Is it selfish to have children?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Absolute rubbish.
What do you propose? Nobody has any more children?

That's really the logical extension of extremist environmentalism.

http://vhemt.org/

Originally posted by techsouth
But if we are truly just a cosmic accident, what meaning can their possibly be in phrases such as "your planet" or "our planet". Asteroids don't care if the collide with planets and cease to independently exist. If I am just a randomly produced carbon unit, why in the world would I care if the planet ceased to exist 1 second after I die (or even right now)?

Why do I care? Because I'm conscious and feel emotions. Why don't asteroids care? Because they're not and don't.

I don't find that the fact that I believe the universe and the human race to be the accidental product of chance forces in any way prevents me from caring about my own happiness and fulfillment during the rest of my life, or the happiness and fulfillment of my family, friends, their children and the children their children will likely go on to have. Many people matter to me; some of those people will outlive me; and those people will go on to have relationships with people that will matter to them and that will outlive them in turn.

Originally posted by sh76
That's really the logical extension of extremist environmentalism.

http://vhemt.org/

Not in the long term. That simply guarantees that the world will become filled with people who don't care about the environment.

Unless those childless people are adopting, they're not being selfless, they are being selfish.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Not in the long term. That simply guarantees that the world will become filled with people who don't care about the environment.

Unless those childless people are adopting, they're not being selfless, they are being selfish.

Call it selfish or call it stupid.

You say tomato I say tomahto.

Originally posted by techsouth
But if we are truly just a cosmic accident, what meaning can their possibly be in phrases such as "your planet" or "our planet". Asteroids don't care if the collide with planets and cease to independently exist. If I am just a randomly produced carbon unit, why in the world would I care if the planet ceased to exist 1 second after I die (or even right no ...[text shortened]... le, who cares? Is this not just the progression of random events among physical particles?

There are no external reasons why anyone should care about anything. All questions of value are internal to the one doing the evaluating and then made normative by group consensus. We certainly value our own life. And as sentient creatures in a social setting, the awareness of others as individuals who similarly value their own lives compels us to engage in a reciprocal manner toward each other. This can then be extended to other species, who certainly deserve not to be driven toward extinction if it can be prevented. Asteroid impacts cannot be prevented. Our despoiling of whole ecosystems can.

The universe as a whole certainly does not care about whether we live or die, or whether the Earth is made uninhabitable or not. It is of no cosmic importance at all. But it should matter to us, living here today.

Originally posted by dryhump
Your concern for the other is foolish in the extreme because you don't know what tomorrow will bring. You do know that right now people are starving to death. Let the future take care of itself and do something to help people now.

If population growth is not brought under control then it is certain that the Earth will be unable, at some point, to sustain our bloated population. Many more people will starve then than are starving now. This idea that we can "let the future take care of itself" is the utmost in foolishness.

Originally posted by rwingett
If population growth is not brought under control then it is certain that the Earth will be unable, at some point, to sustain our bloated population. Many more people will starve then than are starving now. This idea that we can "let the future take care of itself" is the utmost in foolishness.

I disagree. We can't tell what the future holds. Tomorrow could mark the beginning of a worldwide epidemic that wipes out huge numbers of people. One thing we can do is to work to improve the lives of people now. It is foolish to plan for a future which might never be realized. Can you say with certainty that population growth will continue unabated? With certainty I can tell you that tens of thousands of people will die of starvation today. You are worried about a hypothetical future which might never occur. Live in the now.

Originally posted by sh76
The create policies to discourage overpopulation. But to say that individuals shouldn't choose to procreate because there are too many people is a bizarre and impossible-to-work strategy.

China does it so why not everyone else comrade sh76?

Originally posted by Soothfast
Not having children is the single greatest act of environmentalism one can commit.

Suicide is the second.

Don't just sit there man, take action!!

Originally posted by rwingett
Unfortunately, that's about what it's come to. Mankind is like a cancer on the planet.

Yea, the first cancer to try and eliminate itself.

As for myself, I've always pictured myself more as a fungi. I'm always kept in the dark and am constantly up to my knees in some sort of poo.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
agreed, have children that you can raise and take care of, responsibly.

That, my friend, is the name of the game!

Originally posted by rwingett
We are not adapted to our environment. On the contrary, we have adapted our environment to us. There's a big difference. In the former, an environment imposes a limitation on how many of a certain species it can support and remain healthy. In the latter, by exempting themselves from such limitations, mankind can spawn exponentially until the whole environme ...[text shortened]... rn to live within our means, or we can have fewer children. Guess which one is more achievable?

The great majority of "advanced" societies are not breeding sufficiently to maintain population. Some of the third world makes up for the deficiency.

Originally posted by rwingett
Why is it bizarre? It's not necessarily that people shouldn't procreate, it's that they should procreate less than they currently do. I see nothing bizarre about saying so. And there should be policies to discourage it. Maybe tax penalties for every child beyond the first.

That's working well in China.

Originally posted by rwingett
IPAT is a formula for measuring human environmental impact, where I = P x A x T.

I = human environmental impact
P = population
A = affluence
T = technology

So even if we are able to stabilize the population at the optimistic estimate of 10 billion, the negative environmental impact of human population will continue to escalate as their levels of c ...[text shortened]... ly different viewpoint, where success is not defined by ever increasing levels of consumption.

Sounds as if you want someone to choose who lives and who dies.

Originally posted by whodey
China does it so why not everyone else comrade sh76?

China is facing a really big structural problem with the one child rule. Generations of boys are growing up without any girls. They are going to be horney and mad.