Re: POLITICS economics and subsidizing baby-making (was Gender)

[Guest guest]

>

> >Subsidized procreation is an awfully interesting proposal coming

from

> >an overpopulation opponent.

> >

> >Chris

>

> UMmm ... you are implying a lot more than I said, I think!

Oops; sorry :-)

> Soooo ... we changed the paradigm. Now a woman gets preggers. She

has

> to quit her job, or take leave of absence, or farm out her kid to

daycare.

> In any case, it is a huge financial hit. Yeah, she can take birth

control

> and NOT have kids (if the birth control works, and if the sex act

wasn't

> accidental or date rape etc.). But the whole responsibility is on

HER

> and the financial hit is on her ... and the system basically ensures

> that most kids will not be raised the way humans were traditionally

> raised (by their Mom, and a Mom who is not under social or financial

> stress).

I don't see how that is a function of the " society " as if there is a

collective choice being made. It seems that there are several

choices being made by the woman that can determine whether she winds

up in this scenario or not. The first is the choice not to be a

farmer, or to hunt and gather food. (I suppose she might do this by

default rather than deliberation, since we live in a society in which

most people don't do either, but nevertheless they are both doable.)

The second is the choice to become pregnant, or the choice to engage

in activity which would lead to pregnancy, without a husband, or some

other arrangement with a mate that offers similar security,

stability, and support.

I can only see two ways to remove the financial responsibility from

the woman. One is for her to have a husband who supports her

financially (or other family). The second is for " society " to

collectively appropriate some kind of " pregnancy insurance " benefits

to her, which would amount to subsidizing procreation, and I had

initially accused.

> You can say " well, she should do something different! " but I say,

the

> system is out of whack. The old system worked, for raising babies.

> The new system works for making automobiles, but it doesn't make

> great babies. The kids today are like the monkeys raised on wire

> " mommies " ... very neurotic, not properly bonded.

It seems that that's primarily the aspects of the " system " that have

led to the decline in family structure.

> And a breastfeeding Mom doesn't overpopulate .. breastfeeding tends

> to ensure that babies are spaced further apart.

And having to forgo personal consumption or personal income when one

has a baby, ensures an incentive for people to wait to have babies

until they can afford to raise them properly, and to have only as

many babies as they can afford.

Besides, breastfeeding doesn't work if you are supplementing it with

other food, formula, etc, from what I've read, and most women don't

seem to like doing it for more than six months or so.

> That you bring up " subsidizing " is the whole point: today's

> paradigm is all about *economics* which is sort of a male

> invention.

A " paradigm of the day " can not be more or less about economics.

Obviously, there are many paradigms that are currently popular. No

one would say, " today's paradigm about the molecular mechanisms of

gene expression are all about economics, " even though there are quite

clearly popular paradigms about said subject. Rather, one can say

that " today's economic paradigm is all about such-and-such, " and then

you can disagree and offer a different economic paradigm. Economics

is the study of human behavior, and it is not limited to monetary

studies, to business affairs, or even to material goods. It is

merely the study of human choice and action (but not how we arrive at

values or desires). So, ANY paradigm addressing said issues is

necessarily economic. There may be different SCHOOLS of economics

that are obsessed with, say, subsidization, or monetary affairs, or

whathaveyou, but one cannot make a blanket statement

about " economics " as an entire science based on a specific theory

within the science, and certain of these schools may be more popular

at the moment or any other given moment.

When life was about cattle eating grass and

> babies drinking Mommy milk, " economics " meant how much

> work you put into the cattle and if the weather made the grass

> grow right, and if Mommy made enough milk (and most women did,

> it seems, in those days). Whole societies lived and thrived without

> ever minting a coin or opening a bank. For millions of years.

> Today a teenage Mom can't even nurse her baby, which is just

> WIERD from an historical point of view.

Which societies thrived without a form of money?

