Selfish breeding

[The Dark Lord]

If couples vowed to not have children, it will be for the Greater Good. It helps both the State and human society itself in the long run.

 

Right now, we are beginning to suffer from the effects of overpopulation. We'll experience a rise in poverty, the growth of ghettos, and an increase in crime. With overpopulation, not enough jobs will be produced in order to balance the birth rates, and with our first-world, industrial societies, the death rate will only drop or at least stay low as advances in medical technology come about. Due to the inability for enough jobs to be created, the unemployment rate will soar. Likewise, this will create an increase in poverty and the growth of ghettos (which provide extremely cheap housing). Within these ghettos, you'll have higher crime rates.

 

So, in the long run, it's better for future generations if we try to curb the birth rates, which can only be done if more people use condoms and other ways to keep from having children.

 

Unfortunately, it's only natural for human beings to want to have children; it's just not the best for everyone.

[Romy]

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.

 

Ants and whales couldn't decide to though.

[Romy]

If couples vowed to not have children, it will be for the Greater Good. It helps both the State and human society itself in the long run.

 

Right now, we are beginning to suffer from the effects of overpopulation. We'll experience a rise in poverty, the growth of ghettos, and an increase in crime. With overpopulation, not enough jobs will be produced in order to balance the birth rates, and with our first-world, industrial societies, the death rate will only drop or at least stay low as advances in medical technology come about. Due to the inability for enough jobs to be created, the unemployment rate will soar. Likewise, this will create an increase in poverty and the growth of ghettos (which provide extremely cheap housing). Within these ghettos, you'll have higher crime rates.

 

So, in the long run, it's better for future generations if we try to curb the birth rates, which can only be done if more people use condoms and other ways to keep from having children.

 

Unfortunately, it's only natural for human beings to want to have children; it's just not the best for everyone.

 

Don't the majority of births occur for those who seek to give birth? And not by 'mistake'?

[obfuscator]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

 

 

Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up.

 

Agreed. The world isn't overpopulated at all - its an excuse made up by people too selfish to admit the real problem: wealth distribution.

 

And yes, I think not having kids is selfish...sometimes. I can accept that not everyone is meant to have kids, some people just won't make good parents, or have other priorities, etc. But I do think people who get married(in my mind putting themselves into a prime child-raising environment) are selfish to not have kids. Look at what they say: "I want to enjoy my own life, I don't want kid's to ruin it." That's pretty selfish to me - having children is the greatest gift and the most selfless on anyone can give to the world.

[Faux]

I don't think you both understand, romy isn't the one ignorant, both of you are. Not every piece of land is habitable and overpopulation also counts the resources available to us.

 

I'll assume both of you are americans, but other countries do have overpopulation issues

[Romy]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

 

 

Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up.

 

Agreed. The world isn't overpopulated at all - its an excuse made up by people too selfish to admit the real problem: wealth distribution.

 

And yes, I think not having kids is selfish...sometimes. I can accept that not everyone is meant to have kids, some people just won't make good parents, or have other priorities, etc. But I do think people who get married(in my mind putting themselves into a prime child-raising environment) are selfish to not have kids. Look at what they say: "I want to enjoy my own life, I don't want kid's to ruin it." That's pretty selfish to me - having children is the greatest gift and the most selfless on anyone can give to the world.

 

I just started writing something else, and realized there's no way I'm going to convince you. Nevermind.

[Saru Inc]

^^ lol

[The Dark Lord]

If couples vowed to not have children, it will be for the Greater Good. It helps both the State and human society itself in the long run.

 

Right now, we are beginning to suffer from the effects of overpopulation. We'll experience a rise in poverty, the growth of ghettos, and an increase in crime. With overpopulation, not enough jobs will be produced in order to balance the birth rates, and with our first-world, industrial societies, the death rate will only drop or at least stay low as advances in medical technology come about. Due to the inability for enough jobs to be created, the unemployment rate will soar. Likewise, this will create an increase in poverty and the growth of ghettos (which provide extremely cheap housing). Within these ghettos, you'll have higher crime rates.

 

So, in the long run, it's better for future generations if we try to curb the birth rates, which can only be done if more people use condoms and other ways to keep from having children.

 

Unfortunately, it's only natural for human beings to want to have children; it's just not the best for everyone.

 

Don't the majority of births occur for those who seek to give birth? And not by 'mistake'?

