Wouldn't having a child be the worst thing a person can do for the environment?

[RB TexLa]

It would seem to have the longest lasting effect? Regardless of what I do my "carbon feetprint" end when I end.

[wtmusic]

1. What if that child is raised to fight for the environment

and respect it?

If we only accept responsibility for ourselves then you're right. But if we accept responsibility for cleaning up after others--who will carry on your fight when you're gone?

[Lasher]

2. Yes, there are too many people.

[Deja Q]

36. Too many people, quite probably. What would you do resolve that problem?

[Lasher]

55. I don't know if the problem can be resolved

But for starters, we need to stop romanticizing large families. I continue to see people on TV who are fawned over because they are raising a brood like The Waltons. And there's the hype when some woman has sextuplets because she used in vitro fertilization to get pregnant. And I don't think you should get a pass in the court of public sentiment if you're having a large family because your religious beliefs forbid you to use contraception.

Most of all, we need to promote the realization that there's just too many people. This is the root cause of many problems in the world today.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

92. I think some Presidential leadership would help

At this point, I don't think it's necessary to force people to stop having children and I would prefer it to be voluntary, based on intelligent awareness. But I think we need overpopulation to be made a big issue by our President and by world leaders. Not only should we stop romanticizing large familes, we need to view large families as a danger to our planet. This is not just a U.S. problem but it's a problem all over the world. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's the root cause of many problems in the world today. I think we not only need to stop population growth, we need to naturally reverse it over time.

[Lasher]

119. There are some things we could do if we think about it.

Some people have another baby just so their welfare check will increase. I have seen this happen all around me all my life. So what do you do about it? We're not going to take these children away from their parents. And we're not going to subject people in the US to involuntary sterization. And although much of the money goes to beer and cigarettes for deadbeat parents, we're not going to cut these welfare payments off because the children would go hungry - or in some cases, hungrier.

But a friend of mine told me last year that Massachusetts has imposed a rule: If you are already on welfare and if you have a child (or another child) your monthly check does not increase. And he said it was working, that such births have dramatically increased in that state. I have not personally verified his claim, but to me it seems such a thing could work. This is more suttle than measures such as China's 1979 one child rule (which I applaud in their case).

But this type of controls would be meaningless without global teamwork. If you control population in Country A, and if Country B does nothing, the excess population of Country B will seek to fill up the space in County A, bringing with them their reproductive traditions.

There has been a lot of discussion about global warming. I have been thinking that carbon emissions should not be allocated on the basis of a county's population, but perhaps on land mass. Otherwise there would be rewards in this respect for having excessive populations.

I keep thinking of the history of Easter Island as a warning of what could happen on a worldwide scale. The earth, after all, is an island.

There you go, just some of my ramblings on the subject. Hope I didn't put you to sleep.

[Greyhound]

116. Making the public practice of religion something to be ridiculed

would go a long way to accomplishing this. All of the major religions encourage unrestrained breeding as the primary source of new donors, I mean followers. Look at Africa, between the Catholic Church and the rise of Islam in combination with the machinations of the World Bank/IMF, they are breeding themselves into the misery we ignore every day.

[spoony]

Yes, if it weren't for religion nobody would fuck each other.

Brilliant analysis.

[Greyhound]

182. Not at all, there would likely be a lot more fucking, just without all the guilt

and measures to prevent pregnancy would much more commonly used.

[Yupster]

147. It is the biggest problem

Reduce the world's population by 2-3 billion, and all the environmental problems would be easy to solve.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pepperbear]

4. I think you're going to get some serious debate on this one.....

but I would offer that there is a strong case for adopting those children who are already stuck here.
I'm adopted myself.

[babylonsister]

5. If it's your child, the environment doesn't matter. Your child could

add and make it better if you teach them to...
Knowledge is power in all things.

[Contrary1]

6. Nope...

Because that child may grow up to be the person that makes all the difference. What if only the people that did not agree with you, who care not what happens, were the only ones to have children? What example will they teach them?

My children are the hope I have for our future.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theHandpuppet]

127. With that logic, why not have 15 kids....

... to increase the odds it will be your kid that "makes all the difference"?

I'm sorry, but human overpopulation IS a major factor, if not THE major factor in what's tearing this planet apart. Until we begin to acknowledge that proverbial "elephant in the room" then there really is no hope to save this planet.

[Jed Dilligan]

7. Depends on who the child grows up to be.

[emilyg]

8. No way.

[wtmusic]

9. For Barbara Bush maybe nt

[NMDemDist2]

10. that's why I choose to be childless in the 70s n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Unless you want a world made up entirely of old people, no

It's irresponsible to have children by the dozen, but having two doesn't even replace you and your spouse, because of people like me, who don't have children.

Many industrialized countries are now below replacement level, with an average of fewer than 2 children per couple.

[RB TexLa]

12. We are not replacing anyone, sorry

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I'm not either, but I don't condemn people who have one or two children

It's people like that fundamentalist family with 17 kids and counting who are causing environmental damage.

[TahitiNut]

13. The 'environment' will survive - it's people that won't.

So, I think Mother Earth will take care of the question of overpopulation quite unambiguously.

As we attend to questions of "Environmentalism," we should ALWAYS remember that there's no question that the planet will survive and host many life forms ... except, perhaps, human beings. Thus, it is a (legitimately) self-serving goal to act in ways that ensure the 'environment' is conducive to the survival of humanity. No matter what the outcome, it'll be just - it can't be otherwise.

[Lasher]

61. I keep thinking of the lesson of Easter Island

All of the inhabitants' woes were not self induced but there is a model of overpopulation, war, and destruction of natural resources needed to sustain the people there. It's not too hard to imagine how this same scenario could play out worldwide.

[Yupster]

149. Have you read the book "Collapse?"

by Jared Diamond. Easter Island was one of the chapters he went into.

Very good book.

[Lasher]

197. No, I'll have to check it out.

Thanks.

[glitch]

73. Good post. I fear that justice. There is no question that our species has wasted, a sin which Earth

probably won't forgive.

[Warren DeMontague]

192. Yeah, the long-term survival of humanity. Which requires, among other things, what?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with an "R".

[RC]

15. Yeah, that's what this planet needs -- More people.

When the oil runs out there is going to be mass starvation. The oil is starting to run out now. Those born now most likely will not have time to grow up to do anything about the environment.

[Why Syzygy]

17. Uh. No.

Tuning into nature is one of the best things you can do for the environment. When you walk through the park do you pick up stray soda cans or other litter? That's for our environment. Children can do that also. Nature loves birth.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Oh, for fuck's sake.

This has been a banner fucking week, around here, for these.

[Occulus]

20. You noticed that, too, huh? n/t

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

142. .

[jgraz]

19. People can scoff but very few can raise a cogent argument against this

And no, the "my child will grow up to save the world" trope does not count as a cogent argument.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Yeah, I'll raise a cogent argument. RUN YOUR OWN GOD DAMN LIFE....

Don't tell other people how to run theirs. Hate kids? Don't want kids? Want to be one of the gleefully self-righteous "childfree" who rolls their eyes at the mom or dad trying to get the stroller up over the sidewalk curb? Good for you. Here's a clove cigarette and a beret that matches your soul patch.

But this bullshit about "don't reproduce- for the environment".. I'm sorry, maybe it's a hopelessly anthropomorphic point of view, but the reason I WANT there to be an environment is so that our descendants have a planet to live on. And you know what? Hand-wringing about how awful everything is aside, life for most humans right now is a fuckload better than it was 30,000 years ago. 3,000 years ago. 300 years ago. I realize the move-into-a-yurt crowd likes nothing better than to flagellate themselves over evil technological planet-destroying inventions like indoor plumbing, but the same science that gave us the internal combustion technology which we now need to move beyond also has given us the ability to feed billions more people than we would have been able to even decades ago. Yes, we have some problems, and overpopulation is one of them. But, as no one who posts these bullshit threads ever wants to acknowledge, the overpopulation is NOT taking place in The United States, Japan, Europe or other advanced nations.. advanced nations where birth control is (for the time being here, although the GOP would change that) legal and more or less available, the standard of living is relatively high, people are fairly well educated and there is a degree of independence from control-minded, backwards-ass religious "authorities" who have nothing better to do than micro-manage and moralize about the most personal, intimate decisions people make in their own lives. (hmmmm... remind you of anyone?)

...Get it? In places where there is a decent standard of living, education and birth control are available, and people are FREE to make their own decisions, they reduce birth rates ON THEIR OWN. With no help from hectoring, bitchy, self-righteous, snotty "childfree" types who are mad because they got stuck on the red-eye from JFK with a crying baby.

Having kids is, for many of us, the most meaningful thing that we've done in our lives. FAR AND AWAY. Can't understand that? Don't understand that? Don't want to understand that? Fine. But I can't think of a more useless, much less pointedly fucking obnoxious activity than to sit around getting snotty and self-righteous about it, bitching about it, and hectoring people for it. It's like meat eating... even more so, because while there may have been periods in history when our ancestors were strictly vegetarian, they ALWAYS reproduced. So- sorry! It's a behavior that's not going away.

Get over it, already.

[jgraz]

23. hmm...sounds like somebody isn't all that happy with the life choices they've made

That's ok, I get that from a lot of parents.

