Friday, June 21, 2013

The good old days...yeah, well, maybe but...

In the mid 60s, when I was born, Australia's population had just clocked over 10 million.

My father worked and my mother was, well, a mother. She stayed home and looked after her kids.
David (me), Fred, Andrew

There were only the two of us - my brother and I.

They received no "benefits" from the government, my mother had no income whatsoever - no part time job, no nothing.

We knew people who had been in their jobs their whole life and then retired. These people retired onto a pension that was actually OK as I recall.

There was no overwhelming sense of entitlement from the population. Australia seemed to work hard for what they had and, for the most part, were happy with that.

My brother and I weren't spoiled. We didn't get anywhere near everything we wanted. Although TV tried hard to make us want as much as possible.

When I couldn't get the toy I wanted I made it out of Meccano or Lego.

I received a token sized "allowance" and if I wanted something more expensive than I could afford, guess what, I saved up. Later on I got a paper run and worked in a store. I didn't earn much but I learnt the value of money and it stopped me wasting it on many things seen as "social problems" these days.

Fast forward 40 odd years and Australia is a very different place.
Anne, David (me), Andrew

Our population is 23 million, both parents have to work (apparently), and no-one stays in a job for more than a few years.

The concept of retiring and getting a pension are all but long vanished fantasies.

These days we have to contribute to our own superannuation to fund our "retirement" which is, by the way, getting further and further away. The government wants to skim more off your super and force you to continue contributing to it for longer and longer.

Their excuse is that we are "living longer" so we have to stay in work longer. They can't afford to fund longer and longer "retirements".

I've given up on the traditional view of retirement. I'll never get one of those.

We are told by the powers that be that our population needs to grow to ensure we can fund the future, look after the oldies and not end up with an aging population that will be a burden on the taxpayer.
David (me) - no fancy stroller

Interesting isn't it considering where we've come from.

Our population has doubled, we work more than ever, we live longer than ever yet we'll never have the golden age of retirement that our parents enjoy...probably enjoy...anyway.

To me it seems clear we already have that problem.

To me this seems pretty clear evidence that growing the population does not fix the problem.

To me it seems pretty clear that growing the population has made it worse.

10 million people - got to retire
23 million people - get to work harder, longer, get screwed by super and CAN'T retire

But Dad did have an old Merc'
That doesn't seem like a win to me. What it does prove to me is that throwing babies at the problem is NOT the answer.

Yet all over the world our politicians continue to push the populate or perish bandwagon.

To be fair, honesty and dealing with facts have never been the strong point of any politician.

That simply means that once again it is up to us, the individuals with brains, to fix things.


Well, for starters how about we stop funding middle class welfare. These folks who have way more than my family did in the 60s are bitching about needing help to raise their kids.

This is bullshit plain and simple.

Welfare is for people who can't cope, it is not for selfish people who want a new TV.

Most of this welfare is not means tested and goes to people who simply do not need it. If you disagree I suggest you refer to the definition of "need" in the dictionary. I am sure you won't find "the state in which your 3 year old BMW must be replaced by an SUV at the taxpayers expense."

I think the days of handing out any form of welfare as cash must end.

I don't care who you are or why you are on welfare. If you get money for food, healthcare, looking after the elderly...whatever, as a taxpayer I want you to spend that money on the things you've been given it for.
Fred and his work van

So instead of cash, hand out vouchers. I know there are flaws with this type of thing, but there are fewer holes than handing out cash for fuck's sake.

So to get back on track...

I am not particularly the type to bang on about the good old days. I know things are pretty bloody brilliant right now. But there were some things that we had and we've lost because we've been greedy.

There are lots of reasons why population growth is bad and a fundamentally flawed concept.

It won't be until we realise we are hurting ourselves, and actually feel the pain, that we do anything about it.

It is like banging your head against the wall, you can't remember why you started doing it in the first place and  it feels great when you stop.

The experiment failed. 
Let's do something better...something smarter!

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Some baby bonuses I'd like to see...

The baby bonus pisses me off.

If you are here you probably have a good idea of the reasons why this is the case.

Planetary problems aside, rewarding "everyone" for giving birth sends the wrong message.

It sends the message that all you have to do is fuck to get money.

It sends the message that giving birth is enough and that is where your responsibility ends.

