Page 11 of 13 [ 200 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

24 Dec 2008, 2:38 pm

Well, happy holidays to all - I'm out for a few days.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

24 Dec 2008, 2:45 pm

ouinon wrote:
monty wrote:
Interesting.
You are right, that is very interesting, because by making it illegal for children under 12 to work in factories the govt actually took away a right from children, a right that they had had from time immemorial, which was to work. And by doing so made having children a far less worthwhile/more expensive investment, as you pointed out.

The chronology was as follows:

The 1819 Cotton Mills and Factories Act stated no children under 9 were allowed to work in factories, and 9-16 year olds limited to 12 hours a day.

The 1833 Factory Act stated that 14-18 year olds allowed to work up to 12 hours a day only, and 9-13 year olds not to work more than 8 hours a day, and to receive 2 hours a day of education.

The 1844 Act stated that 9-13 year olds must not work more than 6 hours a day, and women no more than 12.

1878 Act stated no children under 10 to work, and 10-14 year olds only half days.

1901 Act stated that no child under 12 could work.

.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

24 Dec 2008, 3:12 pm

So the "problem" in countries whose population growth rate is still high is that they allow children to work, whether in factories, or seasonally on the land, or in their shops/small businesses etc. So long as children have the right to work people will keep having them.

So was the most effective population control actually simply making children a less interesting proposition from the financial point of view? Which was not an inevitable result of industrialisation, but of popular/middle-class reaction to conditions in factories.

After which women obviously had to find something else to do. They had been made redundant.
.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

24 Dec 2008, 4:08 pm

So I retract statement/reject hypothesis that feminism is population control, and replace it with "removing children's right to work is population control". 8)

PS. Thanks, monty. :)
.



Last edited by ouinon on 24 Dec 2008, 4:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

24 Dec 2008, 4:23 pm

Quote:
Monty wrote:
Why is your screen name Magnus? Why did you reject all possible feminine and neutral names that were available?


You judged the content of my words based on my name and avatar. People who say we are equal but then deny the reality of the situation in real life are great examples of this gender equality hypocrisy. I point this out as a reality and how we can manage it to go with the flow for peace and harmony and I'm the bad guy. Yes I said bad guy because it just sounds dumb to say bad woman. The feminists will probably have an issue with that too.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

25 Dec 2008, 9:44 am

Wondering whether the people who protested against the conditions in factories, horrified by what they saw there, and who campaigned for the welfare laws which gradually forbade children to work at all, were like the "sensors" which in other animal species pick up indications that the environment is becoming too hostile/severe/stressful and cause the fertility rate to drop, ( by inducing the animals to have entirely natural spontaneous abortions, etc ).

Perhaps such manipulations of, alterations to, human rights, ( expressed/formulated in PPR; politics, philosophy and religion :wink: ), are the human species' version of other animals' instinctive reactions to the environment.

What looks so artificial, so abstract/theoretical/detached from "the animal", is just the way that the animal homo sapiens sapiens reacts to information about the environment, how we function as part of the "grand scheme of things".

.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

25 Dec 2008, 2:06 pm

ouinon wrote:
So I retract statement/reject hypothesis that feminism is population control, and replace it with "removing children's right to work is population control". 8)

PS. Thanks, monty. :)
.


Huh.

I haven't seen this take before. Thanks for the shiny new idea.



pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

26 Dec 2008, 12:39 am

I'm of an age when I heard 'Magnus', I thought of 'robot fighter'...;) (very old comic book series...;)

but I have to admit between the cleavage and the sunglasses, it's hard to get a sense of the person behind it...;) (no 'fense...it makes your postings easier to spot...;)

As technology advances, the numbers and desire for children will change (Some developed countries are actually shrinking in population...and some aren't that egalitarian, either)

as things change further, there will be some who don't change. I married a wife with 6 children, and grandchildren 15 and 16 are on the way...no problem with them disappearing...;)



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

26 Dec 2008, 8:15 am

pakled wrote:

Quote:
I'm of an age when I heard 'Magnus', I thought of 'robot fighter'...Wink (very old comic book series...Wink


Hopefully I can live up to the title of Robot Fighter one day. :twisted:

Removing children from the workplace does cut down on population. It's probably an unconscious thing parents do. I don't think they have kids just to put them to work.

I think the main reason why people don't have more children is that it's too expensive.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

26 Dec 2008, 2:06 pm

ouinon wrote:
ouinon wrote:
monty wrote:
Interesting.
You are right, that is very interesting, because by making it illegal for children under 12 to work in factories the govt actually took away a right from children, a right that they had had from time immemorial, which was to work. And by doing so made having children a far less worthwhile/more expensive investment, as you pointed out.

The chronology was as follows:

The 1819 Cotton Mills and Factories Act stated no children under 9 were allowed to work in factories, and 9-16 year olds limited to 12 hours a day.

The 1833 Factory Act stated that 14-18 year olds allowed to work up to 12 hours a day only, and 9-13 year olds not to work more than 8 hours a day, and to receive 2 hours a day of education.

The 1844 Act stated that 9-13 year olds must not work more than 6 hours a day, and women no more than 12.

1878 Act stated no children under 10 to work, and 10-14 year olds only half days.

1901 Act stated that no child under 12 could work.

.