You're the one who initially framed the discussion in financial

terms. (See the text I originall quoted). The only clear

implication of your statement in terms of a collective choice (you'd

framed it that way when you mentioned the sustainability of a

society, rather than, say, a family unit) would be one to subsidize

or insure pregnancies.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> >I don't see how that is a function of the " society " as if there is

a

> >collective choice being made. It seems that there are several

> >choices being made by the woman that can determine whether she

winds

> >up in this scenario or not. The first is the choice not to be a

> >farmer, or to hunt and gather food. (I suppose she might do this

by

> >default rather than deliberation, since we live in a society in

which

> >most people don't do either, but nevertheless they are both

doable.)

> >The second is the choice to become pregnant, or the choice to

engage

> >in activity which would lead to pregnancy, without a husband, or

some

> >other arrangement with a mate that offers similar security,

> >stability, and support.

>

> This assumes that the woman is can make, and is making, these

choices. Really,

> pregnancy isn't that controllable.

I could have sworn you were arguing the opposite recently, when

suggesting that education would make pregnancy much more reliable.

> One in ten women are raped at some point

> in their lives,

But violence is a part of human nature that transcends the structure

of society, so, while this is tragic, it's not something that can be

eliminated to form a more sustainable society.

> and even " consensual sex " is often not all that consensual. Birth

> control fails. Relying on " choice " to make a " good " society just

>doesn't work.

I'm not sure how a society can be build that *doesn't* utilize

choice. As for relying on choices, I think you mean relying on the

sustenance of natural consequences of choices, in which case I

believe that that would be superior to one in which those

consequences were modified by means of forms of insurance, which can

be beneficial in some respects but always modify behavior negatively

but distorting incentives.

The main way this broad point specifically relates to our topic is

whether or not someone who becomes pregnant should suffer

financially. Since raising a child presents an economic cost, namely

that of demanding time that could otherwise be spent earning money

that could supply the consumption of present goods, and monetary

costs directly that could likewise otherwise be spent on consumption,

removing that economic cost from the individual responsible for the

action and placing it rather on a collective body that is not

involved in engaging in the behaviors that led to the pregnancy

erases any incentive to

-- wait until the pregnancy can be afforded by the individual

-- limit the frequency or number of pregnancies to what can be

afforded by the individual

-- become more productive in anticipation of future pregnancy

-- save more in anticipation of future pregnancy (and thereby,

incidentally, contribute to the wellbeing of the rest of society by

savings and investment which increases total wealth).

> I'm not saying there is a " choice " being made at all ..

a " functional " society

> is one that WORKS, even tho individuals make mistakes and aren't

all that

> organized and usually have sex when they shouldn't. Sure, if we had

perfect

> and organized and intelligent women there would be no mistakes etc.

> (what about perfect men too?). But in earlier times, we had the

same imperfect

> women, and the kids still got raised better, because society was

more supportive.

> The woman nursed the kid, the kid bonded to the mother.

Right, but the revolution in this respect came from the banning of

child labor, which turned children from an economic asset to an

economic cost. In an agrarian society, the cost of a child was

offset by the fact that children, rather than playing with toys and

watching tv all day long, worked very hard for the family.

The other fundamental change here is the falling apart of the family,

which is an obvious consequence, it seems to me, of the socialization

of pregnancy-related responsibility that you seem to be suggesting.

(I know you haven't made specific recommendations, but, you aren't

advocating the abolition of technology and the return to an

agricultural society, so I'm not sure what else you could mean

besides further socialization of this burden.)

> >I can only see two ways to remove the financial responsibility

from

> >the woman. One is for her to have a husband who supports her

> >financially (or other family). The second is for " society " to

> >collectively appropriate some kind of " pregnancy insurance "

benefits

> >to her, which would amount to subsidizing procreation, and I had

> >initially accused.

> >

> >> You can say " well, she should do something different! " but I

say,

> >the

> >> system is out of whack. The old system worked, for raising

babies.

> >> The new system works for making automobiles, but it doesn't make

> >> great babies. The kids today are like the monkeys raised on wire

> >> " mommies " ... very neurotic, not properly bonded.

> >

> >It seems that that's primarily the aspects of the " system " that

have

> >led to the decline in family structure.