Considering how irresponsible current society is and how much of a welfare mindset is engendered by our leaders it seems ironically fair that we should fuck up a child's perspective the moment they exit the womb.

The fact that these monies are not means tested in any true sense irks me. The fact that there are many other un-tested bonuses given to people for just having kids irks me.

Recently a TV campaign...let me say that again...a TV campaign started airing on Australian TV telling everyone about such "Non means tested payment" childcare payments that every household could claim for each child PER ANNUM!! So they are paying a fortune to advertise to give away a fortune to whoever just has kids?!!? Genius!

The fact that these monies DON'T get spent on the things they are supposed to irks me to the extreme. Just look at retail spending spikes on TVs, perfume and jewellery every time a baby bonus payment goes out to the spawning masses.

Now we all know that governments and politicians are hopeless at handing money, money they call "Government Money" that is really our money.

This "Government Money" label seems to give them the feeling of the right to spend and waste it how they like. Fuck no!

Even the dullest of folks usually know that you don't pay for something until:

a) it is in our hot little hands
b) we know what we are getting

So, assuming (sadly) that most people are stupid and still require some financial incentive to breed, here are some baby bonus ideas I'd like implemented:

1) The "My child has not been arrested bonus"

This bonus is paid to parents upon a child turning 21 and having NOT been in trouble with the police in any fashion. If the police have your child's name on file you've blown the bonus.

Notice how this bonus is paid when most bonuses are traditionally paid - after the successful achievement.

NB: The CF would qualify for this.

2) The "My child finished year 12 bonus" and/or "My child graduated tertiary education bonus".

This bonus is paid when a child completes basic and/or higher education at a sufficient level. It isn't enough just to hang around and be an arse. I know, I did that, you actually have to have decent grades.

If a child has achieved that then the parent has probably done a reasonable job. Incentives all round and a result that may actually not be bad for society. The kid is likely to get a job and not be a drain on the economy.

Notice how this bonus is paid when most bonuses are traditionally paid - after the successful achievement.

3) The "My child has never been a bludger bonus"

This is paid to parents after a child has reached the age of 40 without ever having been on government benefits of any kind.

If your child has already been a drain on the country then sorry, no fucking reward for you!

This bonus could actually be paid to people without kids as they would automatically qualify. fat fucking chance, but worth a try ;-)

4) The "My child actually is the next Einstein or Mozart bonus"

One of the whines we hear all the time about managing population is "what if my child is the next Einstein or Mozart?".

Yeah, well, what the fucken IF.

Here's an idea, when your child has presented the world with a ground breaking theory in the world of science OR written a half decent symphony, then you get a bonus. No age limit on this one.

So you see folks, reward the outcomes of the big picture, not just the vagina, and we may just have a chance that our money isn't wasted on crack and TVs.

DISCLAIMER: Only some of this post is meant to be a joke. You work out which bits. :-)

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Participants Needed - CF survey

[Forwarded message]
My name is Philippa Scott and I am completing my honours year in psychology through Charles Sturt University. I am conducting research with people who are making a decision not to have children. I’m using interviews to explore the experiences of people (both male and female) who have made a choice to not have children (whether biologically, adopted or via any other pathways) and live in rural New South Wales.
If you are making the choice not to have children, are over 18 years of age (male or female) and live in country New South Wales, I would be grateful if you would consider volunteering to participate in this study. All your information would be kept anonymous. I am really interested in listening to your experiences and am open to hearing anything you have to say concerning your choice.
I am happy to meet with anyone interested at a time and place most suitable to you.
Feel free to contact me on 0401166990 or at for more information. You can also pass this onto to anyone you think may be interested!
Thank you for your time.
If you have any complaints or concerns about this research contact:

The Secretary
School of Psychology Ethics Committee
Charles Sturt University
Panorama Avenue
Bathurst NSW 2795

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

"surely I don't deserve to lose my ability to earn an income just because I have a child?"

Aussie CFs -- the unions have created a website for workers to comment on work-life balance but, yep, you guessed it, it is REALLY about work-family balance.
This article asks rhetorically, "surely I don't deserve to lose my ability to earn an income just because I have a child?"
Well, surely *I* don't deserve to be assigned the shitty shifts just because I don't have a child, because someone else wants a zero-sum impact on their life because they chose to be a parent?
Feel free to add your comments.

