Here's why I disagree with this point of view: Children is how we pass on our way of life. And then those children grow up have children of their own and they pass on their way of life. |
|
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. |
|
Here's why I disagree with this point of view: Children is how we pass on our way of life. And then those children grow up have children of their own and they pass on their way of life. |
|
The population will expand to meet the carrying capacity, whether a few people choose to breed or not. Oil and industrial revolution artificially inflated the carrying capacity and when it wanes so will the population unless we find another source of energy, in which case corporatism's system of artificial scarcity will artificially deflate the carrying capacity. Maybe the universe will get lucky and we'll kill ourselves off before we start expanding into space, in which case perhaps the moral thing to do is overbreed so it ends quicker. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Juroara, |
|
The world isn't overpopulated, and there are more than enough resources to support everyone. Hell, most of Canada is empty - the vast majority of us live within a hundred miles of the Canadian-American border. There was a study done not too long ago that concluded that we have enough resources for everyone to live "the good life," they just aren't distributed proportionately. |
|
Jesus, I can't get away from people. I have to go into the desert to get away from people. The forests are full... Forest service roads with forest police driving around, drones flying overhead taking pictures for google earth, rivers damned up, no flowing water, all of it taken for agriculture or drinking water. I doubt there will be enough water for the next generation here in America. The American West is already fighting over water. I suppose we can truck water in, but that will be expensive as hell and not self sufficient at all. Many rivers don't make it to the ocean out here. Salmon are endangered. etc.... Yes, there is always a way to kill all the other animals and cut down all the forests and using every available surface to supply food for humans. There is plenty of room for everyone to keep breeding if we don't value the rights of the other life on this planet. The forest of Canada and Siberia is the last great forest after the destruction of the rainforests. It is our last great oxygen maker and carbon binder. Who cares about polar bears? We can always keep a few around in zoos. And the same goes for Siberian Tigers and all the other animals. There is enough resources for humans so we don't have to worry or change our way of life at all. |
|
The birthrate isn't nearly as bad as it once was/what people make it out to be. |
|
Population growth is dropping in pretty much all developed countries. It could still drop a little more, but I think we are on the right path. I think you can definitely make an argument that people shouldn't have children for the good of humanity, and there are some strong points in favor of such a position. However, I would have to disagree. In my personal belief, I don't really feel it is appropriate to judge people who are not really harming anyone. So I can't say they are morally wrong for having children. I am all for suggesting they don't have them though, and telling them they shouldn't do it lightly and should give it careful consideration before doing so. |
|
Actually, I don't know anyone who's been raised off the grid! So I'm just imagining it can work like that. |
|
Anti-natilism may be intimidating for some because of the premise that preventing harm, even if a person doesn’t come to existence, is good because the chances of harm was halted. But then it raises questions if it’s also a pragmatic stance of preventing good from manifesting (e.g. overcoming hardships, living safe quotidian lifestyles, engaging in gregarious spirit with others, experiencing pleasure, living for the sake of living and embarking on a progressive learning curve of life). |
|
Last edited by Linkzelda; 03-09-2014 at 04:23 AM.
He's asking in terms of contributing to the problems brought about by over population, not causing suffering to a being by bringing them into existence with inherent suffering. Though I like this debate and would like to have it in the philosophy thread, I think you misunderstand. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Debates where everyone is right are my personal favorite, and this is definitely one of them. Funny thing, though, as has already been mentioned, it may also be a purely academic debate. |
|
30 years ago we were supposed to have hover-boards by now, too. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
^^ No, hoverboards were props in a movie, not scientifically and statistically forecast assumptions based on fairly established numbers and trends. But point taken, regardless. |
|
Last edited by Sageous; 03-09-2014 at 06:40 PM.
I never implied he wanted to cause suffering to a being, this is merely addressing his seemingly anti-natalistic queries based on the circumstances. It's pretty simple: reconsidering before procreating for the sake of reducing the potential of suffering that may come with sentience, but this isn't absolving discussion of the potential for experiencing good either. |
|
Last edited by Linkzelda; 03-09-2014 at 06:42 PM.
We aren't over populated, our standards are just too high. |
|
Last edited by dutchraptor; 03-09-2014 at 07:23 PM.
I think cutting back the population growth rate would be a good idea for the well-being of humanity and the natural beauty of earth. My theory on it is have 2 children and most; at least just replace yourselves. |
|
My theory is that we should set forward parameters for breeding. For example, there should be an IQ test and a screening to make sure you're not Jewish. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
^^ Point made again! |
|
Well you folks give me hope.... Thank you! |
|
I don't share your hope unfortunately, people will only change once it's too late. For most problems, it's already too late. |
|
^^ Well that's a downer. |
|
Evolutionarily speaking, morals are rooted in the attempted survival of the human species. However, with the increasing overpopulated human population in a world with limited resources, we can only hope that technological advances as well as an increase in conservative practices (this is why I totally don't agree with extreme left-wingers, despite being part of the new generation). |
|
naturals are what we call people who did all the right things accidentally
It makes sense to be responsible and limit yourself in the interest of everyone else, but suggesting we should stop reproducing altogether and to do so be considered a moral obligation makes as much sense as being morally obliged to have a child, and to compensate, kill yourself, leaving a single parent to raise the child and thus neutralizing the population change. In fact, I would prefer the latter over the former because if it's really such a moral obligation to prevent life from taking place so that others can enjoy the pleasures (and sorrows) of life, it seems far more fair and less selfish to off yourself than to deny someone else the experiences you've already had. Don't you agree, Dannon Oneironaut? |
|
Now I'm no scientist expert or anything but I do suggest that it is jumping to a wild conclusion to say that breeding is the cause of problems. I think it's more complex than that. Fewer people does not mean better lifestyle. A large percentage of the world's land is not even inhabited. If you have ever taken a flight on a plane and looked out the window you can see just how much land is not being used at all. I suggest that it is the way people live their life that is the problem. Not how much room there is or what resources are available. |
|
Bookmarks