Image Description: A digital meme divided into two main panels: a mathematical whiteboard explanation at the top and a reaction image at the bottom. Top Panel (The Whiteboard): Titled “P-ADIC FINANCE where p = profit.” It explains a fictional financial system using real advanced mathematics. Left text: “In this metric, a number’s size is how little profit divides it. The more profitable the crime, the closer its penalty sits to zero. String together ever-bigger crimes and the fines don’t blow up, they converge.” A sequence shows: “p, p^2, p^3, … arrow pointing to 0.” Right chart: A table titled “Crime, Profit, Fine, Fine Size in P-Adic Metric.” It lists crimes: Outsource pollution: Profit = p, Fine = $1M, P-adic size = 1/p (small). Fake the numbers: Profit = p^2, Fine = $10M, P-adic size = 1/p^2 (smaller). Fix the market: Profit = p^3, Fine = $100M, P-adic size = 1/p^3 (tinier). Ruin a country: Profit = p^4, Fine = $1B, P-adic size = 1/p^4 (minuscule). Repeat infinitely: Profit = p^n, Fine = p^n (lol), P-adic size = 1/p^n which approaches 0. Below the chart: A number line showing 0 on the far left (labeled “Where your fines live”) and numbers increasing to the right (labeled “Big in absolute world”). A final box states: “The true crime in a corporate environment is not choosing p.” Bottom Panel (The Reaction): A sepia-toned photograph of a group of wealthy white men in suits, including former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, laughing uproariously together at a gathering. Edited comic speech bubbles are assigned to them: One asks, “Why’d we even need lawyers?” Another laughs, “We just changed the metric lmfao.” A third says, “Fines are for poors.” A man in the foreground laughs, “Infinite money glitch found boys.” In the bottom right corner, a modern internet meme character (a crying, angry “Wojak” in a suit wearing a badge that reads “REGULATORS”) has a thought bubble that reads: “They took us for absolute fools.” Bottom Caption: Superimposed across the bottom in large, bold, white Impact font: “THEY TOOK US FOR ABSOLUTE FOOLS”—a pun on the word “absolute” referring to both being deeply tricked and the standard mathematical “absolute metric.”
Because we can’t assume everyone has equal access to birth control across culture and geopolitical borders? You’re speaking to someone from a different continent over a net that’s bisecting oceans, we may be conversing casually in one language, but why does everyone assume resource or cultural uniformity from complete strangers when the physics themselves behave differently at different latitudes?
I wish it were proportional to net global revenue, now that’d actually be the killer move because you can’t take a hit and still meet quarterly growth formulas without justifying your losses to the shareholder groupthink. lol
It’s pretty easy to assume that someone who uses a very niche social media on some kind of technological device is also advanced enough and capable to use said contraceptives and habe the basic knowledge of how life works.
Cultural thing? A cultural thing forcing me to procreate even when I couldn’t and shouldn’t? Where? And why is in this place of darkness network coverage and the knowledge of Lemmy? And why even care for privacy…
And if it’s for religious reasons: well…if you’re just a tool, you especially shouldn’t procreate.
Lol. I’m not swiss, it’s just what one hears of its neighbor. But it’s still a lot better than, AFAIK, most everywhere else. Here, I don’t care for parking- or speeding stickers, it’s just a bit more expensive to park whereever I want (except disabled, that is like donating your car). While poor people are killed with one single parking-mistake or speeding. That is highly unfair and unjust. Fines shall hurt.
See? Those are internet-tinted shades you’re wearing, making an assumption that mammalian procreation is 100% voluntary when it’s just as accidental/unlikely as life emerging from entropy at Surtsey for no practical reason at all.
A fish can’t tell water is wet because it’s literally swimming in it. And the little pebble we all live on is so saturated with unlikely convergences that we think probability plays by the same rules in a vacuum compared to our Goldilocks zones and build particle accelerators in a gravity well to detect gravitons. It demonstrably does not. This also applies with subjective experience at the personal level.
Now that’s not to mention the fact that just because I understand you doesn’t mean I agree with your philosophical stance to the issue of reproduction to begin with.
And that’s the meat of it. That’s your faith in your subjective judgement manifesting as hubristic holier than thou attitude. You most likely don’t want people assuming gender but are now measuring the worth of an entire person’s life experience based on someone’s undeclared beliefs. That’s your fitness function? How does it measure the fitness of a reproduction license for a version of Einstein that developed as a secretly non-binary Aztec priest?
A lot of words for not saying much. Are you a politician by trade? My point does not change much if procreation is forced. It should not a have been on a an additional layer then.
Dude. Are you high? Seriously asking, not judging. What does anything have to do with that? The world sucks for poor people, and they’re the ones procreating the most. While they shouldn’t. No reason or circumstance makes this point any less valid. Only adds layers to why not.
And why even bring gender in it? Who cares for that? What does procreation have to do with that? If you can’t raise a kid properly in this broken capitalist hellhole and only breed slaves for the others, it does not matter what gender you are. Not that it would matter in any other aspect.
Also: belief != religion. I don’t care for beliefs. I find them silly and childish but to each his own. Religion is a totally different matter. And also not really adjacent to the point
No. Just negotiating a protocol.
And that’s the protocol I am negotiating. That sentence encode implicit assumptions I am trying to wrap my head around. I cannot figure out how you made the leap from this hypothesis: “The world sucks for poor people, and they’re the ones procreating the most” to this assertion: “While they shouldn’t. No reason or circumstance makes this point any less valid. Only adds layers to why not.”
Trying to parse this because the only assumptions on your part that would make it valid are:
Because assuming someone’s quanta is the same as assuming their gender. If assuming gender is a faux-pas then assuming anything about someone’s personal life is the same mistake wearing different makeup. If deadnaming someone is rude then asking a religious person (and I am not claiming to be, just to be clear) to justify their personal choices to you using entitled language is just as rude.
If you think the entire world is a capitalist hellhole then your vantage point is narrower than you think. Do you think your subjective experience applies everywhere? Your sweeping generalisation doesn’t even hold WITHIN your own framework, because if the barrier to raising kids that know how to live a happy life is monetary value, then rich people would be more fit to reproduce and happy rich people would naturally outnumber the incompetent/unhappy poor, but that’s not happening, is it?
I don’t dispute that belief is not the same as religion, but let me add my bit to make my stance clear: religion is the set of conventions that form around a common practice or shared belief.
I really have no idea what you are even on about. If you’re poor and want to breed happy slaves for your owning class? Sure, go ahead, be as egoistical as you’d like, I couldn’t care less. It’s not my life.
If you’re poor and live the happiest life, be my guest. Money surely isn’t everything. Being happy without money maybe beats being rich but unhappy. I’m lucky enough to be neither.
But if you somehow live in a capitalist something, which i have to assume as you use the net and lemmy, you cannot seriously think money isn’t the only important factor.
Also it’s obviously the most important metric for most things. Wanna be healthy? Wanna eat healthy? Buy a house or two? Want to travel the world? Want a car or two? Want nice clothes that aren’t slave-labour-made? Why should procreation be excluded? A child is probably equal to buying a nice lil summer-house, cost-wise.
You’re free to believe in this simplicity. Surely it’s not used as a means to control the sheeple. If only “common practice and shared belief” then there surely needs to be no hierarchy. But again: totally derailing the point here :)
Then maybe what you are conflating is capitalism and commerce, because the concept of fair trade has been around since the dawn of time and you likely won’t ever get to see it in your city. Try travelling somewhere less “fortunate” with their social/economical expectations and see if your happiness standards still apply.
So still no idea what your point even is. There are some isolated parts of the world with fair-trade and happiness all over where being forced to have a child is great, and being poor doesn’t matter at all for procreation. Makes sense.
My point is that I just made an enormous effort over multiple days and typing with RSI just to try to meet you half way and approximate your circumstances and understand where you’re coming from and why you think that way, while you’re still fixated on projecting this discussion through the lens of “reproduction is misery and a sin” to rationally think about it. If cognition has a metabolic cost then continuing this discussion past this point is technically burning trees too. I hope you find the right question. Good lucky!