Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber invigorate
    Only 1 F in Uckfield
    13 Sep '11 21:53
    With finite resources does this world need that many more humans?
    Is it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?
  2. 13 Sep '11 22:32
    With the world's limited resources is it selfish to live even one more hour?

    Even one more second?
  3. 13 Sep '11 22:35
    Originally posted by invigorate
    With finite resources does this world need that many more humans?
    Is it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?
    It can be leading your life on exactly your own terms to have children.

    But at this moment in history I would say, don't have your own children, adopt or otherwise contribute to the well being of those already born.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Sep '11 22:45
    Originally posted by invigorate
    With finite resources does this world need that many more humans?
    Is it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?
    If you're not perpetuating humanity, then who gives a damn whether the resources are used up? Why do we care about there being resources other than to service ourselves and our posterity?
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    13 Sep '11 23:44
    Originally posted by sh76
    If you're not perpetuating humanity, then who gives a damn whether the resources are used up? Why do we care about there being resources other than to service ourselves and our posterity?
    Why do you hate Mother Nature?
  6. 13 Sep '11 23:53
    Originally posted by sh76
    If you're not perpetuating humanity, then who gives a damn whether the resources are used up? Why do we care about there being resources other than to service ourselves and our posterity?
    Keynes said much the same. "In the long run, we'll all be dead."
  7. 14 Sep '11 00:07
    Originally posted by invigorate
    With finite resources does this world need that many more humans?
    Is it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?
    Is it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?

    Children are the vehicles for our selfish genes, any path that deviates from the goal of reproduction will be less selfish surely.
  8. 14 Sep '11 01:07
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    [b]Is it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?

    Children are the vehicles for our selfish genes, any path that deviates from the goal of reproduction will be less selfish surely.[/b]
    So sexual reproduction is a compromise, suggesting that there is a more selfish entity involved than the individual. Is it the species?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction
  9. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    14 Sep '11 10:35
    Originally posted by invigorate
    With finite resources does this world need that many more humans?
    Is it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?
    Is it selfish for a monkey to have little-monkeys?
    No. Of course not.

    You are a vehicle for your DNA. And your DNA gets shorter each year you live, so the DNA wants you to procreate to be able to survive.

    And that's about the sum of it all.
  10. 14 Sep '11 10:44
    Originally posted by invigorate
    Is it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?[/b]
    Hilarious!!
  11. Donation rwingettonline
    Ming the Merciless
    14 Sep '11 10:59
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Is it selfish for a monkey to have little-monkeys?
    No. Of course not.

    You are a vehicle for your DNA. And your DNA gets shorter each year you live, so the DNA wants you to procreate to be able to survive.

    And that's about the sum of it all.
    There aren't 7 billion+ monkeys that are destroying their environment.

    How successful do you think we'll be in propagating our DNA when the planet becomes uninhabitable? In the long term, overpopulation is a losing strategy.
  12. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    14 Sep '11 11:21
    Originally posted by rwingett
    There aren't 7 billion+ monkeys that are destroying their environment.

    How successful do you think we'll be in propagating our DNA when the planet becomes uninhabitable? In the long term, overpopulation is a losing strategy.
    Did you tell your DNA that?

    What did it reply?
    And that, my friend, is the problem.
  13. Donation rwingettonline
    Ming the Merciless
    14 Sep '11 12:00
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Did you tell your DNA that?

    What did it reply?
    And that, my friend, is the problem.
    Then why doesn't any other species permanently overpopulate their environment? They're all getting the same messages from their respective DNA that we are. The problem is not the DNA, but rather because we control our own food supply we have exempted ourselves from any external limiting factors on population growth. My entry in the sermon competition in the spirituality forum deals with this very topic.
  14. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    14 Sep '11 12:09
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Then why doesn't any other species permanently overpopulate their environment? They're all getting the same messages from their respective DNA that we are. The problem is not the DNA, but rather because we control our own food supply we have exempted ourselves from any external limiting factors on population growth. My entry in the sermon competition in the spirituality forum deals with this very topic.
    It still doesn't make having children selfish.
  15. Donation rwingettonline
    Ming the Merciless
    14 Sep '11 12:27
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    It still doesn't make having children selfish.
    It does if you are aware of the consequences and could prevent them.