[Clark2008]

56. I thought it was funny as hell and I LOVE my life choices.

My life choices are smart, cute and adorable.

So there. :P

[jgraz]

60. Yep, those kids are damn cute

No argument here.

But maybe you can explain the rabid reaction from some parents when the topic of responsible reproduction is raised. After all, this is a liberal board so I'm assuming these parents have ideas regarding MY choices on energy usage, SUV purchases and that baby seal hunt I go on every year. Should I be telling them to run their own goddamned lives?

[Bluerthanblue]

88. simple explanation

i call it "Mother bear"-

Don't mess with my kids.

It is a healthy reaction to people threatening your little ones. You may feel questioning the 'wisdom' of people who are parenting is "no big whoop", but many times those 'questions' are actually poorly disguised attacks.

I have no problem accepting people who choose not to directly involve themselves with parenting. And I am bothered by those in society who question them about their choice- implying there is something fundamentally 'lacking' or 'wrong' with people who have chosen a different path for their life.

Beyond that, there are the issues of our own .... inherent value?.... when someone says "you shouldn't have kids, this planet is too full".... i personally hear some old troubling "sound-bites" from the past shouting: "I wish you'd never been born!! you fucking little brat" and other not pleasant things.


What is a child? What if YOUR parent had been told that they were doing something bad by giving birth to you? It is kind of like saying,"WE" are the only humans who should be here.

Not voicing this well- sorry.

[jgraz]

101. Maybe...

but to interpret a reasoned question about the wisdom of producing more humans as an attack on your own children is somewhat troubling. It sounds uncomfortably close to hearing advocacy for gay marriage as an attack on heterosexuals.

The fact is that our environment is in some serious shit, and I'm against taking ANY reasonable remedy "off the table". Getting people to think hard about the impact of reproducing is a good thing, IMHO.

[Bluerthanblue]

108. How else would you

expect someone to take it?

When someone asks you why you don't have children, do you not automaticly feel the need to defend your position?

This isn't at all like "'gay marriage' being an attack on hetrosexuals'".

Saying that it is HARMFUL to this planet for people to have a child is a broad generic condemnation of those who not only have already made that decision, but an attempt to discourage others from the same 'mistake'.

When someone uses the argument that recognizing the RIGHT of people to enter into a marriage based on their sexual orentation is a threat to them, they are comparing apples and oranges. When you compare an Orange tree with fruit on it's branches with one that does not have fruit, and say that the one without fruit is the "better" one- you have a more accurate analogy.

I was offering my thoughts to your speculation on why people would be so 'rabid' in their response- your reply to me only reinforces my feeling that there is indeed a "veiled accusation" implying those who have children are harming the planet and less concerned about the earth.

I'm not unconcerned or ignorant about the state of our world. I believe the earth will outlast humans. We weren't here in the begining, and we very well might not be here in the end.

That doesn't give us excuse to trash and destroy everything around us.

peace,
blu

[jgraz]

188. How would I expect someone to take it? For starters, like a rational adult.

"When someone asks you why you don't have children, do you not automaticly feel the need to defend your position?"

Heh -- not in the least. I usually just laugh. I certainly don't feel threatened or defensive.

"Saying that it is HARMFUL to this planet for people to have a child is a broad generic condemnation of those who not only have already made that decision, but an attempt to discourage others from the same 'mistake'."

Here you need to separate statements of fact from your own perceived judgment. If someone says that driving is harmful to the planet, do you feel condemned for all the cars you've owned in your life? Or are you able to evaluate that statement and discuss it independently of your own actions?

One that strikes a bit closer to home for me is the statement of fact about buying pets at pet stores. I was told how harmful this is only after I had purchased my conure, whom I love as much as I can imagine loving a child. I felt no need to defend my previous choices, I just took the opportunity to discuss the issue that had been raised.

"your reply to me only reinforces my feeling that there is indeed a "veiled accusation" implying those who have children are harming the planet and less concerned about the earth."

I certainly would never say that, anymore than I would say that people who buy pets in pet stores don't care about cruelty to animals. My point is that this issue should not be taboo, and people who bring it up for discussion should not be attacked in the way that the OP has been.


I won't even get into your orange tree analogy, other than to say I really hope you aren't juicing your kids. :P

[theHandpuppet]

124. Touche

I support you wholeheartedly. But too many folks simply can't be rational about this subject.

[Warren DeMontague]

134. Uh, you say "touche" when someone you disagree with makes a point that convinces you.

You don't say "touche" when you're cheering on a position that you've already made perfectly clear you were rooting for all along.

[Midlodemocrat]

95. As are mine.

[Megahurtz]

106. Yeah, Until They Get to be Teenagers.

ROFL!!! :rofl:

[Harper_is_Bush]

164. Yeah, it was funny. If you find ignorant tirades funny, I guess.

[Dervill Crow]

90. I didn't get that impression at all.

For the record, I'm an unapologetic pitbull-owning vegetarian mother of four.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Yeah, that's exactly it.

Sorry. Nice try. Projecting, maybe?

[jgraz]

179. Projecting...heh. The adult version of the I'm Rubber/You're Glue argument

OK, care to explain why a simple statement caused you to spew so much bile?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for that cogent argument about how human reproduction doesn't affect the environment.

[Warren DeMontague]

185. Why the bile? Hmmmmm, let's see. First off, in the past 10 days, these are some of the adjectives

I've seen to describe kids: "spawn", "brats", "filthy brood". These are some of the adjectives I've seen to describe those of us on DU who are parents- not because of anything else we've done, but merely because we have the nerve to reproduce: "selfish", "self-centered", "arrogant", "clueless yuppies" "breeders" and of course, "only interested in the ego-fulfillment of creating miniature copies of yourselves".

You can't figure out why a "simple statement" or two pissed me, and so many others of us, off? Let's imagine you're gay- you come face to face with a constant barrage of lecturing from self-righteous windbags about how much better for everyone it would be if you would simply not be gay. Religious Right fucks bombard you with bullshit about the "negative health consequences" of being gay. And of course, supposedly "well meaning" folks only interested in giving you the "good news" try to "save" you from the wicked lifestyle choice you've made. I'd wager it would get fucking old. Fucking FAST. And the bottom line is, "simple statements" or no, there comes a point at which people need to be told "live your own life, and don't fucking lecture me about mine."

Get it? It's offensive as hell.

And let's all be perfectly honest; the point of this thread, like the point of several nearly identical ones to it (many of them started by the same OP) was to harangue the parents on DU. To take snarky pot-shots and jabs at those of us who dare to have kids. Yeah. And then when we get pissed off, it's like "Gee, whiz, I was only trying to tell you how to live your life. I was only saying that you really ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing that thing in your life which is extremely meaningful, important, even central to it. I just don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand why you would be so touchy!" :eyes:

As for human reproduction not affecting the environment- human breathing affects the environment. It's one thing to realize that, another to expect it to stop altogether. Everything I said in that first post still stands (even the "bile-filled", shocking assertion that maybe people ought to live their own lives instead of trying to run everyone else's.. even though I know that kind of crazy talk drives the authoritarian control crowd NUTS.) ... namely, in countries where birth control is legal and available, people are educated and free of excessive religious control/brainwashing, population limits itself, no lectures needed. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself, maybe factual statements like "the population problem is NOT TAKING PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY, JAPAN OR EUROPE" don't sink in. Maybe the thinking is that people in America should have NO kids, so that, I don't know, the folks with 10 kids in Africa can move some of them here when we're all gone. I don't know. I really don't know what the logic here is, other than it's fun for some to lecture people with kids just like it's fun for some to lecture meat-eaters.

Seriously. Want to make a difference on this issue? Take some of that righteous indignation that is reserved for, I dunno, the folks with the 2 year old on the airplane, and send it along to the Republicans who want to make the birth control pill illegal. Sheeesh.

[jgraz]

187. ok, maybe staying in the here and now is something you could work on

None of the attacks you cite in your post were contained in the OP or my response. We never mentioned "spawn" or kids on airplanes or strollers. We merely made the point (or asked the question in the OP's case) about the environmental impact of having children. It seems almost silly to have to point this out to you, but you're apparently so pissed off at someone else's slight that you can't see this simple fact.

Here's an idea: why don't you look up those previous posters who pissed you off and go rant at them? It's quite a useful technique, actually directing your anger at the appropriate target. You'd think an experienced and committed parent like yourself would have learned this little lesson by now.

[Warren DeMontague]

191. Sigh.

Like I said, the person who posted the OP has been responsible for a bunch of these threads.

But, whatever. You don't need to look anywhere beyond this thread to see exactly what I'm talking about, and I suspect you are more than aware of that. Again, "But it's just an innocent little question..." :eyes: Yeah, right. Ever wonder why so many people consider this crap obvious flamebait? I'm obviously not the only one.

Beyond that, have your fun playing these games with someone else. I've said everything that I feel needs to be said on this issue. Nite.

[jgraz]

193. Then your argument is with the OP *on that other thread*

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Maybe some sleep will reboot your sense of propriety. G'nite.

[Warren DeMontague]

195. Pfffffft.

My "sense of propriety". That's a good one. :rofl: Yes, clutch your crinoline doily to your chest as you lament and express with shock -shock!- the lost innocence of this certainly well-intentioned thread. :eyes:

...man. Cracks me the fuuuuuuck up.