>

> ?? I'm not sure I understand that.

We live under competing systems. One is a system of free exchange

that works great for automobiles, and the other is a system of, well,

socialism, that has contributed to the decline in stable family

structure. I'm suggesting that these are two competing systems in

existence now, rather than the same. IOW, automobiles and babies do

not have such disparate interests as you are suggesting.

> As for as forgoing personal consumption and income ... again, this

is a modern

> paradigm.

No it isn't. People have considered how to consume and produce as

long as they have been doing so, which is as long as people have been

existing. Since the entire human existence exists as being a

productive being that secures what is necessary for survival and

leisure, these are definitional to the human existence.

> A mother in previous eras (or a goat out on the field) doesn't

think that

> way. And neither does the body .. even if the mother is smart and

organized

> enough to use birth control, and has control over sex (many women

don't,

> in the world as it exists, they have sex when the man wants it) ...

she may find

> herself with a baby she neither wanted nor can afford. This was no

big deal in

> previous eras ... another family could take it, or grandma, and if

no one could

> take it, infanticide was the usual solution. Today she is saddled

with 18 years of

> bills.

That simply represents the transition of children from an economic

asset to a cost. There's no " system " that " mandates " that if one has

a child there are " such-and-such costs, " but rather, those costs are

a natural consequence of the child, not mandated by anything except

nature, and the situations within which the parents find themselves.

The child needs to eat, for which resources are needed. The child

needs a roof, for which resources are needed. The child needs

warmth, for which resources are needed. There are more bills because

in the previous eras you are speaking of the child had a shoddier

roof and less heat, and food that had to be produced by the family

rather than bought. Furthermore, due to cultural standards and the

prohibition of child labor, that child cannot contribute to her or

his own material existence for nearly those 18 years, unlike the

child of previous ages, who was required to work on the farm, or work

for someone else to contribute to the material wellbeing of the

family.

> (and you don't even mention the father, where does he fit in here?).

Actually, I was the first to mention the father, if I recall

correctly. You'd framed the situation as a fatherless situation in

which the economic burden is placed squarely on the mother within

our " system, " disregarding the fact that the woman's lack of any

financial support is not a function of a governmental or economic

system so much as a function, or rather, dysfunction, of her familial

environment, in which this poor child has no active grandparents or

father.

I do believe I'd suggested that good families, of which the father is

an implicit part, are essential in this situation.

> Well, the paleoithic people, for starters. They were around for a

lot longer

> than we have been (a million years or so, by some reckonings). No

sign of " money " .

Well, for that matter, bacteria have been " thriving " for far longer

than either of our peoples.

I suppose we'd all be better off if we lived under the constant

threat of murder or warfare in these thriving societies where 60% or

so people died from violence.

> I'm not sure I remember the initial quote, but I don't see how

anything I said

> had to do with subsidizing or insuring pregnancies.

You said the financial burden had to be removed from the mother.

> In a hunter-gatherer society,

> a pregnant woman isn't " subsidized " any more than any other member

of the

> society. She works, so do the men. The men work at more dangerous

jobs,

> which are not child-friendly, and the women work at jobs that allow

kids to

> be around. That society was " functional " in the sense that it

worked .. the babies

> got breast milk and got mothers to bond to.

>

> In our society, most babies go to daycare and get formula. 1/5 of

the kids have

> some identifiable mental illness (according to an article on NPR

last week) and suicide

> is a leading cause of death among kids. Depression and bipolar

disorder are common

> among kids. THAT is dysfunctional! Mental problems and health

problems are very

> linked to nutrition (meaning someone with time to prepare food) and

breastfeeding.

I agree that's dysfunctional, but I don't see how removing the

financial burden from the mother would solve the problem (or be

workable).

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> Yes, it *is* real life. First of all, the claim that 10% of women are

> raped at some point in their lives sounds like a NOWism to me. But let's

> assume it's true.

