Selfish breeding

[Rebdragon]

Cheer up emo kids.

 

Also, all y'all complaining about overpopulation need some learnin. Yes, net result population is going up. But in nearly all developed nations total population is either neutral or decreasing. It's developed nations that are experiencing growth because of an increase in sanitation and antibiotics not counterbalanced by a change in culture (parents have lots of kids for security later in life, but now kids aren't dying young, so there's a population explosion).

[Will H]

I think that having one or two children isn't selfish, it's perfectly natural, but intentionally having significantly more is. It's important to keep the next generation going, but also to reduce the rate at which couples are exceeding the numbers to replace them (i.e. three or more). As far as I am aware, this is already happening, and if this works, the population will level off, the best case scenario.

Also, we're getting closer to colonising a planet, so eventually overpopulation shouldn't be a problem.

 

 

I'm also fairly positive about living conditions, and currently, it's worth bringing a child into the world. Give it a few decades, and that might be different, but right now it's good.

[Faux]

no, what's selfish is people having kids when they can't afford it. if anything, i wish people third world countries would have less kids. the [bleep]ed up thing is, poor countries have better birth rates than developed ones.

 

i like having sex, but i'm not gonna decide to have kids until waaaaaay after i have a stable career

[aquariusman]

My opinion on whether reproduction is selfish? You can't say whether having a kid is bad for the world or not. That's like saying that Hitler's mother is a horrible person for giving birth to him, even though she could not have known what he would do. On the opposite side, what if Gandhi's mother chose not to have children? Who the child turns out to be is completely up to how the child is raised and the child itself.

[hide=Long-winded analogy]

Now, as for overpopulation, I personally think that there IS a point where the Earth's resources won't be able to support the human population. I mean, say you grow your pet's food. You can grow enough food to feed 2 animals very well, 5 animals at a normal level, and just barely enough that 7 animals can survive, but their survival will be a very meager one. Now, let's also say you can control your pet's reproduction.

Are you just going to let your pets reproduce wildly, or are you going to make sure they do so at a controlled rate, so that they will always have food? Of course, if you have any insight, you are going to control how they reproduce. Ideally, you'll keep the population as close to 2 as possible, 1 male, 1 female. Maybe 2 of each just in case one of them dies.

The point is, if you let your pets reproduce as much as they want, they're all going to starve, or you'll have to choose which ones die. Now, if you do that, then you've just gone and wasted all the food that went into that pet. Also, if you have 5 animals, you can't feed all of them as if there were only 2, you wouldn't have the resources.

 

Basically, overpopulation isn't just overpopulation. It's also greed. You can go with having 5 animals, and be perfectly fine if you don't over do it on the feeding. You can also go with 2, and be more lenient on feeding. But if you have 7, you're going to be pushing it. Same deal if you have 5, but feed them too much, it's just not going to work. You need moderate both population AND feeding.[/hide]

 

So pretty much, I'd say that "overpopulation" isn't just having too high of a population, it's not matching you population to your resource usage, and vice-versa. AKA developed nations are greedy.

 

And I intend on having kids when I think I will be happy doing so*. That isn't right now, that isn't for a couple years, but I don't plan on waiting too long, I want to be able to teach my kids rugby, and play hockey with them, and run with them. I'm not all up for the whole kids beating their parents at sports, or at least not until they're in high school.

 

*Just like everything in my life, I'm only going to do something if I'm happier doing it/I will be happier. This could be called selfish, but I'm not the kind of person who can be happy knowing my actions make others unhappy. Also, "happy" is such a funny sounding word, isn't it?

[RSBDavid]

A population crisis is one reason why so many people died from the Haiti earth quake. That and poor infrastructure. I think there are to many people on the planet. There is something like 6.5 billion. One thing that would help is that Americans would not get as much support for multiple children. People are having kids just to claim higher welfare checks. They treat the children like crap and I do not approve of that,

[Giordano]

A population crisis is one reason why so many people died from the Haiti earth quake. That and poor infrastructure. I think there are to many people on the planet. There is something like 6.5 billion.

Not a population crisis, but just a population. If you place a bomb in the middle of a crowd of people, most of them will die. If you place a bomb in the middle of a field, hardly anybody if anybody would be injured. It depends on the location of the disaster and we can't really stop populating because of disasters; It's ridiculous to think so.

