Okay, now you're just pushing buttons. I totally love you but I'm seriously pissed off. I'm hoping to sound civil but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE feel free not to post this (or to delete it) if I don't.
If it were as simple as you make it sound, then I'd say your argument was solid.
But, of course, nothing is that simple.
There are issues of health care, birth control, women's rights - and the abuses of all of those - to consider.
Also, if you get into having to defend your right to have children, you have to defend your right to live, since, biologically, we exist to reproduce.
But we have a higher consciousness, you say.
Ah. But according to the argument you put forth, the pure science is all that matters.
So, you see, it's a slippery slope.
I think what got to me more than anything is your comment about bringing children into a world that is dying. I'm not a starry-eyed optimist, but I don't believe the world is dying. I have faith and hope for the future - and my children are part of that future.
I'm losing track of my thoughts now and I've probably not given a very good response. And, I probably won't come back to check the comment thread because I really don't feel like arguing. Truly, truly, J, delete this if you feel it's right -
Aerin: Don't worry! You've said nothing wrong, and I'm certainly not offended. :-) I did write this post to provoke people (and, by the way, I agree with you that the question isn't as simple as this argument makes out.)
I'd love to hear you comment in more detail on what you think of this, but I understand it it bothers you too much. *huggles*
I wish I'd got here before the post was deleted because it's an interesting argument.
If you're arguing against children then you're effectively arguing for the euthanasia of the human race. We wouldn't intentionally do that to any other animal species, so why do it to ourselves? Someone would have to think we had messed up pretty badly and that taking us out of the equation would necessarily make things better. I'm not sure how you'd be defining better.
In any case, it doesn't really matter whether having children is unethical or not because that won't stop people from doing it. I have no regrets at all about having my two sons, whether that's right by someone else's ethical code or not.
I am glad I am arriving late to this one and glad that you chickened out.. the title scares me enough coming out of you. I know you like debate and provoking thoughts but that is a topic I would rather not read. It sounds more volatile than talking religion.
As someone who can't have children but wants them, this would probably have really bothered me. From the sounds of the title, I would be unethical in your eyes if I could and that would be a hard label to have a sister place on anyone.
Without your argument backing up the question it's hard to discuss this one. My glib answer would be, I hope not, because I have two. Less glib, but unsupported because it's late and I'm tired, no I don't think there is anything unethical about having children.
Everyone: It was a hypothetical question. To a large extent, I was playing devil's advocate with a controversial opinion, and I thought it had some merits as food for thought, but I now think it's too emotionally charged a discussion for anyone to debate for fun. Hence, me sprouting feathers and a yellow streak!
A summary of the argument would be that since overpopulation could lead to us going extinct, the only humane way to prevent an ecological nightmare (and a lot of suffering) would be if we humans voluntarily tried not to breed.
Fairyhedgehog: Euthanasia of the human race would mean killing people, and no, I didn't argue for that. However, you're correct that the argument was essentially that we've screwed up pretty badly, but the steps suggested were to prevent us being taken out of the equation by Nature.
I come down firmly on the side of WE ARE BREEDING OUR SELVES TO DEATH!
the human race has exceed every limit that nature has put on us. We have out grown food supplies (invented better growing methods), we have out grown the available space (we invented Cities). When natural diseases and plagues arose as is the case when a population to dense, we have invented drugs and cures. We have wages a century long war on old age to make people stronger and healthier and live longer. in the middle ages and much later 1 in 3 children LIVED, not died, but lived to reach adult hood.
So in that time have we not only increased the number of people, we have increased the rate that we are growing.
For all of China's human rites problems they have the right idea about population growth. They force a birthrate that is just below sustainable levels. There goal to bring there population under 1 billion people. They are not going out and killing people, but abortion is a method they use (not going to touch if that is killing or not) and forced serialization and birth control are used as well. There is less kind methods used also as in killing girl babies so that they can try for a boy (this makes me sick). But having a all male generation will reduce the population fast!
The sad fact is that the earth is out of room for more people. When you live in north America you see allot of vast open space and don't see the problem that this is just simply to many people.
We are at the point that we are crowding out all the other species on the planet. The only solution is to move out! So write your representative and campaign for increased space research and spending. Space is the only pace where we can go!
My personal opinion is that every person should be issued a permit to have children. each permit comes with a test to make sure they would be good parents and is good for half a baby.
A half permit can also be used to adopt a unwanted child or sold at the cost of sterilization to another.
Current studies put the human race at about 2 billion people over the sustainable population that the earth can support.
If that doesn't scare you think about this. WWII was started because Germany needed growing space. Who will need growing room next?
One final point, this kinda puts a mark on the Emotional vs. Reasoned approach. I just had a couple of friends that had a baby, I couldn't be happier for them.
And if I met someone that wanted kids with me I would probably have them, it is biologicle programmed after all.
So we really need a reasoned, intellectual solution that is then enforces against emotion and biology.
11 comments:
Jen -
Okay, now you're just pushing buttons. I totally love you but I'm seriously pissed off. I'm hoping to sound civil but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE feel free not to post this (or to delete it) if I don't.