[The Straight Story]

201. Including your own? (nt)

[jgraz]

204. haha -- I certainly have a few I'd like to get back

Leaving 5 mil in Apple options on the table in order to become an unappreciated code slave at Pixar comes to mind...

But not having kids? Not in a million years.

[Maru Kitteh]

24. I would shoot off FIREWORKS for your post if I could! Fuckin' great!

Everything I wanted to say, but better.

[jgraz]

54. Interesting response given your name and avatar

I could probably cook up a similar broad-brush ad hominem attack against vegans, but I'm sure you've heard them all by now. However, I'm guessing that you wouldn't be shooting off fireworks after a "run your own goddamned life" response to a post about our dietary choices. Or our driving habits. Or any other issue that affects consumption and the health of our planet.

If your response to a reasoned discussion about reproduction is "run your own goddamned life", then please return that tax deduction you take for your kids. Oh, and can I please have those property taxes back that pay for your children's public education?

I pay these taxes happily (well, not that happily) and work on many other causes that will leave our world in better shape for your children. But that also means that I get a spot in the debate over our choices as a society. The object is not to run your -- or anyone's -- life, the object is to raise the issue and raise people's awareness about the choices we make.

Why would someone named "Veganistan" have a problem with that?

[Clark2008]

58. Only if you'll give me back the taxes for the roads I don't

drive on.

That's a STUPID argument. A better educated society is better for ALL of us, including you.

[jgraz]

59. Exactly my point

The argument IS stupid. As stupid as telling someone to fuck off for raising a legitimate issue of population and reproductive choices.

Let's say you pay taxes that support the road in front of my house. Would you be OK if I told you to mind your own goddamned business if you raised questions about how that road was maintained?

I didn't think so.

[chefgirl]

115. Normally, I wouldn't jump in here

As a rule, I've found it better to stay out of these ridiculous 'population control' threads, but just this once I'm going to.

First of all, "impeachdubya", BRAVO! Excellent response! I think you really nailed whats behind this issue for certain people, on both sides, and I felt I HAD to recognize your wisdom. VERY well said!

The second, and more important reason why I replied is to say to you, jgraz ; the ONLY "legitimate issue of population and reproductive choices" that you, or anyone else has any right to postulate on is your own reproductive choice. That's it..period.

I fully respect those who choose not to have children every bit as much as those who do choose to have children. However, we living beings are bound by instinct to reproduce, and to suggest that the way to save the planet is to deny our genetic reason for being, is completely naive and short sighted, in my opinion.

I don't believe population, per se, or reproductive choices are truly the problem. The problem lies in the myriad other choices we humans make pertaining to sustainability of the planet, etc...

Additionally, you're Goddamned right parents take it personally and get indignant when people try to use their unalienable right to reproduce as fodder for some political argument.

Perhaps you should be grateful your mother didn't share your particular ideas on population control and reproductive choices.

Why not spend your time and energy arguing for a more realistic approach to saving the planet?


-chef-

[wuushew]

121. Is the instinct to reproduce a separate desire from sex ?

I mean we have the same basic instincts as other animals with the obvious difference of the highest cognizance and self awareness of all creatures.

Among mammals I suppose we could study the cases were mothers took surrogates of another species as replacements.

However it is not clear in these surrogate cases that these mothers were aware of the subterfuge. Humans need not adopt other species we can adopt unparented orphans of this species. By virtue of smarts, are humans too clever to satiate our subconsciousness paternal/maternal instincts?


The invention of modern birth control has allowed man to have his cake and eat it too. Hedonism and population sustainability can co-exist.

[chefgirl]

126. You've made my point, thanks

Hedonism and population sustainability can co-exist.


Then, by all means, feel free to practice both in your own life. My choices, remain mine, however.

And here's a newsflash, neither the choice to reproduce or not to reproduce is going to significantly impact the planet.

-chef-

[wuushew]

131. Why not? Simply because of scale?

"neither the choice to reproduce or not to reproduce is going to significantly impact the planet."


The Earth is a closed system much like the excellent Easter Island example. History is rife with examples of human populations collapsing because they exceeded the carrying capacity of the respective closed systems.

I am not going to celebrate demographic and cultural collapse as a positive outcome of free will.

[chefgirl]

136. I'm well aware of the Easter Island story

And still I say, reproduction was not the problem, and isn't the problem today.

The other choices we humans make, for good and for ill, are the choices that really impact the environment.

We have far more ability today, than the Easter Islanders did, to compensate for the growth of the species. It must be done without political considerations or national borders tying our hands. It must be done with Mother Earth as the priority.

Well cared for, the planet has the infinite capacity to sustain all life, for as long as we need it to. Reproduction is not the problem.

-chef-

[Yupster]

155. But isn't there some limit

to the earth's carrying capacity?

Can we have 12 billion people 40 years from now? 25 billion people 80 years from now?

There must be some point where the resources just won't be there.

[Yupster]

156. Great book

To me the most sobering idea was that often the collapses come quite suddenly and often at a civiliztion's peak.

[girl gone mad]

160. The universe is likely infinite.

There is at least one habitable planet (with its own water supply) near enough to colonize within the next century.

I don't see humans failing in the near future. If it's a question of energy shortage, we're an extremely adaptable species. Our current lifestyle may not survive, but we will.

Over half of the population of Easter Island was abducted or killed by foreign conquerors. Many of the remaining inhabitants were infected with Smallpox when the captives returned. By no means is that a good example of failure within a closed system.

[jgraz]

180. Another planet? OK, now this conversation has definitely gone round the bend

Do you have a particular planet it mind? We haven't even managed to make it back to the moon in 40 years and you think we're going to have the capability for not only interstellar travel but interstellar colonization in 100 years? :crazy:

[Yupster]

198. The Easter Island argument is

that the society collapsed before the first Europeans arrived to destroy the remnants. I don't know if the argument is right, partially right or wrong.

[jgraz]

177. "I don't believe population, per se, or reproductive choices are truly the problem"

Wow. :wow: What in hell are you basing that statement on?

"Additionally, you're Goddamned right parents take it personally and get indignant when people try to use their unalienable right to reproduce as fodder for some political argument."

Your right to reproduce is undeniable. Your right to stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" while the world drowns in a sea of people is a bit more debatable.

BTW, I couldn't care less if my mother had my views on population. I wouldn't be here to complain about it, would I?

[chefgirl]

200. Oohh, don't I feel told??

:eyes:

-chef

[jgraz]

205. I'm gonna guess "no"

Anybody who can make a statement so at odds with reality has gotta be fairly impervious to being "told".

[Telly Savalas]

154. Don't gripe to us about it. Complain to your parents.

[AngryOldDem]

152. It's stupid because schools make or break a community

What kind of quality-of-life issues are we talking about THEN? I can go literally five miles from where I sit right now and give you all a pretty good answer on the property-tax question.

[Telly Savalas]

153. Who the fuck paid for your education?

[jgraz]

178. Missing the point

again.

Re-read my post and see if you can figure out what my argument actually was. I'll wait...

[Telly Savalas]

186. You'll wait?

Is it standard for there to be immediate responses to your posts, or are you just being a prick?

[jgraz]

189. Yes, I'm being a prick. Me, that's who's the prick

:eyes:

You just seem to be having a bit of trouble with the ol' reading comprehension, particularly in the area of analogy and metaphor. I was hoping that giving you a bit more time to process might allow you to produce some response that approached coherent critical thought.

Clearly, I was wrong. Sorry to bother you.

[Bunny]

26. >

:applause:

[Megahurtz]

110. Not. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Overpopulation occurred in the US, Europe and Japan a long time ago

Look at the resources those regions use. The planet would be one huge disaster zone if everyone consumed as we do. These areas had their population increases earlier - Western Europe has about 4 times the population it had 200 years ago, despite significant emigration from it during that period.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. The point is, the regions that have the population problems need contraception, education

and help attaining a decent standard of living. The "developed world" needs to come up with better, renewable ways to power our shit and use our resources.

I think the way out is the way forward. We're not going backwards, and it's useless to gripe that we aren't.


I don't believe it's a zero sum game, unlike some.

And what, precisely, is productive about lecturing Liberal Americans to have fewer or not have kids- (something we do on our own perfectly well, TYVM) other than it provides some satisfying frission for the folks who feel superior because they don't have any?

[muriel_volestrangler]

173. But you're assuming that because the American population only grows slowly

and the European and Japanese populations are steady or declining, that they don't have a population problem. It's not the growth rate that's the problem, it's the level of population - pollution and water and other resource usage are already problems in these countries. What is productive about 'lecturing'? It decreases the use of those resources. We can decrease the population and get more efficient, and less consuming. All avenues must be followed.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. You mean, while people are busy lecturing, they're not using resources?

I'm only half kidding.

I think that there is ample evidence that, given the tools: legal and available contraception, good education, a separation of church & state and a degree of freedom (mental as well as legal) from control-minded religious "authorities"... people limit and reduce their population on their own.

Trying to tell them how to live their lives is counter productive, and frankly more than a little offensive, if you ask me. It's the same mentality I see over and over in certain corners of the self-described "left" (not mine)-- "Oh, I'm pro choice. As long as I agree with the choices you make." :eyes:

If you believe in someone's right to NOT have a baby, you ought to be able to accept that they have the right TO have one, as well.

