As my lovey read me an anonymous quote from a magazine:
"Anyone can count the number of seeds in an apple, but no one can count the number of apples in a seed."
Might i point you to this blog (that post and the two later ones also) and make some noise here for having paternal leave. It's great that maternal leave is increased, but there's a lot more to bringing up baby than bearing baby in the womb (not to discount that part in any way, of course). Parental leave is a good idea: leave that can be taken by either parent.
Actually, with regard to kids ah, I'm not sure why every government in the developed world seems to want more babies... I mean, it's like, the developing world has too many, and the developed world thinks it has too few... Why is it a big deal? Why must population grow, or even replace itself? Why not a diminishing population: fear that there will be too many aged and too few working adults? But then like this the cycle is vicious, right? More babies now also means in future even more aged and then... This seems to me one of these cases where letting the equilibrium find itself would be good... If we really don't produce enough babies to the extent that we go extinct, well, that'll just show how brilliant we are.
It seems clear to me that the best strategy now is for people in developed countries to adopt kids from developing countries: this not only will close up the gap between rich and poor somewhat, the process of pregnancy also doesn't have to take place in a developed country, where labor costs are high. And kids who would otherwise starve or stay uneducated would have a chance to get an education. Of course, developing and developing countries aren't exactly at the stage where this kind of deal can be struck... seems like the only people moving from one to the other are involved in acts of aggression. Except of course for the great charity workers.
This is a public service announcement: Jasper says that Peggy is (still) not an element, and FlameTree is really the one.
After the usual routine of table tennis, gym, swim (with a special steam room treat thrown in before showering), lunch at Bishan S-11 (the vegetarian stall there is somewhat unreliable... they were closed today, as they were several weeks ago...), Jasper and I walked around J8 then around Orchard, then met Sheng Cheng for dinner (I had roti prata with banana inside), then Sheng Cheng drove home and we walked around a little more, to Dhoby Ghaut, to Fort Canning Park, to Registries of Marriages (the first plural is there because there's civil and Muslim versions). Along the way, Jasper gave a thrilling rendition of a medley of songs from musicals/operas/foreign lingua. Songs from West Side Story, The Sound of Music, Phantom of the Opera, and the Olympic song, Amigos Para Siempre...
And there was this Italian song with echo and I did the echo in what Jasper says is an American accent. We went to The Coffee Conoisseur with Sheng Cheng after dinner, and I think I've successfully induced lactose intolerance in myself after all this time of boycotting dairy products (for health, environmental, ethical reasons). I got diarrhea just now, which I suspect is linked to that. But I might be wrong, as always. Science proceeds by inferences and then rigorous testing to eliminate possible explanations.
Yvonne has posted on her annoyance with magicians, because they keep secrets and everything they do is based on deception. But I see it as brilliant cunning, and I think it opens minds to the vast infinity of what is possible, and goads people to find explanations and think deeply about what they see and what they think they see. It's like man's re-creation of nature: in the same way that scientists rack their brains to understand nature (because there are no ready answers), magicians create phenomena that beg to be understood, to be exposed. It creates a wonder much like the wonder in science. It's like magicians set these wonderfully mind-bogglingly beautiful maths questions and then challenge the viewer to prove a remarkable theorem. They could publish the solution on the next page, but then people won't be as engaged and won't stay up nights permutating possibilities on how the proof would go. Of course, I expect that sooner or later all magic tricks will be available on the internet for free. Though I doubt scientists will figure out everything about our world in the near future.
For now, I plan to learn these tricks (through a DVD purchase) because I can't really figure out the tricks since there's not really anyone who can perform these tricks in front of me. When I become good I'll definitely perform them. =)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Not-so-basic math: Average number of children in a First-World country < 2.0. From my old Geography classes, Sweden for example is at 0.9. Assuming it takes exactly one male and exactly one female for the procreation process to continue, this means that the percentage of productive population is going to go down, while the percentage of dependent population needing support (by either the family, the state or society at large) is going to go up.
Having done all the "talking down" (sorry if it came across like that), the point is that governments - especially those in democracies where they're selected by vote - are all fearful of the economic engines sputtering because of a labour shortage. When's the last time you've heard of a government feeling happy about its economy shrinking (and I'm not talking about China being pleased with cooling off its economic overheat)?
The domino effect of a weakening economy can be scary socially. An increase in the percentage of dependents means that the state and society have to work on providing an infrastructure strong enough to cope with these changes. This could mean needing more labour for things like hospices; it definitely means needing more money for these things.
It becomes a self-perpetuating spiral for long enough to get this government out of office, and it's not something that is going to immediately recover. We're talking about human lives here, and the lifespan of a human being now averages at, what, 80 years? That means that, barring immigration and liberal levels of procreation (something that doesn't happen that much in the developed world thanks to medical advances like abortion and contraception), countries are going to find themselves in an economic slump for half a century or thereabouts. Given that democratic governments operate in units of three- to six-year terms, that's a pretty long time!
I'm not trying to persuade you to suddenly want to contribute to the national cause to make babies. I'm single, I'm not likely to marry (because I'm of the unwanted kind) and I'm no fan of sperm banks, so I'm not going to be a contributor to the cause anytime soon. I'm just saying that governments think the way they do because they have worries; sure, there's always a bit of vested interest involved on their part, but that's the way it is (I'm beginning to use variations of this phrase a little often, eh?).