>

You need to realize, that rape is the name for sex when one person

didn't want to have sex. It can also happen in a relationship. And as

that counts as rape in those 10 % (actually, it'll be the bigger part

of those 10 % !), I don't find that figure too high.

Imagine those dates when both are drunk and she suddenly realizes, she

doesn't really want to get laid by this guy...

But could you explain what a NOWism is?

CU Anja

[Guest guest]

> " More " reliable, sure. But I'm one of the few women I know who

hasn't

> had an " accident " ... and one of the recent casualties was a doctor.

> All I'm arguing for is that when a woman DOES get pregnant, or has

> a baby, it shouldn't make a drastic change in her life, in a

functional

> society.

But isn't that drastic change mostly a function of one's

expectations? In other words, if you grow up in a farm town, and

plan on marrying early, and doing the same thing everyone else does--

be a farmer-- than there isn't much for a baby to interfere with.

But if you have grand plans about your career that requires years of

schooling, you don't plan on marrying until your 30, etc, then having

a baby will interfere big time with your plans, and thus, drastically

change your life.

I don't see how you can change that without drilling the hopes and

expectations out of the heads of young women who grow up in a culture

that values personal freedom and fun over marriage, education over

non-education, and affords so many choices to the people who live

within it.

> >> One in ten women are raped at some point

> >> in their lives,

> >

> >But violence is a part of human nature that transcends the

structure

> >of society, so, while this is tragic, it's not something that can

be

> >eliminated to form a more sustainable society.

>

> No, but you were arguing that a woman shouldn't get pregnant

> if she can't afford the kid. That is assuming that she has that much

> control, which isn't real life.

Umm, right, but ANY system, no matter how good it is, has violations

of its basic principles which cause the system to not work ideally.

In, say, a 19th century NE village, the rape pregnancy would be a big

deal, just as it is now, for an unmarried young woman, and less so

for a married woman who could bring it up as if it were her husband's

child. So, the difference is people marry later. In hunter gatherer

societies, the dynamic is a little different, but you have much less

protection against rape, and a general idea that if you want a woman,

you just kill her husband, so you have more murder, etc.

In any case, I wasn't so much arguing what the woman should do, but

was rather arguing that the incentives of a society should encourage

responsibility rather than irresponsibility, or else the social

network falls apart, along with individual character.

> Again, all this assumes that the person getting pregnant had so much

> control in the first place. Someday, I assure you, some wife or

girlfriend

> of yours will inform you that you are soon to be a father. Probably

at

> a time you can't afford it!

It just assumes that the person getting pregnant has SOME control...

and she does (and the other party to the equation). Birth control

isn't entirely effective, but if used properly it's mostly

effective. And obviously abstinence is 100% effective. So, even if

the people involved only had 20% control, proper incentives

encouraging responsible behavior would still lead to a

proportionately more positive result in behavior. But, the control

is really much higher than that, since birth control methods tend to

run mid to high 90's % effectiveness when used properly.

> In most animal societies, a female having offspring doesn't majorly

change

> her life, or the life of the society.

Sure... if you live to reproduce, then its not a deviation from the

purpose of your life. Likewise, if you have no other intentions in

your life but to have babies, it not a deviation from the purpose of

your human life. If you expect lots of other things and have lots of

other plans, it becomes a big deviation. So, these " drastic changes "

you speak of, like suddenly can't manage to get through college very

easily, are a function of all those extra things we expect as part of

our lives-- like going through college. The way to eliminate this

effect is to get rid of all these " extra concerns " and engineer a

culture that exists solely for the purpose of procreation.

That is also true of most human societies.

> Therefore NO ONE has to " bear the cost " because there isn't any ...

she doesn't

> have to " save " for it.

That's absolutely preposterous. Please explain how a child can be

born or raised who consumes no resources.

> That we have to " wait until we can afford a kid " is a sign

> of how off-track our society is.

