Interesting topic. I'm neutral both ways. Somebody has to reproduce at the end of the day. Otherwise, the human race would be naught.
Anyway cracked had an article where one of its writers had apparently been called selfish for not having/wanting children. I have seen some people look people oddly for not wanting children (the favour is returned in kind) but that one was new to me.
The people that should be getting the looks are people that have kids when they don't want them or are incapable of raising them properly.
I respect people that can, for whatever reason, decide they don't want kids and follow through with it.
Yes, we need more laws limiting our natural freedoms such as the right to offspring. China is a great hallmark of human rights, we should aspire to be more like the Chinese. Not. Your argument falls apart before you're even able to finish it - it's families that are unable to support children and yet have too many that are at fault when it comes to so-called "overpopulation" of Earth, it's a problem of third-world countries, not a global issue. Do you want to save the Earth? Procreate, raise the next generation of scientists and thinkers and mine the environment to the last molecule so that we may finally move on from this ultimately doomed planet. Families that live in poverty supporting 8+ kids *will not* drive progress or science, they won't save the planet, they can't even save themselves. *Our* children, fortunate enough to be born in a more afluent area, can make a difference.i read only first post and here's my view:
it is estimated , there is 7.5 billion humans on this planet and growing fast.
most of world's population lives in poverty and struggling to survive.
this planet just don't have that much resources for all of us.
despite that, in 3'rd world countries the poorer they are, the more children they make.
why? they want them to suffer like they did? or they can't control their primitive instincts? you decide.
99 % of the people are not aware why do they want children.
because it is genetic program they are following and not reason or logic.
genes are programmed that way to ensure survival of the species, there is nothing "noble" or "higher" in wanting to reproduce.
that urge helped us to survive in our caveman days, sure.
but today, we just have to implement one-child-policy like china already did to keep this spinning blue globe from becoming bigger hell then already is.
Yes, we need more laws limiting our natural freedoms such as the right to offspring. China is a great hallmark of human rights, we should aspire to be more like the Chinese. Not. Your argument falls apart before you're even able to finish it - it's families that are unable to support children and yet have too many that are at fault when it comes to so-called "overpopulation" of Earth, it's a problem of third-world countries, not a global issue. Do you want to save the Earth? Procreate, raise the next generation of scientists and thinkers and mine the environment to the last molecule so that we may finally move on from this ultimately doomed planet. Families that live in poverty supporting 8+ kids *will not* drive progress or science, they won't save the planet, they can't even save themselves. *Our* children, fortunate enough to be born in a more afluent area, can make a difference.
You're clearly unable to look forward far enough to realize the nonsense you're spouting. This planet is doomed regardless of what we do - the sun will eventually burn it as it gradually turns into a supernova. Unless you have a good idea how to colonize space with windmills, your approach will lead to our extinction, especially if we stop procreating. Facts are that the gross majority of scientists and engineers come from afluent families. Poor families may very well migrate, but they're not contributing to saving the planet or colonizing space - they can barely afford to move, let alone to educate themselves. As for other species regulating population sizes, it's only partially true. Many species have to be regulated by humans in order to preserve other species that would otherwise become prey. Moreover, human population is regulated, namely by diseases and war. Claiming that it's not is neo-hippie drivel. Humans are the only species that can save the planet - when was the last time you saw a chicken scientist or a monkey engineer? Unlike animals, humans can come up with solutions. The problem is that everything you know will be engulfed by the sun and the solution is to get off the doomed planet as soon as possible.you obviously don't follow what is going on in the world last decade, huge amount of 3'rd world country people started to migrate in Europe, Australia and USA.
so when you say "it's a problem of third-world countries, not a global issue", well it is becoming global issue.
when you say: "raise the next generation of scientists and thinkers and mine the environment to the last molecule so that we may finally move on from this ultimately doomed planet", so your solution is to destroy earth just to leave it and create another hell on some another planet? how selfish is that to animals that we pushed out and forced into extinction? every other species on planet except for human's regulate their population naturally according to resources and habitat. only we reproduce without any control. and virus does exact same thing.
if you somehow remove bees or ants from nature, entire eco-system would collapse that's how those insects are important to Earth.
if you remove Humans in a same fashion, everything else would prosper, Flora and Fauna.
do you still feel so righteous and special?
Nonsense. If you won't have scientists today, who is going to teach scientists tomorrow? Nobody, that's who. Give people a fish, they'll eat it and starve tomorrow. Give them a fishing rod, they will never starve again. We need to put all our chips on education and expansion, otherwise we'll wake up with our pants down because X years earlier some green jackass thought it was more important to preserve some old rock than to build a particle accelerator. Sitting on your ass and doing nothing has never solved a problem, not once in the history of humanity. You're arguing that laying on our sides and doing nothing for the vague premise that we'll get an extra year without the ice caps melting is better than solving the problems we face with science. By the way, the estimate of 5 billion is generous - life on Earth will end billions of years before the planet itself is engulfed, it will be a gradual process, not a magical fixed date. Natural disasters resulting from the expanding sun and radiation will kill us all sooner than the heat itself.in 5 to 7 billion years Earth will become inhabitable because of sun's expansion.
so start thinking in fashion of our time and globally.
feed em first, send them to space later.