(post not aimed at any particular member)

Perhaps for those opposed to self-imposed sterilization, it's just a question of which life brings you more happiness. Life with children, or life without children. Perhaps they cannot separate the love they have for their existing children with the love that they think a person in the near future would feel for a child that has never existed. If that's the case, it isn't fair. It's apples and oranges.

I guess I should clarify that although I love my son more than words can express, I am not any more overall happier now than I was in my 20's. I'm also not any worse. Both chapters of my life had their own pros and cons. Had my son never been born, I would still have a full and happy life. There's a reason people who lived in the 17th century didn't long for refrigerators and PS3s. They never had them.

I can honestly say that if I were 27 years old, living on a planet with 10 billion people and someone came to me urging me and all my neighbors not to make children because earth was on the brink of complete and utter destruction within one decade, well, I gotta tell ya ... I would willingly comply.
For two reasons:
The most important one of which is that my child would have the shittiest and shortest life imaginable with absolutely no hope and my resulting sorrow would be overwhelming. Which of course would make it easy to have reason number two:
There might be at least some chance that I will not only survive but still have a good life, free from the worry of a world about to kill my children and grand children.



It's like Shell B once told me ... I do indeed give a shit. I'm not apathetic. Even when I lose hope, somewhere inside of me I still want to us to overcome our own stupidity. The simplest solution I can see (and it will probably never happen) is to simply quit making babies every 6 minutes. If there's no new people to suck up the resources, we'll stop contaminating our planet to get them.

Meanwhile, when we do invent light speed travel and a clean reusable fuel, we can return to breeding as usual.

Oh, okay. I misunderstood you. We both think crazy lady is crazy. *phew* I was about to delete you from invisible friends list, lest I get virtual Captain Trips. *panic attack averted*

It's a whole new shade of shitty at that point Cinj. If people came and told me that I couldn't/shouldn't have any more kids because "earth was on the brink of complete and utter destruction within one decade" -and their arguments were solid- I might have cause to reconsider as well.

Just to harsh your mellow with regards to less people leading to less contamination...hehe, we could always end up with a situation where fewer and fewer consume more and more totaling even more destruction, you know...like we've been doing.

(August 15, 2012 at 1:08 am)Rhythm Wrote: It's a whole new shade of shitty at that point Cinj. If people came and told me that I couldn't/shouldn't have any more kids because "earth was on the brink of complete and utter destruction within one decade" -and their arguments were solid- I might have cause to reconsider as well.

Just to harsh your mellow with regards to less people leading to less contamination...hehe, we could always end up with a situation where fewer and fewer consume more and more totaling even more destruction, you know...like we've been doing.

But don't you see Rhythm, we are being told that the earth is on the brink. And still no one gives a shit. No one is listening.

I do. It's the second part of that that's really important to me. The solid arguments bit. My beef with these sorts of things is never that we aren't facing a given problem (or won't sometime in the future), it's the solution that is sold afterwards that rubs me the wrong way in a lot of cases recently.

Here, let me give you the opposite end of this Cinj. Suppose I came to you and said that you definitely should have children. Why? Because we have in our grasp, right now, the knowledge and ability to change the world. We can feed the masses, we can repair environmental damage and severely limit further damage. You should have children because they will live long, happy, healthy lives. That the tides of opinion are shifting, and whats really needed are young people with fresh ideas and a new vision for the future. Hell Cinjin, we need people like you to breed like fucking rabbits, and raise your kids to care about the things you care about. We're trying to save our species after all.

(August 15, 2012 at 1:15 am)Cinjin Wrote: But don't you see Rhythm, we are being told that the earth is on the brink. And still no one gives a shit. No one is listening.

Tis very simple old boy. Either people do something about it or we are all fucked.

What I've learnt is that you cannot force change. All one can do is advise/warn. After that it's up to them which path to go down. Experience is the harshest and also the most effective teacher. But of course to learn through experience often means it's already to late to avoid the disaster.

(August 14, 2012 at 3:11 am)Shell B Wrote: Look at the earliest known population of humans. Compare that to now. What makes you think that for some reason, in your lifetime, that growth will stop? Don't be daft. Even catastrophic diseases like the flu have failed to stem population growth.

Middle-of-the-road UN projections have human population growth peaking by 2050, followed by a slow, centuries-long decline in population. Most developed countries are already at negative-replacement rates, European and US populations would be shrinking instead of growing without immigration. Large families aren't so attractive when having enough children survive to take care of you in old age is no longer your only retirement option and birth control is easily obtained.

(August 15, 2012 at 11:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 3:11 am)Shell B Wrote: Look at the earliest known population of humans. Compare that to now. What makes you think that for some reason, in your lifetime, that growth will stop? Don't be daft. Even catastrophic diseases like the flu have failed to stem population growth.

Middle-of-the-road UN projections have human population growth peaking by 2050, followed by a slow, centuries-long decline in population. Most developed countries are already at negative-replacement rates, European and US populations would be shrinking instead of growing without immigration. Large families aren't so attractive when having enough children survive to take care of you in old age is no longer your only retirement option and birth control is easily obtained.

By 2050 it may very well be too late. Also, declining growth, isn't a shrinking population. If the world only had 300 babies a day (which would be an unrealistic 96% drop in population growth) we'd still be growing. I don't think some of you people are getting it. We're already at capacity.

Also, if you're not willing to accept the projections of Global Warming scientists, than I'm far less inclined to take the projections of a few political analysts at the UN.

Y'know how in every alien sci-fi film there is a extraterrestrial race that is trying to obtain our resources so they don't die out? We'll be the extraterrestrials in the near future.

(August 14, 2012 at 9:28 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, the humane thing to do is to feed them and then help them reach sustainability.

Sure, that's another way of doing it, but that's what we tried last time. They don't stop having children for various reasons, religion, child labour, etc to name a few. We've had a hard enough time introducing condoms to Africa as it is.