Right. Instead of wanting our kid to have a comfortable life, live

in a home with good heat in a good neighborhood, go through a good

school, be educated, have a computer, be able to enjoy the pleasures

of modern life like watching movies and reading books printed on

presses and playing video games, and then have a college education,

we should instead rearrange society so that all of these things that

cost vast amounts of resources relative to bare subsistence can be

eliminated from the minds and desires of people, that way we can have

lots of children whenever, paying no mind to what we can afford, so

we can raise them at bare subsistence and they can live with no

expectations in their life except survival and procreation.

> Well, the main problem happened when people went to work in

> " factories " which were mainly designed for the efficient production

> of goods, with no regard to families or people in general.

Afterall, it wasn't " people " who were using those goods, and it

wasn't " families " who chose to work there so they could better their

material lives.

> I do work

> in a technological field, but I raised my kid while I worked. I

employ

> people, and I make the workplace as kid-friendly as I can. There is

no

> real barrier to women working and raising kids, except attitude and

maybe

> some laws. One good example is " The Baby Book " ... one of the

authors

> is a mother of 10 children, and a doctor. She carried her babies in

a sling

> (or had someone else do it) while she worked, gave lectures, etc.

She even

> nursed while giving lectures ...

That sounds like a good thing...

> You can also look at some of the Asian families. Somehow, even in

our

> culture, they manage to have the kids around while, say, running a

> restaurant or a store.

Then it isn't the " system, " but is the culture and choices of the

families and individuals within them that is the variable.

> Both capitalism and socialism are modern inventions, I think. What

> " system " would you call, say, an Inuit tribe? Every hunter hunts

> for his family and competes ... but they also cooperate, so I guess

it is socialistic

> and capitalistic?

Socialism and capitalism are not respectively correspondent to

competition and cooperation at ALL, but are rather respectively

correspondent to force and freedom. Competition exists in socialism

and cooperation exists in capitalism. So, I guess, in what manner

does the cooperation and competition take place? Do they cooperate

voluntarily, because the parties involve see the cooperation to their

advantage? Or do they cooperate forcibly. Are there redistributive

mechanisms that have implicit punishments to them, like exile or

whathaveyou?

But with no monetary exchange, the main " currency "

> is probably " status " ... what is really being traded is " how much

worth

> I have to everyone else " .

Isn't that what is always traded in any free trade?

> Now after age 5, the kid can go to school, and Mom is off the hook.

> Or the kid can hang around the house ... but really, it doesn't

cost much

> to feed and house a kid (buying toys is another issue ...we

overindulge

> them big time!).

It does especially when they get older (especially if boys), and it

does assuming you don't already have a house big enough for them,

etc.

In any case, since you keep referring to times where societies and

tribes lacked modern comforts and lacked most of the things we pursue

in our lives, how do you propose to modify our system so that we keep

the best of both?

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Anja " <schnittie01734@y...>

wrote:

> But could you explain what a NOWism is?

Anja,

It would appear from context that it refers to catch-phrases and

manipulated statistics that are often repeated by ideological

organizations that don't reflect reality very well but serve the

agenda of said organization much better, in this case, the National

Organization for Women.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>Have you read the Continuum Concept?

> Or anything about contact parenting? Having a baby doesn't mean you

> have to drop out of college or quit your job .. unless your job or

> your college say you must.

And there lies the problem for a lot of people. I had an employer

ask me to choose between having a baby or having a job, *while I was

pregnant*. Yup. Guess which I chose. And no, I couldn't sue them;

they were too small for OSHA to apply.

>

> How about this: a baby is born. It sleeps with it's mother and

drinks

> breast milk. It eats bits off her plate. It watches what she does

> and starts learning how to do stuff she does. When it gets old

> enough, it starts playing with other kids, and going to school

(however

> society defines school). If the family has a TV, it watches TV. It

> learns how to be an adult. I didn't say anything about subsistance

> living. That's like saying that because I don't eat processed food,

> I'm eating subsistence food. Really ... we eat well! And having a

baby

> live it's life with Mom doesn't mean it is living a subsistence

life, quite

> the contrary. Do you really think a kid that goes to daycare has a

BETTER

> life than one raised by it's mother?