And if the level of population is the problem, say, in the United States- does that mean that you favor walling off the border? Deporting all the illegal immigrants? (I don't) Because that's where you get today's "population problem". Again, acknowledging that isn't as much fun for some folks than tut-tutting (which, let's be honest, is what this thread is about) their fellow liberals who happen to "breed".

[blondeatlast]

32. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

My 10 year old son loves geology and and has taken it upon himself to be our "carbon footprint" monitor.

Not to mention--he is the light of my entire world.

Thank you, impeachdubya! :applause:

[Geek_Girl]

38. Your spot on!

:applause::applause::applause:

[Blue_In_AK]

47. Thank you.

[Missy Vixen]

63. I always find it amusing

when we're expected to bow down to the altar of the child, but those with children can't be supportive of our life choices in return. Here's a good case in point.

>Want to be one of the gleefully self-righteous "childfree" who rolls their eyes at the mom or dad trying to get the stroller up over the sidewalk curb?<

Sorry, but the "gleefully self-righteous childfree" moniker is nothing more than a group attack. We didn't have children for a variety of reasons. It is a well-documented fact that the decision not to reproduce carries significant environmental benefits.

>With no help from hectoring, bitchy, self-righteous, snotty "childfree" types who are mad because they got stuck on the red-eye from JFK with a crying baby.<

Actually, the red-eye is the least of my concerns.

Those "hectoring, bitchy, self-righteous, snotty "childfree" types" are subsidizing your progeny through our tax dollars. I might also add that those who are the most unhappy with their own life choices can't wait to go out of their way to bash mine.

Julie

[TahitiNut]

64. Yep.

It seems there's a severe physiological/psychological toll on many people who have children. Bizarre. Talk about "depleted resources"! :eyes:

[jgraz]

66. Yep. You nailed it.

:applause:

[Megahurtz]

112. Yep. Those Self-Centered People

and others like them are apparently the ones responsible for the overpopulation
that is ruining our Planet. Notice how they can't even address the issue of the Thread?
It becomes a "personal attack".

Why?

Because they are selfish.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. I've seen it too many times before.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. Yes, being a parent is an incredibly selfish act.

Whereas issuing edicts and lectures to everyone else about how THEY ought to organize their lives to make you feel better is the epitome of selflessness.

A personal attack? Gimme a fucking break. All we've had on this subject for the past 10 days is a series of threads from the same few names, all grousing about the irresponsibility of daring to have a child. :eyes: Oh, no, it's not intended as a personal attack, when we tell you you're a selfish yuppie breeder wrecking the world with your filthy "spawn" because your ego requires you to make little copies of yourself. Heavens, why would anyone respond to that sort of thing like it's a personal attack?

As for the other bullshit about how anyone who complains is 'unhappy with their life choices', give me a break. When Gay people speak up and complain, or even get pissed, about being bashed, criticized, hectored and proseltyzed to by "well meaning" straights, does that mean they're "unhappy" being gay?

Or does it mean they're sick of self-righteous folks who can't manage to mind their own damn business and run their own damn lives--- instead of everyone else's?

[Warren DeMontague]

133. No, not everyone who doesn't have kids is a self-righteous ass.

It was a very specific subset I was addressing.

[Missy Vixen]

144. Oh. Gosh, I feel so much better now.

>It was a very specific subset I was addressing.<

No, you specifically used the word "childfree".

We all know what you meant. How dare those of us who didn't choose to have children stand up for ourselves and the same rights you enjoy?

Julie

[Warren DeMontague]

157. No, you don't understand what I meant.

And maybe you haven't been paying attention to the other threads on the topic. Particularly the ones where one or two self-identified "childfree" people took it upon themselves to hector folks with kids, and other folks without kids made the point to them that, no, they don't represent everyone who doesn't have kids.

I don't give a shit if people don't want to have kids. I know a lot of people without kids. For many, many years, I was one of them. Like I said, I was speaking to a specific subset. Try reading the sentence again. Or don't, I don't care. Whether or not "we all" (are you sharing a computer? Multiple personalities, perhaps?) think you know what I meant, you all are incorrect.

If you'd like to have an argument with someone who you can pretend is actually saying the things you insist that I'm saying--- even though I'm not, try this guy:

[Missy Vixen]

176. Nice personal attack!

I don't have MPD, and I certainly comprehend what I read.

I think I'm through discussing any subject whatsoever with you.

Julie

[Warren DeMontague]

183. Cool.

'Nite.

[TheWraith]

65. Well said.

Sometimes the dumbfuckery around here reaches pretty ridiculous levels.

[Kolesar]

75. I have no confidence that our country will be able to feed itself in 70 years

Our energy, water and topsoil are oversubscribed. Putting a life on the planet now is something that I would never do to a child of mine.

Sleep on that, my profane confidante'.

[Vektor]

78. "Here's a clove cigarette..."

...and a beret that matches your soul patch."

:rofl:

*gasp*


That is the best quote I have heard in a LONG time!!

[jgraz]

80. lol -- bigotry is a hoot

Especially when it comes from a deep-seated insecurity regarding one's own situation. Cracks me up every time.

[Vektor]

84. I see bigotry and preconceived notions coming from ALL angles

in this thread.

But the author of that line is no more "bigoted" than the OP - it just depends which side of the fence you are on whose opinion you'll jump to defend, and who you'll call a bigot.

I'm actually child free by choice myself, but I don't feel my way is morally superior. It's just my choice.

There is nothing in this person's post to indicate he or she is "insecure" about his or her own choices. Maybe the OP is insecure because he or she is sterile? That's likely untrue, but since we're making assumptions about other people's security...

I think it's actually just a good old fashioned case of disagreement, and both sides sound pretty "secure" in their statements.

That said, I simply love a good one liner. And the clove thing WAS funny. No bigotry involved. The OP's post was pretty bold, and definitely sure to warrant a reaction.

He got what he wanted.

[jgraz]

87. Wow, talk about a false equivalency

All the OP did was to pose a reasonable question, and all I did was to challenge people to produce a cogent argument against it (as opposed to the attacks we were getting). Instead of cogency, we got an ad hominem screed that says much more about the author than it does about the topic at hand.

But hey, I'll agree that bigotry is the source of some pretty catchy lines. Who could ever forget the "you can take the boy out of the jungle..."? Classic. However, it doesn't do much to further the debate.

[Vektor]

91. You see it how you want to, and knock yourself out...

There's no bigotry here. One person posts an OP specifically designed to get a rise, he gets one, (or several) and people jump to take sides. Your perception of bigotry is colored by who you agree with, jgraz. I could take the opposing viewpoint and spend all day arguing with everyone in this thread claiming the the OP is a bigot against people with kids...

But I have no desire to name call or accuse, or rabble rouse in this thread all day nor do I legitimately feel EITHER of them is a bigot.

You clearly enjoy drawn out, cyclic arguments, and I have no interest, so carry on.

Without me... :hi:

Have fun. You'll catch a lot of fish here, I'm sure.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. If you had any idea whatsoever about "my situation", you'd know what a joke that is.

Let me spell it out for you, because.. I dunno, maybe you have some comprehension issues. I am ecstatic that I am a parent. I waited a very long time to do it, and when it finally happened, it was deliberate, and like I said, it has been far and away the most profound and meaningful experience of my life. And the toughest job I've ever taken on, too. It's wonderful beyond anything I could have imagined. (And I love how some folks like to bitch around how it's such a "selfish" thing to do. I didn't know what selflessness WAS until I became a Dad.)

Fact it, Jack. I tore your arguments (if you can call 'em that) a new *sshole in that post, and the best you can do (speaking of formulating a cogent response) is make flatly idiotic assumptions about my happiness as a parent.

So.. do you think that what I'm really saying there is that I'm NOT happy to be a parent? Is that some kind of urban hipster post-moderninst thing, where people say the diametric opposite of what they actually mean? (Speaking of "bigotry", yes, I'm sorry if I sound bigoted against soul patch and beret-wearing clove smokers who think clucking with disaproval at "breeders" makes them cool)

No. The frustration you're reading has to do with the fact that this is something like the fourth or fifth of these bullshit anti-child harangues that we've had in the past week.

Get it?

[jgraz]

196. Still waiting for rational debate instead of ranting and mindless chest-thumping

But apparently it's not gonna happen. Please tell me this isn't how you deal with your kids when you're pissed at them. Your pride at using delusion and bigotry to tear someone a new *sshole is gonna send them to therapy for years.

[Megahurtz]

105. What???

>>>"the overpopulation is NOT taking place in The United States..."<<<

You can't be fucking serious! :banghead:

Sounds like you need to get out of your Armchair and get out there a little more, Dude!

[Warren DeMontague]

138. The overpopulation is due to immigration, not birth rates.

Make of that what you will.

[wuushew]

140. That is true

talking about immigration on DU is often difficult because of the accusation of racism thrown around. When the United States acts as the pressure value for Mexico we are simply delaying the tough choices that Mexico must make to move forward as a country, especially now that their oil exports are in decline.

[cherokeeprogressive]

172. Bangladesh has a population density of 2850/sq. mi. The US has 84.

Based on that stat, I'd have to agree that overpopulation isn't a problem in the United States.