[warri0r45]

Now, as for being a parent, you could say that it's selfish because it's just fulfilling a personal biological desire, but if you don't over-analyse it, you'll see that it's a pretty selfless act.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

There's a lot of personal sacrifice that goes into being a parent. A woman has to carry a child for 9 months and give up a job/put it on hold. Either parent might have to change jobs to get more money. The child has to be fed, driven around, loved and helped when it gets into trouble. It's all done for the child, so in that sense parenthood is selfless.

 

I say you don't because you seem to be arguing that overpopulation just means the land that people live. Overpopulation deals with more than just land, instead it deals with the conditions that people cause in order to support such a huge group of people. Land, wealth, energy, food, water, medicine, clothing, and possibly more things are conditions that deal with overpopulation.

 

We have a winner.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

 

Overpopulation really depends on a lot of factors, as you said. I suppose you could say a lot of African populations and other areas of poverty are overpopulated, but areas of the Western world are able to sustain growth in their population.

[Romy]

Now, as for being a parent, you could say that it's selfish because it's just fulfilling a personal biological desire, but if you don't over-analyse it, you'll see that it's a pretty selfless act.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

There's a lot of personal sacrifice that goes into being a parent. A woman has to carry a child for 9 months and give up a job/put it on hold. Either parent might have to change jobs to get more money. The child has to be fed, driven around, loved and helped when it gets into trouble. It's all done for the child, so in that sense parenthood is selfless.

 

 

[hide] Personaly I think it is selfish.

 

Breeding is a Biological need, that can only be accomplished by having children. It exists regardless of any economical or mental or emotional problems the parents (or in some cases parent) may have.

 

In addition, most (I say most but really think all, I'll keep it at most as I'm not entirely certain I'm correct) societies, whether modern or primitive, live under a sort of consensus in which having children is one of the most important goals in life, if not THE most important one. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, it causes a Psychological need to breed aswell, and combined with the Biological one, parents (or a parent) may decide to have children regardless of their(/his/her) conditions.

 

Moreover, the children cannot be asked whether or not they want to be born (both because it's impossible, and because if it was possible, their answer couldn't be an educated one). Personaly, if I had the choice today, I have a strong feeling that I'd say "no" when asked if I want to be born (there's a difference between being born and generaly living. I'd rather not get into it, but if someone will really want that here, I'll explain [i have a strong feeling it's going to be a long argument if I will :???:]).

 

Also, this terrible world is becoming less and less suitable for children.

 

Lastly, you can't ever promise that your sons and daughters won't end up with some extremely horrible lives. [/hide]

[Lenticular_J]

Imagine this picture- a world without the human race. Really, don't go with your sudden urge to comment what I said, take yourself a couple of minutes and imagine the world, without the human race.

 

The only problem I can see occuring is a food-chain mess up (since there wouldn't be many humans to eat the animals) which I'm both pretty sure will solve itself eventualy, and that even if it wouldn't, nature is better off without us.

We are nature. I'm so sick and tired of this cynical "oh the human race is so baaad" bull [cabbage]. Next time you see a bear, let it eat you, since obviously humans are soooo aaaawfulllll.

 

This whole topic is just silly. Having children is in no way silly. We're so much [bleep]ing better than everything else on the world, we've figured out how to have sex without having children - by choice. And that kicks [wagon]! There are plenty of people who will have kids, and plenty who won't. Most people will, when they feel ready. And the very fact that we have the ability to feel ready is magic in itself. [bleep] opposable thumbs - we get to choose when we have kids.

 

Where was I going with all this ... ?

[fakeitormakeit2]

Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature. We exemplify natural selection and survival of the fittest, because if we wanted to, we could use our power to destroy everything else. However, with a different approach we have the obligation to maintain nature as we are the dominant nature.

 

But back on topic, I think it depends on the mentality in which you bring children into the world. Someone having one kid could be selfish were as someone with 10 kids is not, simply because the person with one neglects their kid and taught it would be "fun" to have a child but cannot support them. Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs. 10 love all their kids equally and support themselves.

 

But overall, it is our nature to reproduce and its selfish if we have the financial means and time to provide for children. If we aren't stable in those regards, I find it would be selfish to not be able to control yourself if your headed to a path of stability and you just wanna pop some out.

[Wongtong]

I don't believe that it is selfish to not have a child.

 

I also don't believe that it's selfish to have a child UNLESS you are putting yourself in a situation where the child will grow up and not have the same opportunities as other children, purely because their parents (or parent) are/is uneducated, poor and unable to find work.

 

That being said, it is your choice to have a child and my opinion doesn't really matter to anyone except for myself and future partners.