> As for lots of kids ... if a Mom is breastfeeding, she is not apt to

> have lots of kids, esp. if she goes for 3-4 years (which tribal

cultures

> do). And I specifically said that the Mom should NOT be marginalized

> with no career etc ... that's what started this. Ideally the mother

is doing

> something worthwhile and profitable, which her kids will see by

example.

I would agree with all of this, except in our particular society,

sending the child to school. LOTS of reasons for this, including I

want to raise my own kids instead of sending them to the government 8

hours+ daily. And I disagree with so much of our culture, including

what they feed kids and what school does to the family structure. :-)

I, like Heidi, work from home. In my case I'm a contractor selling

educational books for kids. My kids have been watching me do this

since they were 4 and 18m., and they both now make intelligent

comments about what I do. They are gaining an experience they would

never have if they, I, or both were away all day.

I'm thrilled they have this chance, and that I can be with them. I

grew up in a home where my parents owned several businesses,

including a pharmacy (my dad's a pharmacist). I heard business

discussed constantly; at dinner, in the car, while gardening. My

parents asked my opinions on things starting when I was about 4

(about selecting toys for their gift shop then). I learned about

rental properties, government regulations, taxes, customer service,

quality in selection, dealing with employees and shoplifters, and

much more. I was afraid my kids would miss out on this because when

the first two were born I worked at a very family-unfriendly

corporation. But now they will have the same self-sufficient outlook

I was given.

>

> But why can't we produce goods AND have good families? I don't think

> the two are mutually exclusive. I've seen plenty of examples, esp.

in

> the small business arena.

Yup; see above.

> I suspect some simple changes to some of the laws would make

> this lifestyle far more accessible to more people. Making it easier

> to work from home, for example, or to run a small business in

> a neighborhood (my relative's bakery would be illegal in the US,

> because it combines a business with a residence).

>

Yup. So many people are working from home now that some utility

companies now have special rates for work-from-home businesses, so

that helps.

What I have worked out that works for us is that I found a business

that pays well but isn't full-time, that allows me to have my kids

with me nearly 100% of the time, and yet is something I believe to be

important and uses many of my talents and skills. I didn't know it

was going to be my 'dream job' but it is (that was supposedly

underwater archaeology, but hard to take along a nursing infant doing

that!). I found a way to home school that produces great results but

again isn't full-time for me (although the kids are constantly

learning). Finally, I found a couple of reliable teen-aged

homeschooled babysitters for those few times during the day when I

can't have my kids with me (like meeting with a librarian or speaking

to a group of teachers at school). I have no family in the area so

family help isn't an option.

I've been following this discussion with great interest, because this

combines three of my main soapboxes! Thanks to both of you for

bringing up so many good points. I agree, Heidi, so much of our

society just doesn't work, from nutrition to education to things that

negatively inpact childrearing.

Thanks,

Tracey

[Guest guest]

> Expectations certainly have something to do with it, and attitude.

> But a lot of it is social structure. Have you read the Continuum

Concept?

> Or anything about contact parenting? Having a baby doesn't mean you

> have to drop out of college or quit your job .. unless your job or

> your college say you must.

I haven't read the CC book, or anything on... well, parenting. In my

school experience, whether kids can be brought is a function of the

teacher... some will allow it. But they tend to be disruptive. A

law that required schools to allow kids in the classroom would be an

utter disaster. It's one thing to have the kid in the classroom a

couple times in a semester because no one could watch him; it's

another to have them every day, or worse, to have lots of them.

> And a lot of it is education. Like, no one forces folks in the US to

> eat at Mc's, and some of us (thru reading the right books)

> tend not to do that and we do eat better food. The culture doesn't

> support us, in general, so it is harder to eat well than it would

be if

> we lived in, say a small Swiss village with better food habits. But

> if more and more people eat our way, eventually the culture will

> change (people ARE the culture!) and it will be easier.

I think that's already happening. Have you been to Mc's or

Burger King lately? I went to BK because I was with a friend and we

stopped, and their menu is far healthier than the last time I was in

a fast food joint. They have an entire low-carb menu, more salad

stuff, etc. The low-carb menu is low-trans fat too, because there's

no fries, no buns, etc.

