On the Rights of Members' Babies: Selfishness and Short-Sightedness Only Cut Off Your Own Future

There is a story that goes like this: a man lost his silver; the person who found it kept waiting at the spot for the owner, and in the end it was returned. The finder missed his boat because of this, and everyone called him foolish. But soon word came that the boat had capsized — fortunately the man had not boarded it. The affairs of this world are truly wondrous.

Why is there not much opposition to mutual aid for the elderly, but so much opposition to aid for newborns? Because every household has elderly people, but many may not have more children, so helping babies feels unfair.

But even if you will not have more children, what about your sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters — will they have children? Might they too enjoy this policy?

Let us set aside love and the spirit of dedication here and speak only of self-interest and gain. Let us analyse the enormous benefits this policy brings to our personal interests.

The premise of our vote is children born to couples who have been members for one full year. This ensures that the baby arrives without the parents' prior knowledge, ruling out the risk of adverse selection.

The bond between parents and their baby is the hardest thing in the world to fake (even if extreme cases exist). Suppose health problems were found after conception — with today's techniques for healthy birth and healthy childrearing, what parents would give birth to a clearly unhealthy baby for the sake of a few tens of thousands of yuan?

In this way, the scenario of deliberately giving birth to an unhealthy baby in order to seek help is essentially eliminated. The probability of a member's baby needing help is small, such babies are worth helping, and each person's extra contribution will not be large.

Let us continue.

If a baby is healthy, he or she automatically becomes a member — together with the parents, that makes three people. In other words, this single policy can bring in three healthy young people. That means an extra 2.5 people helping to share the cost. And the risk of serious illness for those 2.5 people is very low.

Do you know what this means for the Commune? It means sustainability!

The Commune's average age is currently 30. Suppose the average age were 60 — then your annual burden would be 3,000–5,000 yuan. Could you afford it? Would you still be willing to stay in the Commune? And when most people leave, where will your protection be?

Someone else says this measure may not attract young people. Perhaps — but that is fine too. It would simply mean that few members' newborns are born, and so there would be no aid cases at all!

Now look back at the story above and think again: on the surface we help others, but in reality we are preserving our own way out!