My thoughts are that a labor shortage will be a great thing. Honestly, it'll inspire people to make more use of machines, and it will definitely drive economic progress throughout the world because workers will be in great demand. It is high time for labor intensive industries to evolve into more efficient systems, as education improves and people are less content with routine, ritual tasks.
Also, having fewer babies will surely encourage companies not to lay off senior staff just because there's someone younger to take their place. With standard of living increasing, we can be productive for a longer period of our lives, so this must certainly be harnessed for the good of society.
The sad, harsh reality that we have to face is that maybe we really cannot afford to keep everyone on life support for extended periods... that there isn't enough money for extensive hospitalization unless you've saved up enough, or can somehow raise the funds yourself. Because if the solution is to have more babies, then we'll always have too many people on this planet and less to go around. The percentage of dependents will stay the same but the number of them will only increase in the future... unless we have fewer babies and naturally the percentage of dependents will go up and then after a while it'll stabilize.
Personally, I find it reasonable that I at least earn as much as I spend. I have been sponsored by my parents in my youth; when I start working I'll support myself and slowly repay my "debt" to them (possibly with interest, and adjusted for inflation), and then save enough for retirement. If I have kids, then this could be treated as an investment: I put money into their upbringing and subsequently have less savings, maybe not enough for retirement, but I am planning on their growing up and then giving me returns on my investment. I'm writing in this detached tone because it's economics, of course.
So, as long as when saving, I factor in the likely increase in labor costs from there being fewer working adults in the future, if I save enough then this is a consistent model, supposing everyone adopts the same philosophy. Of course, this model would go bad if (when) some people can't earn enough to save enough for retirement. In which case, it seems like the hard economics would have to say that they can't count on being provided for in old age... it would take charity on the part of the rich if everyone was to be assured healthcare when they are no longer productive. Either that, or forced savings, probably forced by the government through greater taxation or some scheme like CPF.
Is there anything wrong with my analysis? Of course, I'm not really thinking about stuff like having the economy soar so that governments get re-elected... after all, the stuff I'm saying are hard things to sell to an electorate: increase taxation, increase forced CPF savings, healthcare quite unaffordable (though this is quite inevitable, it seems), and companies would surely not be happy that labor costs will go up...
But ultimately, my belief is that government should serve society, and if people recognize these concerns, they might decide that having children to provide for their future might be a risky proposal (no guaranteed returns!), and having children mainly for financial reasons is probably a bad, bad idea.
I'm not sure use of machines is necessarily the greatest idea. Mechanization, triggered off by the Industrial Revolution, is exactly what got us into this crap regarding the environment. Maybe if we mechanized in a way that didn't really pollute - but that's expensive, and you need a really strong economy to start with so that you have the dollars for that technology.
Or we could have some really low-tech solutions we haven't thought of yet.
To a point I see where you're going. The thing is that if the First World is already moving towards population loss (they've got the refugees to thank for slowing down the process) I'm sure when (if?) the Third World reaches First World status they'll be inclined to follow. So there's an area when what you're saying, while logically attractive, may not practically apply.
I'm no economist (I said so on my own blog sometime this week) so I can't really comment on your economics-based analysis. The politics is always the hard part, unfortunately, because the visions of an ideal world operate on the assumption that "I get to enjoy the fruits of the ideals". It's like squad rotation in football. "I'm fine with squad rotation, it's a great thing, AS LONG AS I PLAY EVERY GAME DAMNIT!" But that's human nature, and we can't do too much about that now, can we?
You certainly need dollars: it would be best if the third world could leapfrog into the first without going through all the cheap, pollutive stages that Europe and America had to go through because there wasn't any better technology. But there is better technology and countries all over the world have a vested interest (if only they'd recognize it!) to help nations like China build up their economies with minimal pollution.
Machines can free up a lot of time for people: machines will reduce the labor intensiveness of farming and allow farmers to pursue education and social reform, and simple stuff like infrastructure for water, power, etc. will save people the effort of having to haul buckets of water here and there. Then kids can go to school and when everyone becomes first world (haha) then yes population goes down and no more supply of people from third world then we'll need an equilibrium, because as it is this process of having babies is non-trivial.
Right now, the current prevailiing technology is to have babies nurtured in wombs and then delivered, which takes almost a year. And some more it has to be done reasonably early in a woman's life, which becomes less feasible as education becomes more extensive, since education tends to come early on in life too. Certainly education is "to blame" for declining birth rates.
The great thing about machines (for now) is that they can be switched off when not in use (to conserve energy), and there are no ethical concerns with getting them to do repetitive stuff. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, but I don't really understand the squad rotation thing. I understand what the idea is, but not sure how it applies, or maybe I just don't buy into that definition of an ideal world.
I think we enjoy what we enjoy, but if I argue for stuff that doesn't really affect me, I argue because of my sympathy. In an ideal world, sympathy abounds.
Won't really comment on the rest, since if I got started on those I can start on an essay, and I don't want to do that at this hour. I just want to pick out the issue on squad rotation - what I had meant with that idea was that people will always support in principle "a great idea" but would probably have no hesitation when it comes to asking to be an exception. Interestingly I borrowed the idea from an old Roy Keane interview (not sure if you know him; not sure if you watch football at all since you've never commented on it). He articulated the point well - we may all love certain great ideas but we all like to be exceptions if those great ideas involve certain sacrifices that, while not necessarily life-threatening, are of the type we just "don't like to happen to me".
Post a Comment