> >I don't see how you can change that without drilling the hopes and

> >expectations out of the heads of young women who grow up in a

culture

> >that values personal freedom and fun over marriage, education over

> >non-education, and affords so many choices to the people who live

> >within it.

>

> I can't change the fact people live off McFood either. But I do

> share my food and my ideas with a lot of people, and a lot of

> people change eventually. Things ARE changing, as people become

> more aware. As for changing how people rear babies, I do the

> same thing as I do with NT ... give my favorite books for shower

> presents, talk about what we did, serve as one example, make it

> " less weird " for the next person.

Well, ok.

> That would be nice, but again, in my long experience, very

> few women have that kind of control. Babies happen .. our

> biology seems to work against us.

Nevertheless, responsible sex is widely practiced. If it wasn't, the

condom folks would be out of business. The point isn't so much

whether the incentives ensure perfect behavior. The point is that if

they are artificially removed you get lots more irresponsible

behavior.

> Well no ... the fact it is a " big deviation " has to do with the

> way we raise kids and the way we organize our lives. Other

> cultures don't do it the same way. For starters, we like to live

> on our own (go to college, live in a dorm ...) rather than part of

> an extended family. We like 2 parent households, max. We like to

> not have babies at work. We don't want to see women breastfeeding.

> The whole point of the Continuum Concept is that babies should

> be part of life, a thing to be enjoyed, not a burden to

be " afforded " .

> Really, it works.

I find the idea appealing...

> For the first 3 years ... you wear the baby in a sling or a pack.

It sleeps in

> your bed. You feed it breast milk. Yeah, you are eating more (in our

> culture, that is hardly an issue) and you have to wear a baby

sling, and

> stop once in awhile to feed the kid. But the extra " costs " are

minimal ...

> less than to feed your average dog.

Maybe it costs less than a dog, but it still has a cost, is all I was

saying. However you're leaving out parts of the equation. For

example, future-oriented future parents in our society might decide

they want to own a house before they have kids, or at least they will

decide they need to live in a place where the kid(s) can have their

own bedroom(s). That's an enormous expenditure in addition to what

you've mentioned.

> >Afterall, it wasn't " people " who were using those goods, and it

> >wasn't " families " who chose to work there so they could better

their

> >material lives.

>

> But why can't we produce goods AND have good families? I don't think

> the two are mutually exclusive. I've seen plenty of examples, esp.

in

> the small business arena.

I'm not so sure that typical 19th century families were " bad

families, " if you are still referring to the beginning of factories.

In any case, I think that's great if people find ways to work, earn

an income, *and* raise kids well at the same time. I was initially

just objecting to the idea that the financial burden of child bearing

should be artificially removed, which I interpreted as some sort of

subsidy.

> I suspect some simple changes to some of the laws would make

> this lifestyle far more accessible to more people. Making it easier

> to work from home, for example, or to run a small business in

> a neighborhood (my relative's bakery would be illegal in the US,

> because it combines a business with a residence).

What kind of laws make it difficult to work from home? I would

support any easing of these laws... the bakery setup is common in

these parts. Actually, the restaruant I work at has the father

living upstairs.

What I wouldn't support, which I thought you were hinting at but

maybe not, would be laws requiring schools and businesses to allow

mothers to have their children with them at all times.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

> Little babies that are carried in a sling are rarely disruptive ...

they

> sleep most of the time.

Oh, right, I was thinking of older little kids. Never had someone

with an infant in class. Oh, but they sound so cute!

> (When I was a kid we spent hours playing games .. mostly with some

dice

> and a deck of cards, though Scrabble and a few board games were also

> winners, and I think our abilities at math came from that).

You learnt math from Scrabble?

> And yeah, I think you interpreted me not as I intended. Good

discussion

> though.

Yup. Sorry I'm not responding to much of what you wrote, but I don't

have any disagreements. (lol) I do enjoy hearing about your

experiences, though.