Child-labour is not a good thing. It is even more barbaric than denying women their basic human rights. Victimizing children is always the lowest.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

27 Dec 2008, 11:26 am

slowmutant wrote:
ouinon wrote:
monty wrote:
Interesting.
You are right, that is very interesting, because by making it illegal for children under 12 to work in factories the govt actually took away a right from children, a right that they had had from time immemorial, which was to work. And by doing so made having children a far less worthwhile/more expensive investment, as you pointed out.
Child-labour is not a good thing. It is even more barbaric than denying women their basic human rights. Victimizing children is always the lowest.

That is what is so interesting about "morals", that when circumstances require a certain response from humans morals/rules arise which seem like absolutes.

In fact there is nothing fundamentally wrong with children working. The children working in countries where it is still legal are many/most of them happy to do so, glad to be active contributors to the economy and wellbeing of their family and community. Children like to do what the adults around them do, are in fact programmed to copy what the adults in their community do.

If you have seen a boy running errands for his father's business, a child serving in their parents shop, a boy out on the hillside guarding the goats, a girl feeding her family's hens, or caring for her younger brothers and sisters, then you know that there is nothing intrinsically wrong about "child-labour". The number of children who are exploited/abused/overworked is no more than the number of adults.

But it becomes "wrong" in a society which needs/apparently needs to reduce its fertility rate, because so long as children have the right to work, if they are capable of it, like most other humans, they are too valuable a resource, and people will continue to have lots of them.

When the population was steady child-labour was completely normal, but in a society creating food and wealth and sanitation at such a rate that the population soars, "child-labour" becomes something taboo/scandalous, in the same way as a lone/"loose" woman was a taboo when the population was small(er) and the tribe/society was aiming at increasing its numbers, ( being fruitful and multiplying ).

.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

27 Dec 2008, 11:42 am

Pre-pubescents working as slave labourers in Nike plants, that is a far cry from kids doing paper-routes or the occaisional odd job for spending-money. You know the difference, yes?



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

27 Dec 2008, 11:45 am

ouinon wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
ouinon wrote:
monty wrote:
Interesting.
You are right, that is very interesting, because by making it illegal for children under 12 to work in factories the govt actually took away a right from children, a right that they had had from time immemorial, which was to work. And by doing so made having children a far less worthwhile/more expensive investment, as you pointed out.
Child-labour is not a good thing. It is even more barbaric than denying women their basic human rights. Victimizing children is always the lowest.

That is what is so interesting about "morals", that when circumstances require a certain response from humans morals/rules arise which seem like absolutes.

In fact there is nothing fundamentally wrong with children working. The children working in countries where it is still legal are many/most of them happy to do so, glad to be active contributors to the economy and wellbeing of their family and community. Children like to do what the adults around them do, are in fact programmed to copy what the adults in their community do.

If you have seen a boy running errands for his father's business, a child serving in their parents shop, a boy out on the hillside guarding the goats, a girl feeding her family's hens, or caring for her younger brothers and sisters, then you know that there is nothing intrinsically wrong about "child-labour". The number of children who are exploited/abused/overworked is no more than the number of adults.

But it becomes "wrong" in a society which needs/apparently needs to reduce its fertility rate, because so long as children have the right to work, if they are capable of it, like most other humans, they are too valuable a resource, and people will continue to have lots of them.

When the population was steady child-labour was completely normal, but in a society creating food and wealth and sanitation at such a rate that the population soars, "child-labour" becomes something taboo/scandalous, in the same way as a lone/"loose" woman was a taboo when the population was small(er) and the tribe/society was aiming at increasing its numbers, ( being fruitful and multiplying ).

.


You seem to be fanatically devoted to your cause. Don't do that. Don't lose perspective.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

27 Dec 2008, 11:53 am

slowmutant wrote:
Pre-pubescents working as slave labourers in Nike plants, that is a far cry from kids doing paper-routes or the occasional odd job for spending-money. You know the difference, yes?

I wasn't talking about newspaper boys; I was talking about children in Africa and India and northern Asia and parts of South America who work long hours at agricultural and commercial jobs with their family or in the community.

You are talking about children in places where industrialisation has already begun to spread, and where the population has also grown exponentially in the last 50 years... and where child labour is already, and not coincidentally, on the way out.

The moral reaction to children in factories/sweatshops is already driving governments in such places to implement legislation which outlaws child-labour in exactly the same way as it did in the West 150 years ago as factories spread and the population grew, and this will cause a drop in the birth rate.
.



Last edited by ouinon on 27 Dec 2008, 11:57 am, edited 3 times in total.

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

27 Dec 2008, 11:54 am

slowmutant wrote:
You seem to be fanatically devoted to your cause.

Which cause is that?
.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

27 Dec 2008, 12:01 pm

ouinon wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
You seem to be fanatically devoted to your cause.
Which cause is that?

In fact I am interested to discover that whereas I have over the last 15 years or so been fully in favour of children's right to work, vote, etc, I now find myself questioning this, because it would appear that there is a good reason why children do not have the right to work, in our society, at this time.

Would I have felt the same way about women not having the right to live alone/without a man, in a previous time in society which was aiming at increasing its population?

Difficult to imagine living in a time when human numbers were so small, and survival past childhood so uncertain, that such a measure may have seemed imperative.
.



Last edited by ouinon on 27 Dec 2008, 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.