Is there any justification for having (biological) children?
Options
Huruma
Members Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
ecological - there's no point in reducing your carbon footprint if you're just going to create more carbon footprints. Climate change will be unbelievable in a few decades, and even more so in a few centuries. Soon, the planet will be unrecognizable and almost uninhabitable by human beings. Maybe future technology or discovering a new, renewable source of energy will improve the situation but this can't be assumed. It would be best if the global human population were less than 1 billion. It's amazing that hunters can justify killing wolves and other non-human animals in the interests of maintaining their population so that the ecosystem can support them but they can't apply the same reasoning to their own species when, relative to the impact humans have on the environment, no other group of animals is as overpopulated.
philanthropic - for evolutionary reasons, animals feel pain more easily than we feel pleasure (this is why it's easier to harm someone than it is to make them happy, because of this, we can't even imagine happiness that is equivalent to the worst suffering in the world). Maybe genetic engineering or biotechnology will eliminate human suffering in the future but for the time being, any child brought into the world has more to lose than to gain. The risk of creating children who will suffer unimaginably outweighs the possibility (even likeliness) of them living a comparatively, mildly pleasant life (there's also some research that suggests people exaggerate the quality of their lives but I won't stand by this since I can't find it online and people can determine for themselves whether they live relatively happy lives, the fact remains that any child brought into existence could have an unbearably painful genetic disease, there's a 1 in 6 chance they will develop some kind of mental illness, it's probable that they'll spend their adult lives working at jobs they can't stand, they might be permanently disfigured from some kind of accident, they might be diagnosed with cancer or some other pain disease, terminal or otherwise, no parent has any idea what kind of lives their children might have).
Doesn't it make more sense to take care of already existing children (adoption) than to create more?
philanthropic - for evolutionary reasons, animals feel pain more easily than we feel pleasure (this is why it's easier to harm someone than it is to make them happy, because of this, we can't even imagine happiness that is equivalent to the worst suffering in the world). Maybe genetic engineering or biotechnology will eliminate human suffering in the future but for the time being, any child brought into the world has more to lose than to gain. The risk of creating children who will suffer unimaginably outweighs the possibility (even likeliness) of them living a comparatively, mildly pleasant life (there's also some research that suggests people exaggerate the quality of their lives but I won't stand by this since I can't find it online and people can determine for themselves whether they live relatively happy lives, the fact remains that any child brought into existence could have an unbearably painful genetic disease, there's a 1 in 6 chance they will develop some kind of mental illness, it's probable that they'll spend their adult lives working at jobs they can't stand, they might be permanently disfigured from some kind of accident, they might be diagnosed with cancer or some other pain disease, terminal or otherwise, no parent has any idea what kind of lives their children might have).
Doesn't it make more sense to take care of already existing children (adoption) than to create more?
Comments
-
How you gonna decide who should reproduce though?
-
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »How you gonna decide who should reproduce though?
................... -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »How you gonna decide who should reproduce though?
That refers more to the ecological argument against breeding. People should have a right to reproductive autonomy (only because I think the consequences of denying them this right would do more harm than good), some people will always choose to have children but it would make a big difference if most people were convinced not to. I would hope that the ones who do decided to continue breeding would be among the most intelligent, compassionate and healthy (those who have a genetic disposition to cheerfulness and optimism and are less likely to pass on harmful genetic diseases/conditions or a tendency towards anti-social behavior). -
Although I'd call ? on the climate change predictions, I do think the world is overpopulated and the genetic quality of the species is too low. So not everyone should reproduce.
If I willingly procreated, it would be to see if I could produce another version of myself, and what the results would be. -
I would hope that the ones who do decided to continue breeding would be among the most intelligent, compassionate and healthy
Idiocracy. Not the best movie, but the premise is valid. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »Idiocracy. Not the best movie, but the premise is valid.
Welcome to Cosco, i love you. -
i have yet to hear a sound reason for anybody to have children.
Its just a biological urge to reproduce that mostly all living beings have. Compounded by the fact that societies idea of social success & fulfillment is a "family."
