nice retirement nest egg. But the rest of his siblings seem to have done well enough too, esp. the ones content to live in rural Illinois.