If it were as simple as you make it sound, then I'd say your argument was solid.
But, of course, nothing is that simple.
There are issues of health care, birth control, women's rights - and the abuses of all of those - to consider.
Also, if you get into having to defend your right to have children, you have to defend your right to live, since, biologically, we exist to reproduce.
But we have a higher consciousness, you say.
Ah. But according to the argument you put forth, the pure science is all that matters.
So, you see, it's a slippery slope.
I think what got to me more than anything is your comment about bringing children into a world that is dying. I'm not a starry-eyed optimist, but I don't believe the world is dying. I have faith and hope for the future - and my children are part of that future.
I'm losing track of my thoughts now and I've probably not given a very good response. And, I probably won't come back to check the comment thread because I really don't feel like arguing. Truly, truly, J, delete this if you feel it's right -
Aerin: Don't worry! You've said nothing wrong, and I'm certainly not offended. :-) I did write this post to provoke people (and, by the way, I agree with you that the question isn't as simple as this argument makes out.)
I'd love to hear you comment in more detail on what you think of this, but I understand it it bothers you too much. *huggles*
I wish I'd got here before the post was deleted because it's an interesting argument.
If you're arguing against children then you're effectively arguing for the euthanasia of the human race. We wouldn't intentionally do that to any other animal species, so why do it to ourselves? Someone would have to think we had messed up pretty badly and that taking us out of the equation would necessarily make things better. I'm not sure how you'd be defining better.
In any case, it doesn't really matter whether having children is unethical or not because that won't stop people from doing it. I have no regrets at all about having my two sons, whether that's right by someone else's ethical code or not.
I am glad I am arriving late to this one and glad that you chickened out.. the title scares me enough coming out of you. I know you like debate and provoking thoughts but that is a topic I would rather not read. It sounds more volatile than talking religion.
As someone who can't have children but wants them, this would probably have really bothered me. From the sounds of the title, I would be unethical in your eyes if I could and that would be a hard label to have a sister place on anyone.
Without your argument backing up the question it's hard to discuss this one. My glib answer would be, I hope not, because I have two. Less glib, but unsupported because it's late and I'm tired, no I don't think there is anything unethical about having children.
Everyone: It was a hypothetical question. To a large extent, I was playing devil's advocate with a controversial opinion, and I thought it had some merits as food for thought, but I now think it's too emotionally charged a discussion for anyone to debate for fun. Hence, me sprouting feathers and a yellow streak!
A summary of the argument would be that since overpopulation could lead to us going extinct, the only humane way to prevent an ecological nightmare (and a lot of suffering) would be if we humans voluntarily tried not to breed.
Fairyhedgehog: Euthanasia of the human race would mean killing people, and no, I didn't argue for that. However, you're correct that the argument was essentially that we've screwed up pretty badly, but the steps suggested were to prevent us being taken out of the equation by Nature.
I come down firmly on the side of WE ARE BREEDING OUR SELVES TO DEATH!
the human race has exceed every limit that nature has put on us. We have out grown food supplies (invented better growing methods), we have out grown the available space (we invented Cities). When natural diseases and plagues arose as is the case when a population to dense, we have invented drugs and cures. We have wages a century long war on old age to make people stronger and healthier and live longer. in the middle ages and much later 1 in 3 children LIVED, not died, but lived to reach adult hood.
So in that time have we not only increased the number of people, we have increased the rate that we are growing.
For all of China's human rites problems they have the right idea about population growth. They force a birthrate that is just below sustainable levels. There goal to bring there population under 1 billion people. They are not going out and killing people, but abortion is a method they use (not going to touch if that is killing or not) and forced serialization and birth control are used as well. There is less kind methods used also as in killing girl babies so that they can try for a boy (this makes me sick). But having a all male generation will reduce the population fast!
The sad fact is that the earth is out of room for more people. When you live in north America you see allot of vast open space and don't see the problem that this is just simply to many people.
We are at the point that we are crowding out all the other species on the planet. The only solution is to move out! So write your representative and campaign for increased space research and spending. Space is the only pace where we can go!
My personal opinion is that every person should be issued a permit to have children. each permit comes with a test to make sure they would be good parents and is good for half a baby.
A half permit can also be used to adopt a unwanted child or sold at the cost of sterilization to another.
Current studies put the human race at about 2 billion people over the sustainable population that the earth can support.
If that doesn't scare you think about this. WWII was started because Germany needed growing space. Who will need growing room next?
A couple of points I missed, at the current rate we are 25 years from doubling the human population.
And the next war for elbow room will be fought by country that will probably have nukes.
One final point, this kinda puts a mark on the Emotional vs. Reasoned approach. I just had a couple of friends that had a baby, I couldn't be happier for them.
And if I met someone that wanted kids with me I would probably have them, it is biologicle programmed after all.
So we really need a reasoned, intellectual solution that is then enforces against emotion and biology.
I think I scared your commenter's away :)
Sarf:
I think I scared your commenter's away :)
I suspect no one wanted to fight...er, debate this too much. :)
Post a Comment