 

Yes. I'm just saying that people need to use preventative measures in order to keep from having a child by mistake, and it wouldn't hurt the world if a few couples vowed to not have children and instead adopted or whatever.

[Cha0sx]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

 

 

Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up.

 

Agreed. The world isn't overpopulated at all - its an excuse made up by people too selfish to admit the real problem: wealth distribution.

 

And yes, I think not having kids is selfish...sometimes. I can accept that not everyone is meant to have kids, some people just won't make good parents, or have other priorities, etc. But I do think people who get married(in my mind putting themselves into a prime child-raising environment) are selfish to not have kids. Look at what they say: "I want to enjoy my own life, I don't want kid's to ruin it." That's pretty selfish to me - having children is the greatest gift and the most selfless on anyone can give to the world.

 

How is a child the greatest gift to the world? I guess you are emotional and think they are cute and pure spirited, but in logical terms bringing a child into the world has responsibilities. They require resources to feed, clothe, educate, and other things. It's not selfish or selfless to have a child. I don't understand how you could define it that way, it's more like something you need to take responsibility for. If you don't take care of your child and just reap certain benefits you get, then I'd guess I'd say that's selfish, at least.

[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.

 

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).

Then I must be extremely sickly in the head, because I could not even understand that I myself meant that.

 

As for I questioned why you didn't comment on anything else was because I don't assume opinions, i.e. you would agree with anything else that I said. When I speak with people and they disagree, they normally say "Well I agree with you about [Point A], but [Point B]? That's completely unreasonable! etc."

 

Edit: And my comment on the dominance of humans over nature was to disprove your claim that I think since we are nature we cannot harm nature. If I openly say we could destroy it all if we wished, then how does that mean I do not think humans [a part of nature] could not harm other natural things?

[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).

Then I must be extremely sickly in the head, because I could not even understand that I myself meant that.

 

As for I questioned why you didn't comment on anything else was because I don't assume opinions, i.e. you would agree with anything else that I said. When I speak with people and they disagree, they normally say "Well I agree with you about [Point A], but [Point B]? That's completely unreasonable! etc."

 

Edit: And my comment on the dominance of humans over nature was to disprove your claim that I think since we are nature we cannot harm nature. If I openly say we could destroy it all if we wished, then how does that mean I do not think humans [a part of nature] could not harm other natural things?

 

Really? Let's take a quick recap on our personal discussion over this thread.

 

You said "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." (page 2).

 

You said that as a response to some of my posts of how the world (and especificly nature) could do better without us. Notice the "Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature..We are nature." part, and especialy the part in bold. Considering you call it stupid to say we are bad to nature, and then immediately add "We are nature" (I assume a 'because' should fit between those 2), and you say all of that as a response to my "nature without humans" theory, my instincts tell me you mean we can't be bad to nature because we are [a part of] nature. Call me stupid but that's what I see.

 

 

 

As for commenting on everything you said. I felt quite neutral to the rest of your post, didn't agree with it much, but not to the point that I think I should counterpoint it (mostly because it's an opinion) or argue over it (again, because I was somewhat neutral about it).

 

You must understand that it's a forum, with thousands of replies added every day, and that you can't expect someone to comment on everything you say, every time they want to comment on something you said.

 

 

Lastly, "And my comment on the dominance of humans over nature was to disprove your claim that I think since we are nature we cannot harm nature." That couldn't possibly be true because you said that before I commented on your post (see it on page 2).

[fakeitormakeit2]

^ I said what you bolded not because I disagree, because I just don't like cliches. I do not like hippies who always say how bad we are to nature. Yes, we can be very bad to nature. But its also like Haiti. Yes, what happened in Haiti is horrible, but its over publicized, possibly only because that's what the media thought was a "hot topic". That does not take away from my sympathy to the people of Haiti, it just means that I hate hearing the same thing over and over and over again.

 

As for the last part you said about my comment on dominance, I quoted myself from an earlier post to show, because I had this in the same post it proves I did not believe what you said, because I blatantly said that we have the capacity to destroy.

 

And you don't have to tell me about responses, I've been on Tip.It longer then you have by 2yrs. Generally though people would say well everything else you say is meh or crap or I really don't have an opinion on.

 

Do you realize you're trying to tell me what I think? ha.