> >What kind of laws make it difficult to work from home? I would

> >support any easing of these laws... the bakery setup is common in

> >these parts. Actually, the restaruant I work at has the father

> >living upstairs.

>

> I'm not that familiar with the laws etc. except the ones that

impacted

> me. (like having to buy acreage to have employees). It varies from

> city to city, which doesn't help. Someone wrote a great book about

> city layout (an architect), the name escapes me. He said that with

> a few zoning changes, cities and suburbs could be MUCH more

> livable ... that the current zoning was mainly to make life car-

friendly

> but that the older zoning, as in old European towns, was much more

> people-friendly, which is why folks like to travel there for

vacations.

> He had lots of specific ideas, and many of them related to having

> home life closer to work life, and being able to walk to most of the

> places you need to go. You are in New England, I think? A lot of

older

> towns ARE like that ... but not on the west coast.

Work in a NE town? LOL! I know people out here that commute 1.5 hrs

to Boston every day (3 hrs round trip).

This job and my last one I had less than a five minute drive to work,

and that's the case for a lot of people who work in town, but many

people have to commute just becuase there's not enough work out

here. (There used to be a few factories, but most are gone). I

don't know what it's like in the city, but I imagine it's a bit

different.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Nonsense. Examine any tribal society and you'll see that

socialization,

> per se, is not the problem.

,

I suppose you could say the same thing about an extended family in a

modern society. Clearly, sharing the burden between a group of

people makes for a better and stronger social network, not a weaker

one. However, there is a clear qualitative difference between

sharing the burden personally and socializing the burden anonymously

and impersonally. Are tribal groups very small states or very large

families? Probably more like the latter.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Perhaps they are more like very or extremely large families, though

I'd

> suggest they're more like communities, but socialization is clearly

not by

> itself the problem.

I've never studied the economics of tribal societies, but I'd guess

that

1) They aren't socialist (though may have socialist elements)

2) They aren't an ideal model anyway, in part due to lack of property

and other elements we'd generally consider of a socialist nature (for

example, they have much higher murder rates than we do).

That said, I can't do much more than guess without any detailed

knowledge of their economics.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >I've never studied the economics of tribal societies, but I'd guess

> >that

> >1) They aren't socialist (though may have socialist elements)

>

> I think your terminology here is confusing things. Socializing

doesn't

> always imply socialism. A child, for example, can be described as

poorly

> socialized if he is violent, doesn't play well with others, etc.

Also, man

> is a social creature, and so socialization can be considered as the

> opposite of atomization.

Ok, but it seems reasonable that since those are two separate

definitions that one could use one definition consistently in a given

context. I'd meant specifically the economic sense of socialization,

meaning to equalize the burden or benefit within a given group, not

the other meanings you are using. So, unless we miscommunicated on

that note, it wouldn't make sense for you to point out that

socializing is no problem using an entirely different meaning.

> >2) They aren't an ideal model anyway, in part due to lack of

property

> >and other elements we'd generally consider of a socialist nature

(for

> >example, they have much higher murder rates than we do).

> The murder rate is, of course, an important factor to consider, but

the

> other aspects are not necessarily bad, at least not automatically.

You

> just have an aversion to them.

No, I was suggesting that there is a relationship between lack of

property and crime/violence. I didn't bother to explain my reasoning

(particularly since I don't know to what extent it even applies to

tribal groups), but I wasn't assuming that anything was automatically

bad except those things about which we would agree-- murder, for

example.

> But aversion or no, they should be

> considered objectively in the context of evolution and pragmatism.

Fair enough...

> >That said, I can't do much more than guess without any detailed

> >knowledge of their economics.

>

> Why reduce everything strictly to economics?

I'm not sure what you're asking, nor am I sure what it is you think I

should expand my view to include in this particular instance, but

this discussion initially derived from my comment that economic

socialization of pregnancy-related costs causes a decline in family

structure... so, since we weren't discussing what possible other

causes of that decline are, but rather whether socialization of those

costs itself could be to blame, I don't see what non-economic issues

are relevant.

Chris