Thread by @sighing_sadly

@SomeBitchIIKnow "All the world's people are your brothers and sisters."

That's really not as inspirational a message as the writers probably thought it was.

When parents value all children as highly as their own, in practice that means that children get neglected, en masse.

@SomeBitchIIKnow That view also does nothing to curb out of control population growth. One ends up with families of over a dozen children who the father feels no responsibility to support, who are send out begging by their parents.

This creates a perverse incentive.

@SomeBitchIIKnow As the population soars to levels that the land can not sustain, and support for those truly destitute through no fault of their own is absent because local governments can not afford it, parents start having larger families, not smaller ones, because each child becomes a ...

@SomeBitchIIKnow ... free insurance policy for the father. Not so free for the mother who has to give birth to the bouncing little bundle of future support in the father's old age, but that has a way of not being talked about for some reason.

@SomeBitchIIKnow One might notice that while all of the world is supposed to be one's family, all of the world is not supposed to be one's parents.

@SomeBitchIIKnow Parents can, under this "enlightened view," barely concern themselves with their children, at all, but the children, should they survive the hunger into which they are born and manage to grow up to have actual incomes, will still be expected to look after their parents.

@SomeBitchIIKnow This "wisdom" shorts out a natural corrective mechanism that should keep one's society from turning into a hellscape full of starving people.

@SomeBitchIIKnow When common sense and decency prevail, and people recognize that parents have a duty to put their own children first, then when a place starts to grow overpopulated, the growing expense of raising children tends to drive down the size of families.

@SomeBitchIIKnow In a crowded place, lodging is more expensive. If one is shamed for raising one's children in avoidable misery, then the fact than one now has six children sleeping in a single room and that there will soon be a seventh will raise eyebrows and get one judged, harshly.

@SomeBitchIIKnow Food becomes more expensive, because there is only so much soil, water and sunshine, and so the obligation to keep one's children well nourished will put a natural limit on the number of children one has, without the need for activists to come in and micromanage the family.

@SomeBitchIIKnow But introduce that bit of "Progressive" wisdom, and not just allow (but in fact push) parents to care about all children as much as they do about their own, and that duty of care will deteriorate, because no parent has the resources to feed all of the world's children.

@SomeBitchIIKnow Parental duty, on those terms, becomes an exercise in futility, one that is as swiftly and naturally forgotten as is the work ethic under Socialism, and for the same reason - basic human nature.

@SomeBitchIIKnow A struggle that goes on and on without visible reward is one that inspires a spirit of resignation in those who have been struggling, and those around them.

That is not a spirit that leads to any sort of improvement.

@SomeBitchIIKnow But it does fit in with the bad Socialist idea that all people are supposed to enjoy all of the good things in life rationed out in equal measure.

@SomeBitchIIKnow They'll complain that when Market forces set limits on family size in places where parental duties are taken seriously, that the rich will be able to have larger families than the poor.

@SomeBitchIIKnow This is seen as being evil, because in their view, all families are supposed to be of the same "sustainable size," which is amusing, because Mathematics will not oblige them in this.

@SomeBitchIIKnow If every couple has two children, then the population will slowly dwindle, because not every child will manage to grow up to become a parent. Some will die unmarried.

@SomeBitchIIKnow But if every couple has three children, the population will rise exponentially, until its inevitable, catastrophic collapse, with people dying in the streets, their stomachs bloating up from starvation.

@SomeBitchIIKnow The number of children per couple needed for a population to become stable is not an integer, and the usual gory jokes aside, there is no way for parents to raise a fraction of a child.

@SomeBitchIIKnow There is no whole number of children that every family could have in a truly sustainable society, the Math just won't allow it.

So, of course, Math becomes racist, because Reality was never the point, and neither was any real desire to make the world a better place.

@SomeBitchIIKnow These people who want to tell every couple how many children to have were control freaks from the beginning.

@SomeBitchIIKnow They were lazy control freaks who hoped that the minds of the children that they were trying to mold would be so gullibly impressionable, that those children would grow up without ever asking any awkward questions about the wisdom of what they had been "taught."

@SomeBitchIIKnow The fact that, if they are indulged, the whole world will become a hell, doesn't matter to them in the least, as long as they can get their egos fed.