I've traveled 38 states and Canada. You can drive for hundreds of miles, thousands of miles, and see nothing but unused land.

[Harper_is_Bush]

162. There's nothing wrong with making the point. Your rude reaction to it is the only

"snotty" and "self-righteous" "bitching" and "hectoring" I've seen here.

Having a child IS hard on the environment. NOT having children for that reason is as personal and intimate a decision as choosing to have a child. What gives you the right to judge the OP as you have? Nothing.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. Al Gore Still Might Run.

Just FYI. You never Know.

[DemExpat]

167. I just love your post here!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:loveya:

DemEx

[IA_Seth]

203. Halle-freakin-lujah!

From the same crowd that bemoans the right for legislating morality come the people telling me that I am anti-environment for having a child.

Ridiculous.

[skids]

48. Yes, actually it does count.

You don't get to unilaterally declare what counts.

And it's a valid point.

[jgraz]

50. OK

Then I get to point out that your child could also grow up to be a serial killer. See how the debate gets real stupid real quick?

[skids]

74. Completely unconvincing.

Sure, it's absurd to bring it down to the individual level. The question is whether children of people who are concerned environmentalists, in the aggregate will be a net boon to the planet.

And the answer is yes.

All you achieve by convincing those intelligent, independent, and concerned enough to consider the idea of not having children that they should in fact not have children, is the production and parenting of a greater ratio of children by those who lack those very capacities. Thanks a lot.

Once they've decided not to have their own, people will not be any more likely to adopt.

Plus, we see more and more evidence every year that many of the traits we have been reluctant, socially, to assign to genetics are in fact helped or hindered by genetics -- "the god gene", "the happy gene", etc -- but genetics that cross race boundaries which makes the point moot from a race politics perspective. People can obviously transcend their genes, but it takes extra effort. Where we are heading as a population, that will be effort that is unaffordable.

The only hope other than a war in which all the right people get shot (extremely unlikely) is that benign humans keep pace with the assholes in terms of reproduction.

[jgraz]

77. The reproductive arms race is kind of a scary argument

It comes a bit too close to eugenics for my comfort. It also carries with it the assumption by the presenter that they alone have discovered the best way to raise children.

People who are poor, dumb or even right-wing can raise wonderful children, and I've known plenty of left-wing tree-huggers who've produced little monsters. As long this topic is taboo, we will continue to create more children without regard to their true impact on the environment.


On the other hand, I'm really intrigued about your idea of a war where only the right people get shot. Say more about that.

:P

[skids]

150. Fantasy land...

Such a war only happens in the most pollyannistic of daydreams. Well, OK, maybe in the most pollyannistic of daydreams war is kinda out of the question. But the truth is war always sucks, and hurts both the environment and mankind's progress as a species.

What I find scary is that one dismisses the rule based on the exception. Yes there are some "left wing tree huggers" as you call them, or as I would call them concerned citizens of the planet, that turned out to be very poor parents.

Not the majority. The world would have been better off on balance if the more progressive and mature had reproduced more. We would have had some bad apples as any generation, but less per capita.

As far as your assertion of "the assumption by the presenter that they alone have discovered the best way to raise children" -- show me where. Nowhere does that appear. Only the assertion of those who think they themselves are capable of producing offspring that can be an environmental benefit.

I find the argument of those who flat say that any child is an environmental burden to be much more scary -- these individuals have blessed themselves with the all-seeing ability to categorically say that no human is capable of doing that. Much more dangerous, and would in fact be a ridiculous position were this any laughing matter.

[girl gone mad]

148. Well woudn't that be a good thing...

in your eyes?

It would help with the overpopulation problem, after all?

That one child could take out dozens. Maybe hundreds if you're lucky.

[Midlodemocrat]

94. LOL. What crap. How about the argument that

my children's generation will grow up to be your doctor, your pharmacist, your caregiver in the nursing home?

Or do you plan on leaving this mortal coil prior to any of that.

What crap.

[Der Blaue Engel]

21. Wouldn't suicide be the best thing a person can do for the environment?

Puts an immediate end to the carbon footprints, right? :eyes:

No to all three questions.

[Bluerthanblue]

43. sorry, i didn't

see your post before posting mine.

You have a great mind. :P


:hi:

[Kolesar]

76. That was dumb

and you know it.

[Der Blaue Engel]

139. If you're dumb and you know it, clap your hands

:silly:

[wuushew]

99. They are not mutually exclusive

one can be pro-suicuide and for ZPG.

I can think of no greater freedom than controlling the circumstances by which we leave this finite existence.
















ESSAYS ON SUICIDE,AND THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL,ASCRIBED TO THE LATE
DAVID HUME, ESQ.

----
Printed for M. SMITH; and sold by the booksellers in piccadilly,
Fleet-street, and Paternoster-row.
1783
(Price 3 s. 6 d. sewed)








ESSAY I.

ON SUICIDE

ONE considerable advantage that arises from Philosophy, consists in the sovereign antidote which it affords to superstition and false religion. All other remedies against that pestilent distemper are vain, or at least uncertain. Plain good sense and the practice of the world, which alone serve most purposes of life, are here found ineffectual: History as well as daily experience furnish instances of men endowed with the {2} strongest capacity for business and affairs, who have all their lives crouched under slavery to the grossest superstition. Even gaiety and sweetness of temper, which infuse a balm into every other wound, afford no remedy to so virulent a poison; as we may particularly observe of the fair sex, who tho' commonly possest of their rich presents of nature, feel many of their joys blasted by this importunate intruder. But when found Philosophy has once gained possession of the mind, superstition is effectually excluded, and one may fairly affirm that her triumph over this enemy is more complete than over most of the vices and imperfections incident to human nature. Love or anger, ambition or avarice, have their root in the temper and affection, which the soundest reason is scarce ever able fully to correct, but superstition being founded on false opinion, must immediately vanish when true philosophy has inspired juster sentiments of superior powers. The contest is here more equal between the distemper and the medicine, {3} and nothing can hinder the latter from proving effectual but its being false and sophisticated.


IT will here be superfluous to magnify the merits of Philosophy by displaying the pernicious tendency of that vice of which it cures the human mind. ( 1) The superstitious man says Tully2 is miserable in every scene, in every incident in life; even sleep itself, which banishes all other cares of unhappy mortals, affords to him matter of new terror; while he examines his dreams, and finds in those visions of the night prognostications of future calamities. I may add that tho' death alone can put a full period to his misery, he dares not fly to this refuge, but still prolongs a miserable existence from a vain fear left he offend his Maker, by using the power, with which that beneficent being has endowed him. The presents of God and nature are ravished from us by this {4} cruel enemy, and notwithstanding that one step would remove us from the regions of pain and sorrow, her menaces still chain us down to a hated being which she herself chiefly contributes to render miserable.

'TIS observed by such as have been reduced by the calamities of life to the necessity of employing this fatal remedy, that if the unseasonable care of their friends deprive them of that species of Death which they proposed to themselves, they seldom venture upon any other, or can summon up so much resolution a second time as to execute their purpose. So great is our horror of death, that when it presents itself under any form, besides that to which a man has endeavoured to reconcile his imagination, it acquires new terrors and overcomes his feeble courage: But when the menaces of superstition are joined to this natural timidity, no wonder it quite deprives men of all power over their lives, since even many pleasures and enjoyments, {5} to which we are carried by a strong propensity, are torn from us by this inhuman tyrant. Let us here endeavour to restore men to their native liberty, by examining all the common arguments against Suicide, and shewing that that action may be free from every imputation of guilt or blame, according to the sentiments of all the antient philosophers. ( 2)