[Romy]

Imagine this picture- a world without the human race. Really, don't go with your sudden urge to comment what I said, take yourself a couple of minutes and imagine the world, without the human race.

 

The only problem I can see occuring is a food-chain mess up (since there wouldn't be many humans to eat the animals) which I'm both pretty sure will solve itself eventualy, and that even if it wouldn't, nature is better off without us.

We are nature. I'm so sick and tired of this cynical "oh the human race is so baaad" bull [cabbage]. Next time you see a bear, let it eat you, since obviously humans are soooo aaaawfulllll.

 

This whole topic is just silly. Having children is in no way silly. We're so much [bleep]ing better than everything else on the world, we've figured out how to have sex without having children - by choice. And that kicks [wagon]! There are plenty of people who will have kids, and plenty who won't. Most people will, when they feel ready. And the very fact that we have the ability to feel ready is magic in itself. [bleep] opposable thumbs - we get to choose when we have kids.

 

Where was I going with all this ... ?

 

We go to war, we trash nature regularly, hunt animals for fun, for clothes, and for food, test perfumes and medicine on animals, pollute oceans and the air around us, and the list goes on.

 

What I was trying to say is not that humans are "soooo aaaawfulllll" only that Earth could do better without us, as a response to someone asking me how I expect the human race to survive. (I answered with A. I never told anyone not to have children, only that I think it's selfish, and B. That I'm not sure a world without the human race would be that bad.)

[Romy]

Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature.

 

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature?

 

That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind.

[Saru Inc]

Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature.

 

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature?

 

That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind.

 

 

I agree, I've read stories of certain animals migrating to new areas and cluster [bleep]ing the ecosystem established.

[Lenticular_J]

Changing, not [bleep]ing. There's nothing bad about it, it's just different. Sucks for the animals that can't adapt to new surroundings, but, hey. Better off without them.

 

Take the example of the simple European earthworm. Until the Mayflower, really, soil in North America was nowhere near as fertile as it is today. Mainly because there were no creatures to aerate the soil. This contributed to the fact that no large cities and civilizations were formed north of Central America. Rather than being able to settle and farm easily, groups had to be small and nomadic to follow the very few large herd animals (really just bison) or settle in tiny villages that could easily be destroyed by unfavorable weather conditions.

 

The European earthworm changed that. Colonists arrived with their little bulbs of all sorts of European plants, willing to discover how what grows. As it ended up, a strain of tobacco native to North America (yet was fairly uncommon in the wild and rarely cultivated by humans) would be the best export. Original attempts to grow the tobacco failed. Until the worms multiplied. And multiplied. And multiplied. By the time Jamestown was settled, the worms had already made their way down there, and in combination with worms brought by the settlers, it wasn't long before the region became fantastically arable for that particular crop.

 

Along with this, all sorts of plants and grasses native to America were forced to extinction. It's estimated that there were far more plant extinctions in North America caused by the earthworm than by humans, but nobody knows for certain.

 

Thanks to this "cluster [bleep]ing" of the ecosystem, you have access to North American crops in massive quantities.

 

Definitely good for us.

[Perakp]

Is there a point in trying to "conserve" nature and save species from extinction, when new species could emerge any day? :mellow:

 

And on another note, shellfish breeding could be pretty exciting.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature.

 

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature?

 

That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind.

The point is that normally such arguments place humankind outside of nature. And again you pick one part and disregard the rest, I said we have dominion over everything because we advanced to a point in which we are basically stronger then everything else and we could destroy everything if we wanted.

 

So please, point out to me, where did I say we are unable to harm nature because we are part of nature? I was stating I'm sick of a cliche, don't assume things.

[Saru Inc]

Changing, not [bleep]ing. There's nothing bad about it, it's just different. Sucks for the animals that can't adapt to new surroundings, but, hey. Better off without them.

 

Take the example of the simple European earthworm. Until the Mayflower, really, soil in North America was nowhere near as fertile as it is today. Mainly because there were no creatures to aerate the soil. This contributed to the fact that no large cities and civilizations were formed north of Central America. Rather than being able to settle and farm easily, groups had to be small and nomadic to follow the very few large herd animals (really just bison) or settle in tiny villages that could easily be destroyed by unfavorable weather conditions.

