Debates
13 Sep 11
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by invigorateIt can be leading your life on exactly your own terms to have children.
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?
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.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by invigorateIf 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?
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?
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by invigorateIs it more selfish not have children and lead your life on exactly your own terms?
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?
Children are the vehicles for our selfish genes, any path that deviates from the goal of reproduction will be less selfish surely.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by generalissimoSo sexual reproduction is a compromise, suggesting that there is a more selfish entity involved than the individual. Is it the species?
[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]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by invigorateIs it selfish for a monkey to have little-monkeys?
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?
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.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by shavixmirThere aren't 7 billion+ monkeys that are destroying their environment.
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.
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.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettDid you tell your DNA that?
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.
What did it reply?
And that, my friend, is the problem.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by shavixmirThen 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.
Did you tell your DNA that?
What did it reply?
And that, my friend, is the problem.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettIt still doesn't make having children selfish.
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.