IF Suicide be criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty either to God, our neighbour, or ourselves. -- To prove that suicide is no transgression of our duty to God, the following considerations may perhaps suffice. In order to govern the material world, the almighty Creator has established general and immutable laws, by which all bodies, from the greatest planet to the smallest particle of matter, are maintained in their proper sphere and function. To govern the animal world, he has endowed all living creatures with bodily and mental powers; with senses, passions, {6} appetites, memory, and judgement, by which they are impelled or regulated in that course of life to which they are destined. These two distinct principles of the material and animal world, continually encroach upon each other, and mutually retard or forward each others operation. The powers of men and of all other animals are restrained and directed by the nature and qualities of the surrounding bodies, and the modifications and actions of these bodies are incessantly altered by the operation of all animals. Man is stopt by rivers in his passage over the surface of the earth; and rivers, when properly directed, lend their force to the motion of machines, which serve to the use of man. But tho' the provinces of the material and animal powers are not kept entirely separate, there results from thence no discord or disorder in the creation; on the contrary, from the mixture, union, and contrast of all the various powers of inanimate bodies and living creatures, arises that sympathy, harmony, {7} and proportion, which affords the surest argument of supreme wisdom. The providence of the Deity appears not immediately in any operation, but governs every thing by those general and immutable laws, which have been established from the beginning of time. All events, in one sense, may be pronounced the action of the Almighty, they all proceed from those powers with which he has endowed his creatures. A house which falls by its own weight, is not brought to ruin by his providence, more than one destroyed by the hands of men; nor are the human faculties less his workmanship, than the laws of motion and gravitation. When the passions play, when the judgment dictates, when the limbs obey; this is all the operation of God, and upon these animate principles, as well as upon the inanimate, has he established the government of the universe. Every event is alike important in the eyes of that infinite being, who takes in at one glance the most distant regions of space, and {8} remotest periods of time. There is no event, however important to us, which he has exempted from the general laws that govern the universe, or which he has peculiarly reserved for his own immediate action and operation. The revolution of states and empires depends upon the smallest caprice or passion of single men; and the lives of men are shortened or extended by the smallest accident of air or dies, sunshine or tempest. Nature still continues her progress and operation; and if general laws be ever broke by particular volitions of the Deity, 'tis after a manner which entirely escapes human observation. As on the one hand, the elements and other inanimate parts of the creation carry on their action without regard to the particular interest and situation of men; so men are entrusted to their own judgment and discretion in the various shocks of matter, and may employ every faculty with which they are endowed, in order to provide for their ease, happiness, or {9} preservation. What is the meaning then of that principle, that a man who tired of life, and hunted by pain and misery, bravely overcomes all the natural terrors of death, and makes his escape from this cruel scene: that such a man I say, has incurred the indignation of his Creator by encroaching on the office of divine providence, and disturbing the order of the universe? Shall we assert that the Almighty has reserved to himself in any peculiar manner the disposal of the lives of men, and has not submitted that event, in common with others, to the general laws by which the universe is governed? This is plainly false; the lives of men depend upon the same laws as the lives of all other animals; and these are subjected to the general laws of matter and motion. The fall of a tower, or the infusion of a poison, will destroy a man equally with the meanest creature; an inundation sweeps away every thing without distinction that comes within the reach of its fury. Since therefore the lives of men {10} are for ever dependant on the general laws of matter and motion, is a man's disposing of his life criminal, because in every case it is criminal to encroach upon these laws, or disturb their operation? But this seems absurd; all animals are entrusted to their own prudence and skill for their conduct in the world, and have full authority as far as their power extends, to alter all the operations of nature. Without the excercise of this authority they could not subsist a moment; every action, every motion of a man, innovates on the order of some parts of matter, and diverts from their ordinary course the general laws of motion. Putting together, therefore, these conclusion, we find that human life depends upon the general laws of matter and motion, and that it is no encroachment on the office of providence to disturb or alter these general laws: Has not every one, of consequence, the free disposal of his own life? And may he not lawfully employ that power with which nature has endowed him? In order {11} to destroy the evidence of this conclusion, we must shew a reason why this particular case is excepted; is it because human life is of such great importance, that 'tis a presumption for human prudence to dispose of it? But the life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster. And were it of ever so great importance, the order of human nature has actually submitted it to human prudence, and reduced us to a necessity, in every incident, of determining concerning it. -- Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the Almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right, for men to dispose of their own lives; it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction. If I turn aside a stone which is falling upon my head, I disturb the course of nature, and I invade the peculiar province of the Almighty, by lengthening out my life beyond the period which by the general laws of matter and motion he had assigned it. ( 3) {12}

A hair, a fly, an insect is able to destroy this mighty being whose life is of such importance. Is it an absurdity to suppose that human prudence may lawfully dispose of what depends on such insignificant causes? It would be no crime in me to divert the Nile or Danube from its course, were I able to effect such purposes. Where then is the crime of turning a few ounces of blood from their natural channel? -- Do you imagine that I repine at Providence or curse my creation, because I go out of life, and put a period to a being, which, were it to continue, would render me miserable? Far be such sentiments from me; I am only convinced of a matter of fact, which you yourself acknowledge possible, that human life may be unhappy, and that my existence, if further prolonged, would become ineligible; but I thank Providence, both for the good which I have already enjoyed, and for the power with which I am endowed of escaping the ill that {13} threatens me.3 To you it belongs to repine at providence, who foolishly imagine that you have no such power, and who must still prolong a hated life, tho' loaded with pain and sickness, with shame and poverty -- Do not you teach, that when any ill befals me, tho' by the malice of my enemies, I ought to be resigned to providence, and that the actions of men are the operations of the Almighty as much as the actions of inanimate beings? When I fall upon my own sword, therefore, I receive my death equally from the hands of the Deity as if it had proceeded from a lion, a precipice, or a fever. The submission which you require to providence, in every calamity that befals me, excludes not human skill and industry, if possible by their means I can avoid or escape the calamity: And why may I not employ one remedy as well as another? -- If my life be not my own, it were criminal for me to put it in danger, as {14} well as to dispose of it; nor could one man deserve the appellation of hero, whom glory or friendship transports into the greatest dangers, and another merit the reproach of wretch or misereant who puts a period to his life, from the same or like motives. -- There is no being, which possesses any power or faculty, that it receives not from its Creator, nor is there any one, which by ever so irregular an action can encroach upon the plan of his providence, or disorder the universe. Its operations are his works equally with that chain of events which it invades, and which ever principle prevails, we may for that very reason conclude it to be most favoured by him. Be it animate, or inanimate, rational, or irrational, 'tis all a case: its power is still derived from the supreme Creator, and is alike comprehended in the order of his providence. When the horror of pain prevails over the love of life; when a voluntary action anticipates the effects of blind causes, 'tis only in consequence of those {15} powers and principles which he has implanted in his creatures. Divine providence is still inviolate, and placed far beyond the reach of human injuries. 'Tis impious says the old Roman superstition4 to divert rivers from their course, or invade the prerogatives of nature. 'Tis impious says the French superstition to inoculate for the small-pox, or usurp the business of providence by voluntarily producing distempers and maladies. 'Tis impious says the modern European superstition, to put a period to our own life, and thereby rebel against our Creator; and why not impious, say I, to build houses, cultivate the ground, or fail upon the ocean? In all these actions we employ our powers of mind and body, to produce some innovation in the course of nature; and in none of them do we any more. They are all of them therefore equally innocent, or equally criminal. But you are placed by providence, like a centinal, in a particular station, {16} and when you desert it without being recalled, you are equally guilty of rebellion against your almighty sovereign, and have incurred his displeasure. -- I ask, why do you conclude that providence has placed me in this station? For my part I find that I owe my birth to a long chain of causes, of which many depended upon voluntary actions of men. But providence guided all these causes, and nothing happens in the universe without its consent and co-operation. If so, then neither does my death, however voluntary, happen without its consent; and whenever pain or sorrow so far overcome my patience, as to make me tired of life, I may conclude that I am recalled from my station in the clearest and most express terms. 'Tis providence surely that has placed me at this present in this chamber: But may I not leave it when I think proper, without being liable to the imputation of having deserted my post or station? When I shall be dead, the principles of {17} which I am composed will still perform their part in the universe, and will be equally useful in the grand fabrick, as when they composed this individual creature. The difference to the whole will be no greater than betwixt my being in a chamber and in the open air. The one change is of more importance to me than the other; but not more so to the universe.

-- 'TIS a kind of blasphemy to imagine that any created being can disturb the order of the world, or invade the business of Providence! It supposes, that that being possesses powers and faculties, which it received not from its creator, and which are not subordinate to his government and authority. A man may disturb society no doubt, and thereby incur the displeasure of the Almighty: But the government of the world is placed far beyond his reach and violence. And how does it appear that the Almighty is displeased with those actions that disturb society? By the principles {18} which he has implanted in human nature, and which inspire us with a sentiment of remorse if we ourselves have been guilty of such actions, and with that of blame and disapprobation, if we ever observe them in others: -- Let us now examine, according to the method proposed, whether Suicide be of this kind of actions, and be a breach of our duty to our neighbour and to society.

A MAN who retires from life does no harm to society: He only ceases to do good; which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind. -- All our obligations to do good to society seem to imply something reciprocal. I receive the benefits of society, and therefore ought to promote its interests; but when I withdraw myself altogether from society, can I be bound any longer? But allowing that our obligations to do good were perpetual, they have certainly some bounds; I am not obliged to do a small good to society at the expence of a {19} great harm to myself; why then should I prolong a miserable existence, because of some frivolous advantage which the public may perhaps receive from me? If upon account of age and infirmities, I may lawfully resign any office, and employ my time altogether in fencing against these calamities, and alleviating, as much as possible, the miseries of my future life: why may I not cut short these miseries at once by an action which is no more prejudicial to society? -- But suppose that it is no longer in my power to promote the interest of society, suppose that I am a burden to it, suppose that my life hinders some person from being much more useful to society. In such cases, my resignation of life must not only be innocent, but laudable. And most people who lie under any temptation to abandon existence, are in some such situation; those who have health, or power, or authority, have commonly better reason to be in humour with the world. ( 4) {20}

A MAN is engaged in a conspiracy for the public interest; is seized upon suspicion; is threatened with the rack; and knows from his own weakness that the secret will be extorted from him: Could such a one consult the public interest better than by putting a quick period to a miserable life? This was the case of the famous and brave Strozi of Florence. -- Again, suppose a malefactor is justly condemned to a shameful death, can any reason be imagined, why he may not anticipate his punishment, and save himself all the anguish of thinking on its dreadful approaches? He invades the business of providence no more than the magistrate did, who ordered his execution; and his voluntary death is equally advantageous to society, by ridding it of a pernicious member.

THAT Suicide may often be consistent with interest and with our duty to ourselves, no one can question, who allows that age, {21} sickness, or misfortune, may render life a burthen, and make it worse even than annihilation. I believe that no man ever threw away life, while it was worth keeping. For such is our natural horror of death, that small motives will never be able to reconcile us to it; and though perhaps the situation of a man's health or fortune did not seem to require this remedy, we may at least be assured that any one who, without apparent reason, has had recourse to it, was curst with such an incurable depravity or gloominess of temper as must poison all enjoyment, and render him equally miserable as if he had been loaded with the most grievous misfortunes. -- If suicide be supposed a crime, 'tis only cowardice can impel us to it. If it be no crime, both prudence and courage should engage us to rid ourselves at once of existence, when it becomes a burthen. 'Tis the only way that we can then be useful to society, by setting an example, which if imitated, would preserve to every one his chance for happiness in life, {22} and would effectually free him from all danger of misery.5{23}

[Bluerthanblue]

102. well, this takes it even

further in my screwed up brain.

Let's take it further-

lets not "imprison" people for life- (that is unnecessary 'carbon') lets execute them.

lets have an "age" limit. No one is allowed to live past... what?...65? or 70?

lets euthanize people who are mentally deficient.

lets ignore, or facilitate murder, war, ethnic cleansing.


:sarcasm:

[wuushew]

103. what don't you understand about suicide?

suicide is when YOU decide to end your own life, if it occurs under any other circumstances it no longer becomes an act of free will.

I don't see any inherent negatives in its default definition. Maybe you can elaborate.

[Bluerthanblue]

111. - sorry-

can't answer you.

peace,
blu

[spoony]

161. Not only that, but Bush is the numero uno environmentalist

because he's eliminating all those pesky carbon footprints in the mideast!

[cassiepriam]

25. It would be better for planet earth if there were no humans here at all.

Global warming is Earth's way of coughing us out.

[cobalt1999]

29. To borrow the vegan argument...

You don't NEED to have children, you WANT to have children. Therefore, if you have children, you are just being SELFISH.

Seriously though, technically you are correct. Having children is the much worse than driving a Hummer on the environment, but fundamental human desires (sex, food, procreation) are almost impossible to curb.

[gollygee]

30. Yes, the world would be better off if there weren't any people

this is true. The best thing that could happen to the environment would be if all humanity died off.

But I love my daughter, and I plan to have another child.

[LWolf]

31. No.

Having more than two children might be one of the worst things you could do.

It is not "anti-child" or "anti-family" to recognize that overpopulation has the worst impact on the earth's environment.

Limiting reproduction to produce a negative population growth until the population numbers drop down to numbers that leave abundant habitat for all other species is a responsible, ethical thing to do.

The suggestion also hits emotional trigger buttons, so you can expect some emotional outbursts in response.

For the record, My maternal grandmother had one daughter, my mother, who had one daughter, me. I had 2 sons, and was present for the vasectomy of their father. When that marriage ended, I got a tubal ligation, and when my 2nd marriage ended, the 2nd ex, childless, also got a vasectomy.

My 2 grown sons have one child between them, and are not likely to produce any more. We don't feel like we've lost anything by limiting ourselves. We love each other just as much whether we're a handful or a crowd.

[zanne]

33. To quote Jerry Seinfeld;

"People. They're the worst."

[Telly Savalas]

34. Are you thinking your parents made a mistake when they had you?

[Deja Q]

35. The theory (and what Catholic clergymen say on TV) is, we need our next generation of scientists...

Of course, don't ask "Why is offshoring going on?"

Or this Fortune article that's not entirely rated, but easily could be by replacing "IT" with "engineering", "science
, et al.

[Lex]

37. Yeah, I think I know why Catholic clergymen want us all to have kids.

nt

[Deja Q]

39. I was referring to a guy on the Catholic channel - I e-mailed him on his broadcast...

and unsurprisingly never got a response, proving he's a charlatan.

But for the molesting thing, I also see your point.

[rucky]

40. By the same logic, death would be the best.

and somewhere in between are all the practical solutions.

[jgraz]

79. No that would be completely different logic

A type of logic usually referred to as a false choice fallacy.

[rucky]

113. The same fallacy of the OP's premise.

Yes, simply by living you make an impact - but that's because you must consume to live. so it's consumption that's the culprit - not just being a carbon-based life form.

[baby_mouse]

41. That's a BIT rhetorical, RGB!

I see where you're coming from, however.

I think having 2 kids is enough. I think it would be good if people got used to the idea that having 2 kids is enough.

But I have no idea how to convince Joe Average of this. I'm not even sure I have the right to try to convince Joe Average of this despite it's obvious advantages.

You raise an interesting issue that is unfortunately very hard to talk about with the aim of bringing out anything constructive because if you try to go about making the idea of the impact of human population on the environment something mainstream or even something in the public consciousness at all the debate instantly turns to China and their hard reproductive laws and that colours the debate thereafter.

I wish there was some way to get people to see that CHOOSING the sensible path for the collective is the best way, that it also *benefits them* without them feeling that someone's trying to control them or bring some sort of duress on them. If you even mention these things to people, they very often get defensive straight away and start thinking about their own rights and their own desires instead of the much more pressing and important (although not, in terms of time-scale "urgent" (which is why a lot of them don't think about it, I suspect)) issue of wilful ignorance of collective effects on a system composed of finite resources.

A tricky one. Deferred gratification, and invisible gratification at that...

[Bluerthanblue]

42. why don't we promote suicide as being good for the environment?

my 'carbon footprint' might blip for the creamation, but that would be the end of it.

Overpopulation is an issue, but using the "carbon footprint" argument is over the top, even for someone as out there as me.

:shrug:

[ikojo]

44. It's the consumptive habits of the child and family

that is bad for the environment. Yeah, sure for most people being an "environmentalist" means buying compact fluorescent lights and recycling. To reduce what we use is something a majority of Americans are not willing to do. Reduction means moving closer to central cities, buying food grown locally and in season (not buying strawberries from South America in December) and not having a gi-normous vehicle or even larger house or apartment.

I have a sister who had three kids. She works for the state and her husband drives a truck delivering potato chips to stores. They make OK money and their kids are doing well. When the kids were all at home they had five TV's.Once each kid turned 16 they bought a car. So at one time there were five cars in the drive way. Now that their kids are out of the house there are two cars and a boat. They are seen as average consumers. They don't have all of the latest electronic gadgets but they do OK. They do have a plasma TV, only because my sister is THE six months same as cash QUEEN.

Even though my sister did not have as many kids as my mom did (she had seven) I dare say the environmental impact is greater. It takes a lot to run all of those cars. Neither my now deceased younger brother nor I had a car when we turned 16. My younger brother never owned a car and I've owned only one car in my life (FYI: I'm in my 40s).

What I am trying to say is that although I opt for zero population growth, it's not really the NUMBER of kids that impacts the environment as it is their lifestyle.

[MrsMatt]

57. Thank you.

That's a very well reasoned argument - an illuminating example.

[jgraz]

82. true, but unless we effect radical change in our way of life...

(something I'm all for, btw), even one American child will have the impact of five or ten children from a less-developed country.

[Yupster]

158. An this is an interesting problem

that goes into third world poverty and immigration even

A third world person may leave a very limited footprint on the environment. If that nation would reach first world standards, the impact on the environment would be enormous though.

The same way, an immigrant from a third world country moving to a first world country will soon have a first world lifestyle which will also negatively impact the environment.

It's a real twisted situation. We want third world nations to improve to first world standards, but at the same time we realize it's a real burden on our planet's resources when it happens.

PS - this isn't something I just thought of. It's right out of the book "Collapse" which someone else already pictured above.

[jgraz]

190. I gotta read that book

though I worry it'll just depress me.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

46. Only if you consider a depopulated world a proper environment.

And then, what would be the point?

[javadu]

49. I Support Reproductive Freedom

and would not presume to all anyone else what they "should" or "should not" do in their own lives.

[RB TexLa]

51. I do too, I was just asking how high it ranks on the list

[kenny blankenship]

52. Actually, having 3,4,5,6, or more children would be even worse for the environment

than having "a child." But quibbles aside, yes, overpopulation is and has always been the biggest engine of stress our species has turned on the environment. Overpopulation is also bad for other things as well--security, prosperity, public health, political equality--the list is long. Nobody thinks that they are responsible for overpopulation--but here we are! 6 billion people headed for 10 billion (and a big crash probably). Somebody did that and it's time to start pointing fingers before the our "march of progress" into global collapse becomes irreversible. We need to look at ourselves and also we need to overcome ideologies of mindless increase, whether their origins are secular or religious.

[Nikki Stone1]

53. Can we just agree that mothers should cooperate with flight attendants and not knock all children?

:grr:

[donsu]

62. it is what the environment will do the child .

the environment is getting steadily worse and will continue that way

a baby born today may have to fight for food and water tomorrow, for example. there are many examples.

[noamnety]

67. The worst thing?

Some people use up ten times (+) the resources of other people.

So a person with one set of habits (normally not found in the US) could have ten children, and do the same amount of environmental damage as one person here. If their impact on the environment, even including the impact of reproducing several times, is less than the impact of one childless American, the only conclusion I can reach is that No, it's not the WORST thing one can do for the environment.

