The Need to Breed

[The Grand Nudger]

No no you're right. Our atmosphere is in the exact same shape it was in the 1600's, as well as our water, animal species, glaciers, etc etc. Population is clearly NOT a factor.

So..., still no explanation forthcoming on the very simple objections I raised, just restating the claim?

a global population that was 1 billion in 1800 and 4 billion in 1980 will probably have grown to 10 billion by the end of this century; the demand for food will have doubled by 2050; food production already accounts for 30% of greenhouse gases – more than manufacturing or transport; more food needs more land, especially when the food is meat; more fields mean fewer forests, which means even more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which means an even less stable climate, which means less reliable agriculture

You should take a look at what goes into the "food production" classifications and the issue becomes a "no shit this is ridiculously stupid" sort of thing. More food most definitely does not need more land. The author of that quote is a blithering fucking idiot. Firstly, vertical hydro, secondly, integrated aquaculture...just for starters. "Reliable ag" is heavy on climate controlled production, not waiting for the rain god to favor us. That little farm I'm fond of linking slideshows to uses 1/10th of the water of 1 acre under conventional management and produces 4 times the food. If our current situation is "the limit" then your numbers are off. Were at 1/10th of the water limit, 1/4 of the food limit. I'll split the difference, but it looks like we can fit a few more warm bodies on this rock based on those metrics. As a nice bonus, the business model eliminated the large majority of pollution concerns.

Most biologists agree we’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event; species are disappearing about 1,000 times faster than is typical of the planet’s history. This time, though, it isn’t because of geologic or cosmic forces but unsustainable human population growth.

We’ve already witnessed the devastating effects of overpopulation on biodiversity: Species abundant in North America two centuries ago — from the woodland bison of West Virginia and Arizona’s Merriam’s elk to the Rocky Mountain grasshopper and Puerto Rico’s Culebra parrot — have been wiped out by growing human numbers.

Strange, and here I thought that bullets, lack of game management, and poor (honestly, non-existent) conservation policies did in the bison (and a whole host of others). Though, in the end, you should know me well enough by now..if I have to choose between the Rocky Mountain Grasshopper and even the shittiest of human beings, I'll take the human beings. I didn;t realize that every time a baby was born the cosmos killed a kitten...I really didn't.

Notice that we didn't mention climate change above, or the exploding population/consumption levels that are triggering it — the two major factors threatening humanity's future.

In “Why Have Children?: The Ethical Debate” (M.I.T. Press), Christine Overall tries to subject that decision to morally rigorous analysis. Overall, who teaches philosophy at Queen’s University, in Ontario, dismisses the notion that childbearing is “natural” and therefore needs no justification. “There are many urges apparently arising from our biological nature that we nonetheless should choose not to act upon,” she observes. If we’re going to keep having kids, we ought to be able to come up with a reason.

If we're going to keep breathing....we ought to be able to come up with a reason. Look, Cin, these quotes come from people with agendas to pursue (and that's fine, I have my own - but it bears mentioning), I question the assumptions used to reach the conclusions, perhaps you should start fleshing those assumptions out for me, handle my objections. You aren't bringing me any eye opening info, this stuff hasn't completely escaped my radar leaving me bewildered as to how we ended up where we are.