[Zierro]

By having a child, you're making the population increase because of your personal desire to start a family, which is selfish. By having a child, you are giving up energy, money, and time that could have been spent on yourself for the sake of another person, which is unselfish. Depends on how you want to look at it really. I'd say having a child is neither selfish nor unselfish alone, but the reasons the parent wants the child is what would show us whether it's selfish or not.

 

I'd like to have kids when I'm mature enough and enjoyed life enough as a non-parent. I just like the idea of keeping my blood here on the planet after I die.

[Powman3]

I don't think it is either, to be honest with you.

 

I'd like to have kids, honestly, but only when I'm able to support them financially and actually be a part of their lives. Until then, I'll live my life until I'm able to do so.

 

edit: Zierro just made me remember something.

 

We all have selfish needs. Just some are good, and some are bad.

 

Wanting kids is selfish, but not in a bad way.

[The Dark Lord]

For those thinking we aren't overpopulated, think again.

 

We have to have a large amount of unoccupied space for farmland in order to satisfy our domestic needs (and no, importing food doesn't count). When we get more and more people (vast immigration, high birth rates, etc.) we will end up cutting into our farmland. With more people, the birth rate skyrockets.

 

And I doubt anyone wants to form the Terran Federation and move to a desert in Africa, so....

[Zaaps1]

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.

 

Assuming, you mean, that humans are on the same moral level as animals.

 

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 ]).

 

I don't think I understand that point, but it's a question between existence and inexistence, and unless there's somewhere else other than this world that a child's soul can go, life would be the better option over death.

 

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

 

But that's assuming that life is indeed trying to ruin your existence.

 

Having a child can be a result of environmental pressure as a result of man's society, but cannot it not also be a result of love? And is that so selfish?

[RSBDavid]

One thing that really ticks me off is when people have 5 or 6 children just to collect welfare checks. My uncle and his ex-wife had 7 children. All 7 of them were poorly treated and did all of the chores around the house. They had little clothing. Child services eventually picked them up and put them into the system. I think one related problem is the welfare system. More people are getting it that don;t need it because they are lazy rather then needing it because they are disabled. I don;t want to get off topic so I will stop there.

[The Dark Lord]

One thing that really ticks me off is when people have 5 or 6 children just to collect welfare checks. My uncle and his ex-wife had 7 children. All 7 of them were poorly treated and did all of the chores around the house. They had little clothing. Child services eventually picked them up and put them into the system. I think one related problem is the welfare system. More people are getting it that don;t need it because they are lazy rather then needing it because they are disabled. I don;t want to get off topic so I will stop there.

 

Haha. Start a thread called "The Problems with the Welfare State". I agree with you, though.

[IGoddessI]

Personally, I love kids. Eventually I hope to have my own little clan/brood of kiddies (maybe about 5 or 6 children). I also work 5 days a week with kids, seeing smiles on their faces is worth more than gold to me.

 

Do I think it is selfish that people don't have children? No I don't. I believe you're missing out on some incredible experiences but then again my opinion is biased; Many parents are missing out on single life experiences such as having the extra income to travel the world. I think it would be cruel to bring a child in to this big, wide world without wanting to devote your time to them. If somebody who did not want a child had a child, would they resent them? There's a possibility. But no different to people who want children and neglect them. Now my arse has splinters from all this fence sitting!

[Romy]

^ I said what you bolded not because I disagree, because I just don't like cliches. I do not like hippies who always say how bad we are to nature. Yes, we can be very bad to nature. But its also like Haiti. Yes, what happened in Haiti is horrible, but its over publicized, possibly only because that's what the media thought was a "hot topic". That does not take away from my sympathy to the people of Haiti, it just means that I hate hearing the same thing over and over and over again.

 

As for the last part you said about my comment on dominance, I quoted myself from an earlier post to show, because I had this in the same post it proves I did not believe what you said, because I blatantly said that we have the capacity to destroy.

 

And you don't have to tell me about responses, I've been on Tip.It longer then you have by 2yrs. Generally though people would say well everything else you say is meh or crap or I really don't have an opinion on.

 

Do you realize you're trying to tell me what I think? ha.

 

It's not that we can be very bad to nature, it's that we are consistantly harming nature (that's a fact, not an opinion).

 

As for you Haiti comment... I agree... I just don't so how that's relevant to our discussion?