Here's the comment I left. Let's see if it gets through moderation. Most of the other comments are pretty funny and unsupportive of the premise.,


Surely I don't deserve to lose the income I earn because someone else chooses to have a baby?

Right now Australia is living in a pro-natalist self serving deception of rights with no responsibilities.

YOU chose to have kids, you deal with it.

This whole notion that the whole world should evolve around someone just because they've had a child is simply madness and at the very least impractical.

With the majority of folk having kids these days, should we do everything everyone one of them wants just because they've had kids? That certainly seems to be the growing message.

People magically want to "have a job" without much of a concept as to what goes on behind the scenes. 

People who run businesses have to jump through so many hoops just to take a person on, many of them give up trying to help you.

In recent times I have watched several people take on new jobs within a couple of months go on 6 months or more maternity leave.

Now you may say "that's their right". You know what, it f***ing isn't. It is plain rude, inconsiderate and selfish. That employer now can't fill that role. A role initially created because they needed something done. A role they probably spent training you for only to have to go through that again.

As a small business owner myself I can tell you that sort of financial pain is crippling if not downright terminal.

And, by the way, it should be noted that the definition of a family is far greater than just those who have children.

Even IF that was the case, surprise surprise we are all somebody's child. 

So wake up, put on your big boy pants, and deal with the life YOU CHOSE to have.

Monday, April 29, 2013

iPhone vs iBaby...

On the weekend I saw comedian Adam Hills's show "Happyism".

In it he said he "children are like iPhones, people who have them just bang on about them".

He said this because he was starting to bang on about his 3 year old child and, to his credit, he didn't want to bore us with it...but he did go on about it a bit anyway :-)

It reminded me that I hadn't posted here for a while and that that pretty much correlates with my promise to only post, or at least try to post, positive things about being CF and life in general.

Adam's show is about positivity to a large extent and I must confess, despite laughing until I cried during the show, I came out of it feeling a bit down about my life and what I've achieved.

Don't get me wrong, fuck, I am not going to make it worse by having kids in a vain attempt to plug a hole in my achievements. :-)

I've also been having a crisis of career lately. I won't bore that with you here except to say I was wondering if focusing on the child-free thing again, properly this time, may be the way ahead.

After all, as this article points out, the most effective way to help the planet right now is for humans to NOT reproduce at such ridiculous levels.

"Want to save the planet? Don't have any children"

It is an important message that does seem to be catching on a little bit.

So should I dedicate myself to it more or not?

Who benefits? Certainly not me or my family. After this generation there won't be any.

Is that a hole in the business plan? It is just too easily labelled as a cynical marketing exercise "why do you care about the planet? It isn't like your kids are going to be using it."

...and that's a good point. You'd think that would wake breeders up to the reality of what is taking place...
...they are fucking up the planet that their kids are living in.

Still, as long as we keep bringing up things to be scared of that may end the world anyway, why bother?

Speaking of the end of the world, so which is worse; parents or Apple disciples? 

Bloody hell, what if they are both?

"...and that children, is how the Apocalypse started. Not with nuclear war or four horsemen, but a bunch of wankers who had too many children. They consumed the entire planet's resources in a desperate and hopeless attempt to own the next iPhone."

Friday, April 26, 2013

Survey request - forwarded for your pleasure :-)

I thought some of you may like to help Hannah out:

Hi David, 
I had an interview with you for my Personal interest project on Childfree By Choice, last year it was very helpful. I am now wondering if you would be able to complete my survey and if possible pass on the link to other people you think maybe interested ?

Thank you very much for considering this request

Hannah Lipscomb :)

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

Do you want to be on Can of Worms? [Forwarded Media request]

[Forwarded Media request]
Hi David,

Further to our conversation, I work on the show Can of Worms.

Tomorrow night (in Melbourne) we will be asking the question: IS 45 TOO OLD TO BECOME A PARENT? We are looking to include a range of experiences and stories in the discussion.

1) We’d like to speak with someone who says YES 45 is too old to have a child.

Why have you chosen not to have a child? Have you had any friends or family who have had a child at an older age?

2) We’d also like to speak with someone who has grown up with older parents. They might say YES it is too old or NO it’s not a problem and hasn’t been for them.

What was growing up like with parents who were significantly older than your friends folks? How did it impact you as a kid? Has it changes your view on when to have (or not have) a family?