[SayWhatYo]

68. People with children should be ashamed of themselves...

and children should be ashamed of themselves even-more-so.


:sarcasm: <- I didn't want to add that, but I figured I would be a good boy.

[Rhoads]

70. lol

"I didn't want to add that, but I figured I would be a good boy."

but that statement was kind of sarcastic too, so you should have added one after that also.

:sarcasm:

[Rhoads]

69. I have 3 children. I am sorry.

But my brother doesn't have any, so maybe i'm ok.

[jgraz]

71. That's ok -- I drive two hummers at once and eat roast dolphin for breakfast

We all have our vices, I suppose.

:P

[Rhoads]

72. actually,

some of us have vices and some of us have somthing squeezed in a vice. ;)

[Vektor]

81. I eat Hummers for breakfast and ride two dolphins at once.

Your way sounds MUCH easier. ;-)

[jgraz]

83. Just as long as you don't tell me how to live my life!!

Oh, and my hummer? Runs on liquified spotted owls.

[Vektor]

85. Mine runs on bat guano.

And I have NO desire to tell others how to live their life. It takes all the strength I have to manage my own. Micromanaging everyone else's is NOT on my agenda.

[jgraz]

89. I call bullshit on that one

Not the guano, the "no desire to tell others..." thing.

For ghod's sake, you're posting on a board that is all about advocacy. We advocate that people change their lives in many, many ways -- particularly when it comes to how they vote. Everybody seems cool with that until their own ox gets gored.

[Vektor]

96. Ok, call all you want.

You clearly know me well enough to tell me what I'm all about. It must be awesome being so clairvoyant.

Have a great day.

[ryanus]

86. depends what that child does

[proud2BlibKansan]

93. What if Gandhi's mother had said that?

[jgraz]

100. As long as Barbara Bush said it too

That's a tradeoff I'd make in a heartbeat.

[Triana]

97. IMO - yes - tis why I never had any - one reason anyway (n/t)

[Bosso 63]

98. Starting a war is pretty bad.

[porphyrian]

104. Not if that child will grow up to invent a solution to it. - n/t

[blues90]

107. If I were still young enough I would not bring a child into this world

For many reasons . There is no way I can promise them a future or an education or healthcare or that they would not end up blown to bits in some insane war .

If I cannot even find security for myself how can I promise this for a child .

Sure some children may benefit if their parents have the resources but many won't , most won't . Nothing is secure these days in bushco world .

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. Chalk This Up As One Of The Most Idiotic Flame Baiting Premises I've Ever Seen Here.

What an absolutely warped premise, designed to hide behind the cover of legitimate argument but really was intended as a moronic flame baiting post rooted in an irrational resentment towards people with children.

Grow up dude. Jeez.

[Megahurtz]

114. Oh Come On.

That's Bullshit and you know it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

117. No, I Posted My Real Thoughts.

Yeah, yeah, this post was meant sincerely to find creative ways to reduce global warming. Yeah, yeah, I see it now. Yup. No ill intent. No side premise of just fighting about having children. Nope. You're right. Total sincerity. Just full genuine caring about the environment with no hidden agenda. Yup. Yup. I see it now. My my how did I miss it before. :crazy:

[Greyhound]

118. Never stopped him before.

But Isn't It Cool How He Can Capitalize Every Word In His Titles? Anybody That Can Do That Must Have Some Deep Knowledge The Rest Of Us Can Only Wish For.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. Oh Grow Up With Your Empty Personal Moronic Attacks Already.

And do you think I'm the only poster here who uses title case in their headers? Look around ya fool.

Nothing more immature then the posters that just love to chime in outside of context just to get their gradeschool taunting moronic attack in on the BIGGGG BADDDDD OMCCCCCC LOL

The OP is nothing but inflammatory flame bait. If ya can't see that, then I feel sorry for you.

[spoony]

163. If they did that, they'd have to stop posting.

And what would we all do without such substantial commentary? :P

[Greyhound]

184. Oh No, I've Brought The Wrath And Pity Of The Omnipotent OCM Down On My Poor Self

Whatever Will I Do? Perhaps It Will Ignore Me...

[Madspirit]

120. If there were no more children

If no one had anymore children people would end. I have considered that may be the best thing for the planet.

Yes, if people ended, the planet would be better off. Still, I cannot help NOT wanting to end. So maybe just reasonable growth. How would that be? ...and lots of adoption.

Lee

[wuushew]

125. We could always transfer our minds to android bodies

see the original Star Trek episode #51 "Return to Tomorrow"

[Madspirit]

151. I like that idea!...n/t

[Lex]

122. I think it's true that people in general are harmful to the Earth.

The Earth would probably be much more healthy without any people on it.

So in that way I agree with you.

[salin]

123. Probably starting a war - ordering DU to be strewn around

would be a worse thing a person could do. Or scraping of tops of mountains for coal. There are many things worse that "a person" could do for the environment.

What a silly, and inflamatory post (and I am not even a parent.)

[sl8]

129. I don't know, but Alice the Cook says,

“In the best of times, our days are numbered anyway, and so it would be a crime against nature for any generation to take the world crisis so solemnly that it put off enjoying those things for which we were presumably designed in the first place. . . I mean the opportunity to do good work, to fall in love, to enjoy friends, to sit under a tree, to hit a ball and bounce a baby.”
--Alistair Cooke

[SidDithers]

130. You're right...nobody should have kids...nt

Sid

[nam78_two]

135. It would be nice if on this topic, as on many, we could have a discussion of a third way

This topic, as the topic of vegetarianism and so many others is just so unnecessarily contentious :-/.

It is complicated-there are so many factors. I don't think it is as black and white as having a kid is the worst thing for the environment or everyone having as many children as they want to would have no impact at all on the environment. There are so many factors-it is hard to have a neat little conclusion on this.


a) Yes overpopulation is a huge problem and unchecked will lead to more and more battles over natural resources in the future, possibly leading to vastly reduced living conditions for future generations.
b) On the other hand we do need a younger population replacing the older (if you want the society to continue at any rate)-without that you end up with the situation that is steadily becoming more alarming in China, where you have an aging populace with the potential problem of not a sufficient no. of younger people to "take care of them". Hey, we all get old and when we do we will need someone to support us.
c)I do think adoption is something that would be an option, the use of which would be a very neat compromise.
d) Then it also comes down to the resources one consumes. It is not a linear relationship. You could have no kids and have a lifestyle so wasteful that you would be consuming way more than a couple with kids. On the other hand, a family with one kid in the first world could well consume way more than one with 4 kids in the third. But then again it isn't that at the rate with overpopulation is taking place in some of the less developed societies (for lack of a better term) it isn't destroying the natural resources, even with a lower rate of consumption.


I think the solution would probably be a mish-mash of better education of the subject of family planning/birth control throughout the world/more adoptions/lower consumption of resources per person regardless of whether you are "child-free" or not.

[Kazak]

143. If...

TWO people are both committed and monogamous for their lifetime AND have only ONE child in their lifetime, THEN they are in actuality contributing to NEGATIVE population growth.

No?

[Yupster]

159. Yes

That's our situation in my family BTW.

It would be okay if the earth only had 4 billion people 40 years from now instead of 12 billion. We wouldn't be on the endangered species list.

[Kazak]

170. As is ours.

We don't plan to have any more.

Hypothetically, a couple could have two children and rest assured that they aren't contributing to population growth.

I do admit that I think it's a little irresponsible to have more than two in today's age though.

[gulliver]

145. Easy one. No.

The problem with the environment is that not enough people care about sustainability to achieve sustainability. The worst thing you can do for the environment realistically is to contribute to the ignorance and poor logic that is the true cause of the damage. People who contribute to sustainability now by supporting the path to it (for example, Al Gore) actually help the world enormously by reproducing.

Your argument is simplistic. It ignores the fact that sustainability is not a matter of per capita rates of consumption or carbon footprints -- at least not yet. Right now, the problem is irrationality and ignorance. Once people are committed to going the right direction in the first place, then it makes sense to start talking about rates. First, we need to get out of the fire and into the frying pan -- assuming we ever do.

[undeterred]

146. Not as long as he is a sterile vegan who cleans up after himself.

:shrug:

[theNotoriousP.I.G.]

166. I don't drink with you.

Flame bait much?

[blondeatlast]

181. Apparently not--I alerted on this mess early this morning! nt

[SmokingJacket]

168. And by extension, suicide is the best thing to do.

I prefer not to go there.

[treestar]

171. Depends on which child it is

An American child is much harder on the environment than any child in the Third World.

Children of the rich are harder on the environment than the poor.

[JVS]

175. Perhaps we should reconsider the desire to end the war in Iraq?

Think of all the carbon footprints that have been stopped in their tracks
:sarcasm:

[jgraz]

194. Yes, because deciding to not have children is exactly the same as killing someone

:eyes:

[nolabels]

199. I knew that desire to not have any children was part of a killer instinct..........

aside from the anatomical impossibility

The best thing about this problem though is all of us men can finally blame the women this time, like they are the ones the came out of aren't they :sarcasm:

[The Straight Story]

202. Too bad ya can't go back in time and tell your parents before they screwed up the environment

:rofl:

[jgraz]

206. Dude, if I could go back in time, I'd be paying a visit to Kennebunkport