 

The European earthworm changed that. Colonists arrived with their little bulbs of all sorts of European plants, willing to discover how what grows. As it ended up, a strain of tobacco native to North America (yet was fairly uncommon in the wild and rarely cultivated by humans) would be the best export. Original attempts to grow the tobacco failed. Until the worms multiplied. And multiplied. And multiplied. By the time Jamestown was settled, the worms had already made their way down there, and in combination with worms brought by the settlers, it wasn't long before the region became fantastically arable for that particular crop.

 

Along with this, all sorts of plants and grasses native to America were forced to extinction. It's estimated that there were far more plant extinctions in North America caused by the earthworm than by humans, but nobody knows for certain.

 

Thanks to this "cluster [bleep]ing" of the ecosystem, you have access to North American crops in massive quantities.

 

Definitely good for us.

 

 

 

Thats interesting o.O

[Lenticular_J]

From this magazine, mental_floss. Awesome mag, takes huge brainy concepts and lays them out in layman's terms until one can understand it fully, then they get into the harder stuff.

[RexMilotic]

Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature.

 

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature?

 

That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind.

 

I want to smack your for posting that. You could not debate a topic like that, because humans are nature, and you're an idiot if you think otherwise. Nature can hurt nature, but most of the time it makes up for itself. That's not saying that everything is natural though.

[Romy]

Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature.

 

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature?

 

That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind.

The point is that normally such arguments place humankind outside of nature. And again you pick one part and disregard the rest, I said we have dominion over everything because we advanced to a point in which we are basically stronger then everything else and we could destroy everything if we wanted.

 

So please, point out to me, where did I say we are unable to harm nature because we are part of nature? I was stating I'm sick of a cliche, don't assume things.

 

So if I disagree with you I must disagree with every single thing you said? That makes no sense to me...

I found your nature comment wrong, and simply replied to it.

 

 

Also, no, you never said that nature couldn't hurt nature. However, what you did say is "Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature." and as a response to me saying that nature could be better off without us.

 

I think any person with a healthy mind could understand that you meant we couldn't be bad to nature because we are nature.

 

Lastly, about the dominant part of nature-

A. And if we are (and we are) so what?

B. Humans techinically have that ability, yes. However, the human race wouldn't survive too long after doing that (we wouldn't have any animals to feed on, we'll miss the air (as there are no plants if we destroyed everything), I'd assume many other recources would be destroyed in the process aswell, etc).

[Romy]

Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature.

 

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature?

 

That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind.

 

I want to smack your for posting that. You could not debate a topic like that, because humans are nature, and you're an idiot if you think otherwise. Nature can hurt nature, but most of the time it makes up for itself. That's not saying that everything is natural though.

 

I agree that techinically we are nature. What I meant by debating whether or not humans are a part of nature is that we're so far beyond nature, and we hurt nature in so many ways, that one could debate whether we still are a part of nature. In my opinion, even though we originated from nature, we shouldn't see ourselves as a part of it. No need to get overexcited.

 

 

 

As for nature making up for itself, just like Fakeitormakeit2 said, humans could destroy nature easily, and I'm pretty sure nature couldn't make up for itself after that.

[Lenticular_J]

Ants could destroy nature easily, too. Whales could, as well. But, guess what. Nothing has. Not even asteroids miles upon miles wide have.

 

Calm down with the world destruction crap.

[RexMilotic]

Ants could destroy nature easily, too. Whales could, as well. But, guess what. Nothing has. Not even asteroids miles upon miles wide have.

 

Calm down with the world destruction crap.

 

Termites are actually doing an extremely good job at it.

[Cha0sx]

Hmm, are you reading my mind? This is something I was just thinking of. It's not a choice whether we are born, and that seems kind of unfair at times, even though we all know life as a whole is unfair, but even the stage between life and nonexistance is unfair. it isn't a choice to come into a world of suffering. Imagine the children that are born just because some horny parents living in extreme poverty irresponsibly had sex. I mean, the kid doesn't get a say, but he's dropped into a world of incredible suffering. I feel this is extremely unfair to the child, and that there should be laws on having children. Parents should be responsible for their child. I mean, if you are not ready for the responsibilities but you are say, against any form of birth control or birth prevention, then it's a pretty annoying thing to discuss with such a hard headed person. I mean, the child needs a certain level of stability. No one deserves to be born into a situation of constant pain. I guess you could say even in developed nations sometimes parents are terrible and leave the child alone or abuse them, but this is not the same as depriving them of physical needs. I believe that poorer people should have laws that limit the amount of children they can have, maybe based on income or something.