I dont share that view. -
Isn't this one of the theories for homosexuality existing?
-
Why should people be forced to take care of some fool's kids when we could make are own? Wouldn't be fair at all, the ? gets to continue his/her gene line, while smarter people are forced to raise them. (excluding kids that are orphans due to their parents dying)
But yeah, people need to stop having all these babies. -
Why should people be forced to take care of some fool's kids when we could make are own? Wouldn't be fair at all, the ? gets to continue his/her gene line, while smarter people are forced to raise them. (excluding kids that are orphans due to their parents dying)
But yeah, people need to stop having all these babies.
You do realize the overpopulation thread starter is referencing comes from underdeveloped countries right....
Which leads to my question for the T/S. So overpopulation is the problem right. Well what has caused said problem? Me thinks you woke up and thought you had a grand idea instead of doing some real research. -
smart dumb ? thread. prime example of when mental ? goes wrong. btw...overpopulation is a myth.
-
smart dumb ? thread. prime example of when mental ? goes wrong. btw...overpopulation is a myth.
I'll agree with the first part of you post
but it being a myth??? wtf are you talking about -
The world is NOT overpopulated. You can fit the entire world's population in the state of Texas with the same density of the population of Tokyo.I'll agree with the first part of you post
but it being a myth??? wtf are you talking about
People think the world is over populated for 2 reasons:
1. Everybody says it and when you say something enough people dont bother to see if it's really true they just accept it.
2. European + American's are greedy and steal other people's resources and when there is a crisis in the land's they steal from they say, "oooh well there isnt enough water in the world. We have a water shortage. There isnt enough food in the world for all these people."
But there is plenty of water & plenty of food. Just that Americans and Europeans consume way more than what we need to survive and leave everybody else with next to nothing. So instead of just admitting that and changing the easiest conclusion to come to is, "well...must be too many muthafukkas on the planet I guess." -
The world is NOT overpopulated. You can fit the entire world's population in the state of Texas with the same density of the population of Tokyo.
Proof? I think that's drastically overstated.
And I agree population density isn't as dire as ppl make it.there is plenty of water & plenty of food. Just that Americans and Europeans consume way more than what we need to survive and leave everybody else with next to nothing. So instead of just admitting that and changing the easiest conclusion to come to is, "well...must be too many muthafukkas on the planet I guess."
At least we both agree that there is a finite amount of resources but an ever increasing rate of consumption amongst humans. That consumption part we both agree gets distorted.
But as I say this, if the UN came back with a report (and they may have already) that says Americans/Europeans have to knock their consumption down to pre Vietnam (just throwing out a time period) which would effect: oil, water, food, clothing.....you would be agree to live your life that way?
I hate to quote the internet phrase, "Once you see it, you can't unsee it," but once you live a modern American lifestlye its kind of hard to go back. Of course this depends on how far back we would have to live.
I'm all for moderation by the way..... -
You do realize the overpopulation thread starter is referencing comes from underdeveloped countries right....
Which leads to my question for the T/S. So overpopulation is the problem right. Well what has caused said problem? Me thinks you woke up and thought you had a grand idea instead of doing some real research.
I was under the impression that he was talking about all humans, and the reference was directed at all humans. We could just ? the unwanted children, but people wont have that....
(well yes they will, as long as they don't know about it, and don't have to get their hands ? ) -
i have yet to hear a sound reason for anybody to have children.
Its just a biological urge to reproduce that mostly all living beings have. Compounded by the fact that societies idea of social success & fulfillment is a "family."
I dont share that view.
I would argue that most humans have a biological urge to mate (and a psychological urge to nurture and form close, familial relationships), the idea of 'living on through your genes' is a cultural one. Humans are probably the only animals who realize that sex leads to offspring and are even aware of the concept of genetic inheritance.
As for overpopulation, I'm aware that people starve for political reasons, not because there isn't enough food to go around. The world is probably capable of feeding 12 billion humans. My concern was with the carbon footprint of a larger population and how this will further contribute to anthropogenic global warming, not about running out of food and clean water (although global warming will negatively effect crop production).