 

Trust me, I've been here long before I created that account. I had another account (I can't even remember it's name) and also mostly was an observer.

 

 

And no, I wasn't trying to tell you what I think, I was trying to explain what I concluded from what you said, and why.

[Romy]

By having a child, you're making the population increase because of your personal desire to start a family, which is selfish. By having a child, you are giving up energy, money, and time that could have been spent on yourself for the sake of another person, which is unselfish. Depends on how you want to look at it really. I'd say having a child is neither selfish nor unselfish alone, but the reasons the parent wants the child is what would show us whether it's selfish or not.

 

I'd like to have kids when I'm mature enough and enjoyed life enough as a non-parent. I just like the idea of keeping my blood here on the planet after I die.

 

 

One could argue that you'd (not you specificly) would devote said money, time, and effort out of the (selfish) desire to give your child the best you could. Just thought I'd add that in.

[Romy]

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.

1)

Assuming, you mean, that humans are on the same moral level as animals.

 

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 ]).

2)

I don't think I understand that point, but it's a question between existence and inexistence, and unless there's somewhere else other than this world that a child's soul can go, life would be the better option over death.

 

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

3)

But that's assuming that life is indeed trying to ruin your existence.

4)

Having a child can be a result of environmental pressure as a result of man's society, but cannot it not also be a result of love? And is that so selfish?

 

1) No.... It's simply a known need humans have.

 

2) 2 things here:

A. Souls are not necessarily a true concept. It's fairly possible it's just our brain playing tricks.

B. If souls do exist, the child's soul wouldn't go anywhere. As far as my knowldege of souls goes, souls are only matched with a living body... Not with say... sperm or something.

 

3) No, that's assuming life could turn out terrible for certain individuals.

 

4) Definitely... I don't see what makes you think it isn't :S...

[Perakp]

I am concerned that some 10-20 years from now our kids will find this topic :ohnoes:

[fakeitormakeit2]

^ I said what you bolded not because I disagree, because I just don't like cliches. I do not like hippies who always say how bad we are to nature. Yes, we can be very bad to nature. But its also like Haiti. Yes, what happened in Haiti is horrible, but its over publicized, possibly only because that's what the media thought was a "hot topic". That does not take away from my sympathy to the people of Haiti, it just means that I hate hearing the same thing over and over and over again.

 

As for the last part you said about my comment on dominance, I quoted myself from an earlier post to show, because I had this in the same post it proves I did not believe what you said, because I blatantly said that we have the capacity to destroy.

 

And you don't have to tell me about responses, I've been on Tip.It longer then you have by 2yrs. Generally though people would say well everything else you say is meh or crap or I really don't have an opinion on.

 

Do you realize you're trying to tell me what I think? ha.

 

It's not that we can be very bad to nature, it's that we are consistantly harming nature (that's a fact, not an opinion).

 

As for you Haiti comment... I agree... I just don't so how that's relevant to our discussion?

 

Trust me, I've been here long before I created that account. I had another account (I can't even remember it's name) and also mostly was an observer.

 

 

And no, I wasn't trying to tell you what I think, I was trying to explain what I concluded from what you said, and why.

I think I should have probably said it parallels to my comment on us in contact with nature. Just because I am annoyed by a cliche doesn't mean that its false.

[Zierro]

By having a child, you're making the population increase because of your personal desire to start a family, which is selfish. By having a child, you are giving up energy, money, and time that could have been spent on yourself for the sake of another person, which is unselfish. Depends on how you want to look at it really. I'd say having a child is neither selfish nor unselfish alone, but the reasons the parent wants the child is what would show us whether it's selfish or not.

 

I'd like to have kids when I'm mature enough and enjoyed life enough as a non-parent. I just like the idea of keeping my blood here on the planet after I die.

 

 

One could argue that you'd (not you specificly) would devote said money, time, and effort out of the (selfish) desire to give your child the best you could. Just thought I'd add that in.

 

I thought we were talking about the traditional usage of the word "selfish", not how (semantically speaking) every action we do is selfish to a degree. Otherwise I really don't see the point to making this thread revolve around parenting. Couldn't you just start up a thread about how all of our actions are self-serving instead?

 

1) No.... It's simply a known need humans have.

 

Ehh, I'd say it's more of a desire to have sexual intercourse, the reproduction just being an outcome of it.

 

Now my arse has splinters from all this fence sitting!

 

:???: