On not having children. Some discussion.

[Foxi4]

Kids do have an impact on the environment FAST6191, that was one of the many directions this thread was likely to take. Many people decide not to have kids specifically for the sake of the environment thinking (in a short-sighted fashion) that their contribution (or rather the lack of one) can make a difference.

as i explained before, there is nothing "higher or noble" in wanting to reproduce, those feelings are just embedded instincts into our genetic code to make sure species go on.
that is true reason why everybody that wants children, wants so.
but yeah, i believe you it is good feeling, it's just your feelings are pre-programmed, most people resist to this idea seeking something higher in it.
but i believe we evolved enough to realize that future of our kind can't be bright following instincts, but using reasoning and logic.

Reason and logic tell me that the world's issues cannot be solved without bright offspring that could take the torch after we're gone.

 

[FAST6191]

Actually an interesting one I heard once, I think it was from a religious education teacher. He said he and his wife had seriously considered not having kids during the cold war owing to the "high" chance that over the next years humanity would be wiped out and raising kids that would not make it past 8 or so would not be cool.

 

[RevPokemon]

Actually an interesting one I heard once, I think it was from a religious education teacher. He said he and his wife had seriously considered not having kids during the cold war owing to the "high" chance that over the next years humanity would be wiped out and raising kids that would not make it past 8 or so would not be cool.

In many ways that mentality is had by many people with health issues

 

[Foxi4]

Actually an interesting one I heard once, I think it was from a religious education teacher. He said he and his wife had seriously considered not having kids during the cold war owing to the "high" chance that over the next years humanity would be wiped out and raising kids that would not make it past 8 or so would not be cool.

People are quick to panic when in reality our species has proven to persevere through great hardships. There's always a big scare on the horizon, it's like we're programmed to be vigilant to the point of mania. If it's not the red scare, it's war. When the war blows over, it's a nuclear missile crisis. When that's resolved, it's climate change. When that's old news, it's ebola or some other disease. We invent fears whenever we're not facing direct threats.

 

[Catastrophic]

PS. In my experience the most vociferous members of the "anti-child"brigade have also been the ones with the least opportunity to reproduce, if you catch my drift

Sure there are people who shouldn't be having children, but people who judge other people solely for having children are children themselves if you ask me.

 

[RevPokemon]

People are quick to panic when in reality our species has proven to persevere through great hardships. There's always a big scare on the horizon, it's like we're programmed to be vigilant to the point of mania. If it's not the red scare, it's war. When the war blows over, it's a nuclear missile crisis. When that's resolved, it's climate change. When that's old news it's ebola or some other disease. We invent fears whenever we're not facing direct threats.

Hey Ebola killed like 3 western people!! It will consume the worlds!!

 

[Foxi4]

Hey Ebola killed like 3 western people!! It will consume the worlds!!

Yup. Let's forget that the common cold kills more people each year than ebola, or that we have a problem with idiots not vaccinating their kids and leading to a resurgence of previously eliminated diseases like polio or measels. Ebola is the new cool thing to be scared of instead of addressing actual pressing issues, there's always a smoke screen to find when you look hard enough.

 

[RevPokemon]

Yup. Let's forget that the common cold kills more people each year than ebola, or that we have a problem with idiots not vaccinating their kids and leading to a resurgence of previously eliminated diseases like polio or measels. Ebola is the new cool thing to be scared of instead of addressing actual pressing issues, there's always a smoke screen to find when you look hard enough.

Truly sad about polio as I have a teacher who had a teacher that had polio since he was young and could not walk (well he could but due to pain was not really possible or practical) by the time he got the vaccine it was to late which im scared could happen with anti vaxers (although his case was because the vaccine wasn't available at the time)

 

[Foxi4]

Truly sad about polio as I have a teacher who had a teacher that had polio since he was young and could not walk (well he could but due to pain was not really possible or practical) by the time he got the vaccine it was to late which im scared could happen with anti vaxers (although his case was because the vaccine wasn't available at the time)

Measels already came back to the US despite being completely erradicated in previous years - that's a problem. Polio is not very communicable, but it's preventable which makes the issue all the more infuriating.

 

[go-vegan]

Kids do have an impact on the environment FAST6191, that was one of the many directions this thread was likely to take. Many people decide not to have kids specifically for the sake of the environment thinking (in a short-sighted fashion) that their contribution (or rather the lack of one) can make a difference.

Reason and logic tell me that the world's issues cannot be solved without bright offspring that could take the torch after we're gone.

i don't talk about forcing human kind into extinction, i'm talking about lowering population to comfortable level, where every human being could live having all resources they need to live in comfort from one side, and to ensure nature don't suffer from other side, let's not forget all animal species that humanity forced into extinction and that is selfish and malevolent.
humanity abuse technology, when we discovered nuclear power, first we build bomb, then power plant.
we are still violent apes and this is not hatred, this is a fact.
until we evolve in benevolent beings that respect life itself, in whichever form it comes, we need strict rules.
think globally, we are all part of same system and each other's decision affects others.

 

[Foxi4]

i don't talk about forcing human kind into extinction, i'm talking about lowering population to comfortable level, where every human being could live having all resources they need to live in comfort from one side, and to ensure nature don't suffer from other side, let's not forget all animal species that humanity forced into extinction and that is selfish and malevolent.
humanity abuse technology, when we discovered nuclear power, first we build bomb, then power plant.
we are still violent apes and this is not hatred, this is a fact.
until we evolve in benevolent beings that respect life itself, in whichever form it comes, we need strict rules.
think globally, we are all part of same system and each other's decision affects others.

Who's to say that we're not already at that comfortable level? And who sets the bar? I'm sorry, I'm not one for tree hugging. As for humans driving animals to extinction, that's indeed sad, but not preventable. Animals also drive other species into extinction, they've been doing that since the dawn of time - survival of the fitness. Evolution doesn't create benevolent beings, it creates efficient ones. The benevolent mother nature is a myth, in fact, mother nature stacked the odds against us. I don't remember humans ever growing deadly tiger claws (aside from a few pop singers) or sharp shark teeth (aside from the British) and yet we persevere - how come? Ah, because we have the greatest gift of all, a creative brain (which we suddenly grew as we moved from a raw diet to meat, especially cooked meats, as evolutionary scientists and paleontologists agree on that). How's about we use that gift creatively rather than squander it on waiting for mother nature to do our job, hmm?

 

[Garro]

I would rather adopt than have a children, I don't really care about blood or that my kid has to look like me, it would feel nice to give a kid a family.

(Also off-topic, the whole overpopulation discussion reminds me a lot of the Utopia TV series).

 

[go-vegan]

Who's to say that we're not already at that comfortable level?

you obviously didn't see much of the world, i was seaman and i was in great number of countries both first world and third world, you wouldn't believe the way people live and trying to survive

Animals also drive other species into extinction, they've been doing that since the dawn of time

not true, some animals make wars like insects and chimpanzees, but never exterminated others, never, give me couple of examples where animal species forced other into extinction?

- survival of the fitness.

that's where you'll be first to die. still like idea of survival of the fittest?

Evolution doesn't create benevolent beings.

wrong again, gorillas are benevolent beings, most of the parrots are, stronger birds in the nest feed weaker ones, on the other hand, baby eagles will kick throw down weaker brothers from the nest, killing them.

Ah, because we have the greatest gift of all, a creative brain (which we suddenly grew as we moved from a raw diet to meat, especially cooked meats, as evolutionary scientists and paleontologists agree on that).

wrong again, we evolved from hominidae, their intellect evolved because brain-hands connection, not because of eating meat, and they never changedtheir diet from as you say:"raw" (vegetable presumably) because they were omnivores all the time, hunting small animals.

How's about we use that gift creatively rather than squander it on waiting for mother nature to do our job, hmm?

we are creative, see how screwed and miserable world is, all thanks to "human creativity"

at this point i am done replying to you since obviously you lack knowledge and ignorantly arguing about nonsense that has nothing with reality.
world out there is not the way you imagine it.

 

[FAST6191]

you obviously didn't see much of the world, i was seaman and i was in great number of countries both first world and third world, you wouldn't believe the way people live and trying to survive

not true, some animals make wars like insects and chimpanzees, but never exterminated others, never, give me couple of examples where animal species forced other into extinction?

that's where you'll be first to die. still like idea of survival of the fittest?

wrong again, gorillas are benevolent beings, most of the parrots are, stronger birds in the nest feed weaker ones, on the other hand, baby eagles will kick throw down weaker brothers from the nest, killing them.

wrong again, we evolved from hominidae, their intellect evolved because brain-hands connection, not because of eating meat, and they never changedtheir diet from as you say:"raw" (vegetable presumably) because they were omnivores all the time, hunting small animals.

we are creative, see how screwed and miserable world is, all thanks to "human creativity"

at this point i am done replying to you since obviously you lack knowledge and ignorantly arguing about nonsense that has nothing with reality.
world out there is not the way you imagine it.

As previously discussed a lack of resources is not necessarily the issue but a lack of resource distribution.

"give me couple of examples where animal species forced other into extinction"
Forced how? The introduction of an invasive species has annihilated plenty of species, or at least forced speciation, all throughout history.

"that's where you'll be first to die. still like idea of survival of the fittest?"
Assuming that is the case then I still do not follow.

Hands-brain certainly helped (though be very careful with what evidence you bring as much of it is based on the less than stellar early attempts at measuring brain activity) but in most things I have ever seen the rather substantial increase in energy density that comes from meat plays a huge role in powering the rather energy hungry brain. Plus all the fossil and evolutionary evidence.

parrots and gorrilas benevolent... allow me to laugh harder.

"we are creative, see how screwed and miserable world is, all thanks to "human creativity""
I see amazing technology, eradication of various diseases (give or take troubles like antibiotic resistance and the anti vaccination cretins), an increasing understanding of basic concepts of the universe, less crime/violence than most other points in human history, social progress at at pace basically never seen before and lots more besides. There does not quite look to be a downward slope coming either.

 

[Lacius]

What a silly thread
Being a father is the best feeling ever.
I love my boys (one grown up now, one 5yrs old).
I provide for them (or provided in the case of the elder one) and never took anything from anyone or deprived anyone else of anything.
I fail to see how I did any harm to anyone ?

You didn't really harm anyone, but on a presumably insignificant level, you've increased the population, which will contribute to the overpopulation problems discussed in length in this thread.

Imagine if your parents had thought like you - you wouldn't be here to complain.

That's a silly argument to make when it's unreasonable to combine every sperm with every egg. There are lots of things that could have gotten in the way of any given person being born. That doesn't mean we should alter our actions to maximize the population.

PS. In my experience the most vociferous members of the "anti-child"brigade have also been the ones with the least opportunity to reproduce, if you catch my drift

Personally making the choice not to reproduce for moral reasons isn't the same as being anti-child. If I were to have children, I feel morally compelled to adopt. I'm also a junior high teacher, so for these reasons, I'm demonstrably not anti-child. As a side note, it wouldn't be very difficult for me to genetically reproduce if you catch my drift. I'm not sure why you would say that.

People are quick to panic when in reality our species has proven to persevere through great hardships. There's always a big scare on the horizon, it's like we're programmed to be vigilant to the point of mania. If it's not the red scare, it's war. When the war blows over, it's a nuclear missile crisis. When that's resolved, it's climate change. When that's old news, it's ebola or some other disease. We invent fears whenever we're not facing direct threats.

Humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. Compared to the age of the Earth and the age of the universe, that's not long enough to be able to say anything about the future of humanity. In fact, catastrophic events decreased the human population to between 3,000-10,000 people about 70,000 years ago, and that's without the level of technology we have to destroy the world today (either incrementally or suddenly). There's also the idea that, statistically, we've either beaten incredible odds that we would be born so early in human history or the human species doesn't last very long.

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

Note that I'm not saying we're doomed. I'm just saying that you shouldn't argue that we're resilient enough to not need to alter our actions as a species. That's like a teenager thinking he or she is immortal just because he or she doesn't get sick and/or hurt much, if at all.

Who's to say that we're not already at that comfortable level?

It doesn't really matter if we're currently at a comfortable level if the population is increasing drastically.

And who sets the bar?

Our knowledge of how many resources we have vs. how many resources we need? It's mostly just bookkeeping, which isn't too difficult.

I'm sorry, I'm not one for tree hugging.

Perhaps you should be.

As for humans driving animals to extinction, that's indeed sad, but not preventable. Animals also drive other species into extinction, they've been doing that since the dawn of time - survival of the fitness.

The difference between humans and other non-human animals is we don't give animals a chance, and we wipe them out at an extraordinary rate. Non-human species don't get the chance to adapt in some cases. For example, due to humans, a fungus called chytrid was introduced to frog populations in the Americas. The chytrid evolved side-by-side in Africa would other species of frogs, but when introduced to frogs in the Americas, there was literally no way frogs could adapt since relocation of that magnitude is unnatural, which is causing mass extinctions.

The Halocene extinction is a name being proposed for the mass extinction humans are causing.

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

Evolution doesn't create benevolent beings, it creates efficient ones.

Not only does evolution indeed create benevolent beings (e.g. humans), but it's not mutually exclusive with creating efficient beings. The biological predispositions to things like morality and altruism are well documented, as well as their evolutionary origins/benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Evolutionary_explanations

Ah, because we have the greatest gift of all, a creative brain (which we suddenly grew as we moved from a raw diet to meat, especially cooked meats, as evolutionary scientists and paleontologists agree on that). How's about we use that gift creatively rather than squander it on waiting for mother nature to do our job, hmm?

I don't recall anyone asking for mother nature to do the work, but I could have missed it. Speaking for myself, I said humans need to alter their behavior for any of my previously mentioned problems to be solved.

As previously discussed a lack of resources is not necessarily the issue but a lack of resource distribution.

With a high enough population, it's both.

Forced how? The introduction of an invasive species has annihilated plenty of species, or at least forced speciation, all throughout history.

The non-human species can hardly be blamed if humans are at fault here. Natural is usually a more gradual process, and what your describing usually occurs in the modern world when humans introduced a species where it wasn't before. I'm not saying animals haven't caused other animals to go extinct in the wild; it has happened a lot. However, no animal other than humans has caused mass extinctions like we have.

I see amazing technology, eradication of various diseases (give or take troubles like antibiotic resistance and the anti vaccination cretins), an increasing understanding of basic concepts of the universe, less crime/violence than most other points in human history, social progress at at pace basically never seen before and lots more besides. There does not quite look to be a downward slope coming either.

Human inginutity has been responsible for both very good things and very bad things. Let's talk about how to stop or minimize the bad.

 

[Foxi4]

Humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. Compared to the age of the Earth and the age of the universe, that's not long enough to be able to say anything about the future of humanity. In fact, catastrophic events decreased the human population to between 3,000-10,000 people about 70,000 years ago, and that's without the level of technology we have to destroy the world today (either incrementally or suddenly). There's also the idea that, statistically, we've either beaten incredible odds that we would be born so early in human history or the human species doesn't last very long.

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

Note that I'm not saying we're doomed. I'm just saying that you shouldn't argue that we're resilient enough to not need to alter our actions as a species. That's like a teenager thinking he or she is immortal just because he or she doesn't get sick and/or hurt much, if at all.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not saying that we should switch to coal power plants, fill the sea with industrial waste and blow up the rainforest, what I'm saying is that we should continue tinkering with solutions to our problems and lowering our population is not a solution, at least not "our" population. I think it's safe to say that the majority (if not all) of the participants of this discussion come from affluent areas not affected by the problems of resources vs. population. We're not directly responsible for uncontrolled growth, we barely have children to begin with. That kind of preaching should be directed at Mo'nique from the poor side of town or Sharquanda somewhere from the middle of Africa, both having 8 kids without the ability to support them when they should opt for Planned Parenthood instead. That is a problem that should be addressed, but instead of doing that we're too busy sending care packages of food that just gets eaten and doesn't make a difference. We're not using fishing rods like we should, we're using fish, and that's not a solution.

It doesn't really matter if we're currently at a comfortable level if the population is increasing drastically.

See answer above. The population may very well be increasing, but in all the wrong areas.

Spoiler

From what I'm seeing, practically every single developed country is suffering from low birth rates. I'm sure that all the preaching about overpopulation on the internet is reaching all those people in the middle part of Africa.

Our knowledge of how many resources we have vs. how many resources we need? It's mostly just bookkeeping, which isn't too difficult.

Resources are poorly managed, not scarce.

Perhaps you should be.

I would rather just die already.

The difference between humans and other non-human animals is we don't give animals a chance, and we wipe them out at an extraordinary rate. Non-human species don't get the chance to adapt in some cases. For example, due to humans, a fungus called chytrid was introduced to frog populations in the Americas. The chytrid evolved side-by-side in Africa would other species of frogs, but when introduced to frogs in the Americas, there was literally no way frogs could adapt since relocation of that magnitude is unnatural, which is causing mass extinctions.

The Halocene extinction is a name being proposed for the mass extinction humans are causing.

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

Just reading that made me want to shoot a white tiger.

I kid, I kid - I know exactly what you're talking about. My argument was that us just "being here" and occupying certain plots of land is already being in the way of other creatures on this planet, what's the solution for that? Should we just kill ourselves? That would possibly be the best scenario for the natural kingdom, right? Wrong, of course not, that's insane. The cross-contamination you mention isn't entirely avoidable, but we should pay attention to such issues when introducing new species to ecosystems.

Not only does evolution indeed create benevolent beings (e.g. humans), but it's not mutually exclusive with creating efficient beings. The biological predispositions to things like morality and altruism are well documented, as well as their evolutionary origins/benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Evolutionary_explanations

I would argue that humans are not benevolent creatures. In fact, I'd argue that benevolent species don't exist. Bleak, but that's the way I see it. It's all about survival, it's always been about survival. I'd sooner say that "benevolence" comes in the form of a gradable spectrum and with that in mind, we're pretty benevolent in comparison to the average wolf that doesn't know any better and would kill anything in its path given the chance just to provide resources to make its pack bigger. Wolves don't self-regulate (efficiently enough) - we regulate them.

I don't recall anyone asking for mother nature to do the work, but I could have missed it. Speaking for myself, I said humans need to alter their behavior for any of my previously mentioned problems to be solved.

I agree, humans need to do something, namely advance on the path we've already taken once we've realized that our presence has an impact on the environment. I choose to be the gardener of this garden, not a patch of cabbage. Often times the extreme environmentalist message is "live in a small cottage, maaaaan" and I oppose that idea - I don't think it's productive nor is it a solution.

 

[Smuff]

That's a silly argument to make when it's unreasonable to combine every sperm with every egg. There are lots of things that could have gotten in the way of any given person being born. That doesn't mean we should alter our actions to maximize the population.

I disagree.

My comment was quite clear and undeniable I thought - If your parents had felt that they didn't want to have children, then you would not be here to complain. Simple as that. They would not have had children. Therefore you would not exist.

Also it would be impossible to combine EVERY sperm with EVERY egg in any case, as sperm outnumber eggs in the order of millions.