Fiat,
There's empirical research to support 'my' predictions. -
...Fiat,
There's empirical research to support 'my' predictions.
Proof/link?...Climate change will be unbelievable in a few decades, and even more so in a few centuries. Soon, the planet will be unrecognizable and almost uninhabitable by human beings....
Or are these some kind of "worst case scenario" theories? -
smart dumb ? thread. prime example of when mental ? goes wrong. btw...overpopulation is a myth.
no its not......... -
jonlakadeadmic wrote: »no its not.........
Yes it is, as Darx already stated, we live off of wasteful models for life in the west. Vertical greenhouses replacing office buildings of the same height can solve a lot of the food shortages. We could put everyone in the world in comfortable sized condos scattered through out america, and have the rest of the world as wilderness.
Cats are just livin it up right now and dont want to be taken out of their comfort zone, so they hype up hyperdense 3rd - 1st world communities as an excuse to tell everyone to cut back everyones lifestyle, while the dudes cakin at the top continue to exploit land for fun, leisure and resources. -
jonlakadeadmic wrote: »no its not.........
What they really mean by 'over population' is: the world is full of undesirable humans -
Useless eaters
-
Real ? , this is exactly what I'm referring to when I say the world is overpopulated. It's mainly humans who aren't children and still can't survive on their own, but also the humans with presently-incurable contagious diseases, and severely genetically defective humans as well.BiblicalAtheist wrote: »What they really mean by 'over population' is: the world is full of undesirable humans -
You can fit the entire world's population in the state of Texas with the same density of the population of Tokyo.
a texas-sized tokyo would drive everyone insane
tokyo-sized tokyo is bad enough as it is -
i have yet to hear a sound reason for anybody to have children.
Its just a biological urge to reproduce that mostly all living beings have. Compounded by the fact that societies idea of social success & fulfillment is a "family."
I dont share that view.
I don't share that view either. Having kids in an already overpopulated planet (financially speaking) seems stupid and crazy to me. I've given up good relationships because of my desire to never have kids, but I like my peace of mind even more. I'd much prefer playing my PS3 and ? as many ? as I want than being tied down to watch how often my seed is gona ? in his or her diaper.
In either case, I'm happier than most parents I know. -
ecological - there's no point in reducing your carbon footprint if you're just going to create more carbon footprints. Climate change will be unbelievable in a few decades, and even more so in a few centuries. Soon, the planet will be unrecognizable and almost uninhabitable by human beings. Maybe future technology or discovering a new, renewable source of energy will improve the situation but this can't be assumed. It would be best if the global human population were less than 1 billion. It's amazing that hunters can justify killing wolves and other non-human animals in the interests of maintaining their population so that the ecosystem can support them but they can't apply the same reasoning to their own species when, relative to the impact humans have on the environment, no other group of animals is as overpopulated.
philanthropic - for evolutionary reasons, animals feel pain more easily than we feel pleasure (this is why it's easier to harm someone than it is to make them happy, because of this, we can't even imagine happiness that is equivalent to the worst suffering in the world). Maybe genetic engineering or biotechnology will eliminate human suffering in the future but for the time being, any child brought into the world has more to lose than to gain. The risk of creating children who will suffer unimaginably outweighs the possibility (even likeliness) of them living a comparatively, mildly pleasant life (there's also some research that suggests people exaggerate the quality of their lives but I won't stand by this since I can't find it online and people can determine for themselves whether they live relatively happy lives, the fact remains that any child brought into existence could have an unbearably painful genetic disease, there's a 1 in 6 chance they will develop some kind of mental illness, it's probable that they'll spend their adult lives working at jobs they can't stand, they might be permanently disfigured from some kind of accident, they might be diagnosed with cancer or some other pain disease, terminal or otherwise, no parent has any idea what kind of lives their children might have).
Doesn't it make more sense to take care of already existing children (adoption) than to create more?
You're a smart guy, and I agree with everything you said. And I do believe it makes sense to take care of the kids who exist already, rather than add to the tons of people out here who are a burden on society financially and ecologically. My reasons for not wanting kids though are very selfish, I just don't want the stress.