Many thanks!


Georgie Lewin
Associate Producer | Can of Worms

Cordell Jigsaw Zapruder
16-18 Meagher Street
Chippendale  NSW
Australia  2008
p +61 2 9217 2258
f  +61 2 9319 2122
m +61 413 413 519

Monday, February 11, 2013

Air Asia X has created a no-cry zone

It is a bargain at $15 extra but sorry, 12 years old is too low....

"FORGET no-fly zones - Air Asia X has created a no-cry zone.

The budget airline is easing pain on its planes for passengers fed up with bawling babes and troublesome tots.

The airline, which flies to Kuala Lumpur five times a week from the Gold Coast, has launched an in-flight "quiet zone", an adults-only sanctuary where grown-ups can relax in bliss with kids barred from entry. The concept involves the first seven rows of economy being exclusive to passengers over the age of 12."

Read the rest here...

If I ever have to fly the route I am doing it...absolutely! :-)

Thank you Air Asia, you're onto a winner.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Why it is important not to have children. -- Richard Stallman

Why it is important not to have children.

-- Richard Stallman

I decided not to have children. My family was full of tension and anger, and then I noticed that many others were too. Such a family life was in no way attractive. When older, often I saw parents rebuke their children for playing with me, or even in my vicinity, assuming it would bother me — without waiting to see if I objected. Rebuking those children had become an ingrained, automatic habit. To see this made me sad for them, but I knew I would be the same as a parent. I would not be able cope with a frequently crying baby without becoming upset and angry.

Of course, many people tell themselves, "That happens to others, but I am better than they; I will get it right." Obviously, most of them are mistaken. I did not suppose that I would succeed in human relationships where most people fail.

Most fathers in the US have to work very hard to get money for their children. I did not want a life of running on a treadmill, doing whatever people with money would tell me to do.

A large fraction of US fathers eventually get divorced, and subsequently rarely see the children for whom they are spending most of their time scrabbling for money. What a futile life! But even those who are not yet divorced see their children little, since they are so busy at work.

I am convinced I made a wise personal decision in avoiding this. But I was not the only one that benefitted from it. Everyone did. Not having children is an important contribution to humanity. My decision probably reduced the 2050 population by 5 to 10 people.

Overpopulation is a tremendous danger to civilization and the ecosphere. It makes every human-caused ecological problem bigger. Population growth has slowed but not stopped. The human population is expected to grow by 2 or 3 billion by 2050, and it is not clear how to find water and food for all those people. Population growth also increases the difficulty of curbing global heating.

Thus, the decision about having children is, for most people, the most important decision in their lives about how they will affect humanity's resource footprint in the future.

That decision enabled me to contribute something else: to launch GNU and the free software movement. Having no dependents, I could dedicate myself to what seemed right rather than to whatever someone with money wanted me to do. If you are reading this page, it is because that decision enabled me to make contributions to humanity that people appreciate.

I therefore urge you to do as I did, and have no children. I don't wish that nobody had any children, but there is no risk of that; for the numbers I could hope to influence, the influence is for the good.

Some make the absurd argument that population decline is the real danger. In 50 years, they claim, everyone will have a comfortable life, so they may have few children (as tends to happen in developed societies today), and the human population could decline. If this went on for millenia, humanity might disappear. Is that a real possibility?

First of all, it disregards the tremendous disaster that global heating and destruction of the natural world are leading towards. 30 years from now, large parts of humanity will probably find it hard to get water or food, let alone contraception. It is unlikely we will provide most of humanity with a decent European-style life with the current world population. So there is little chance, in that world, of population decrease because everyone is comfortable.

Supposing we avoid the disaster and eliminate poverty, 50 years later we might reach a stage where everyone prefers a small family. However, 50 years after that we will probably have greatly extended the human life span. That means a much smaller number of births per adult per year would be enough to maintain a stable population. The danger of overpopulation might even return.

The first hurdle is to avoid the disaster. Having no children will help, and it will free you to do something else that will help.

Copyright 2012 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Off topic, but Think Tasmania

Tania at Think Tasmania has written a lovely article about me and my business :-)

I'm not cheeky I cheeky? ;-)

Thanks heaps Tania!

Share the love everyone and keep Think Tasmania in mind when you want to share your wonderful Tassie experiences with the world :-)