Re: Quest for the CFers
From: abacus (abacus67210_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/17/04
- Next message: Rue The Day: "Re: Refuting supply-side economics"
- Previous message: Some Guy: "Re: Refuting supply-side economics"
- In reply to: nilkids_at_invalid.com.au: "Re: Re: Quest for the CFers"
- Next in thread: nilkids_at_invalid.com.au: "Re: Re: Quest for the CFers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Sep 2004 12:12:53 -0700
nilkids@invalid.com.au wrote in message news:<isakk0pfm0bnnh61hgh6hjfe4aap84ekn7@4ax.com>...
> >Since you asked, I'll respond. However, since many of your newsgroup
> >regulars don't care for posts by people who don't share their outlook
> >and attitude regarding children, I'm crossposting this to sci.econ.
> >It's another group I lurk in regularly and occasionally post to.
>
> Fair enough, although I think I can almost guess the
> economic arguments as our system does somewhat depend on
> continuing growth, or is thought to.
Well, I lurk here regularly and I'm not at all sure what responses the
question might bring, so you may be surprized. At any rate, I am
curious to see what others might post. Also, the only other group I
post in occasionally is misc.kids and I've seen what crossposts
between ASCF and MK bring. While I enjoy spirited argument and lively
debate, I don't like what such crossposts between those two groups
invariably degenerate into.
>
> Personally, though, I don't consider economics as a
> "science". I wouldn't even consider medicine or psychology
> as sciences.
As you wish. I won't argue that point. Nevertheless, I find
economics an interesting approach to analyzing human behavior. In
addition, this group gets some actual economic experts occasionally
contributing and I find I learn a lot from lurking here.
> I don't consider humans as being all that predictable. How
> many economists have accurately predicted various stock
> market booms or, more importantly, busts?
>
> However, will crosspost to the group as suggested, although
> not sure will have enough time to keep up with another
> group.
Thanks. I'll look forward to your responses.
> [Shrug!] alt.support.childfree is an unmoderated group,
> and moderated groups on this subject are available.
>
> As in any usenet group they don't have to follow this
> particular thread, or they can killfile both of us if they
> wish.
True. But I have no desire to deliberate annoy others. I'll try to
confine my responses to sci.econ. My apologies in advance to ASCF
members for if and when I forget to delete the crossposts.
> >> If you are a breeder, how do you justify bringing children
> >> into an already overcrowded and rapidly deteriorating world?
> >
> >If you are alive, how do you justify breathing, eating, and consuming
> >resources of all sorts in an already overcrowded and rapidly
> >deteriorating world?
>
> I cannot, of course, but it was not my choice to be here,
> and my religion discourages suicide. :-) . . . Am sure
> some on the group will be disappointed to hear this. :-)
I don't think either choice – to continue human life as an individual
or to continue human life by having children requires justification.
We exist. We are alive. We reproduce. I don't see that any of that
requires justification for human beings any more than it does for any
other living organism. Whether the organism is a bacteria, a plant, a
mosquito or a human being, that is what living organisms do. They
exist and (most of them anyway) reproduce or at least attempt to do
so. Humans are the only organisms that even consider the option of
not attempting to do so.
> It is scientifically pretty obvious that the present rate of
> population growth cannot continue indefinitely, so it seems
> likely that a drastic crash will occur sooner or later.
> From a scientific view, my view is that it could well occur
> sooner rather than later.
>
> From my Christian point of view, perhaps God will chose to
> end the world and call an end to the experiment before the
> human race manages to completely end the species by its own
> efforts. :-)
Well, from my species centric point of view, I hope the human race
doesn't end for a long long while yet. Even a serious crash is
unlikely to doom us to complete extinction. I think it more likely
such a crash would be followed by the surviving humans evolving into
many different species (hopefully even some off-planet). However, no
way of knowing at this point what might happen. I seem to recall
reading that something like 90% of all species that have ever existed
on earth are now extinct, so most likely humans will be too
eventually.
> So, for the sake of argument, perhaps we could presume that
> the human race will suffer a great population crash, or
> even manage to wipe itself out, in the next 25 or 50 years.
>
> The possibility has existed for decades, but God may
> intervene of course.
>
> If any of these apply, then why bring children into the
> world at all?
First of all, I don't agree that a great population crash will occur
in the next half-century. I agree that if things continue as they are
eventually such a crash will occur. When I don't know. People were
predicting such a crash would occur prior to the end of the last
century, but it did not. Things will not continue as they are.
Change is inevitable, so such a population crash is not.
I had children because I wanted to. My children have brought a great
deal joy and laughter into my life. I am delighted on a daily basis
by them. I have a better, more enjoyable life with my children than I
would have without them.
Why did you choose NOT to have children? I gather from your other
posts that you made your choice for the same reason: because you felt
you would have a better, more enjoyable life without children, not
because you wanted children but decided to forgo the experience
because you felt it was better for the future of the planet or the
human race that you not do so.
> Will admit am biased. As pointed out in an earlier post on
> this group, I wouldn't repeat adolescence knowing what I
> knew then for any conceivable amount of money. Nor would I
> ever want to have a child and expose either a son or
> daughter to such misery.
Personally, I think anyone who tells a miserable teenager that "these
are the best years of your life" ought to be slapped. Or forced to be
an adolescent again. I can only say that those were the worst years
of my life. But adolescence is not forever, nor is it so horribly
painful for everyone.
> If reasonable normal, they can even grow up and be sent off
> to wars whether they wish to go or not, and become trained
> killers.
Once they are grown, they can make the decision for themselves about
whether or not they wish to fight in a war. Sometimes war is
justified. Sometimes not. Reasonable people can differ about when it
is and is not justified. But it's adults who fight, not children
except in the most extreme circumstances.
> >> >>
> >> >> > What
> >> >> >makes you so angry and hostile towards society's weakest link.
> Am not arguing that aspect. Am questioning the need for
> more children at all.
> If talking about the survival of human society, though, can
> leave out children at all. What do you think is the weakest
> link that would endanger the survival and happiness of the
> human race? I could suggest a few, but am interested to
> see what others might suggest. :-)
> >Who else do you think would qualify as "society's weakest link".
> OK, if you insist on an answer, how about militarism, human
> stupidity, the sheeplike willingness of humans to be led by
> others?
Oh, okay. I think we had VERY different interpretations of what the
OP meant.
I was thinking of "weakest link" of those individual who require the
most assistance to survive, not those who "endanger the survival and
happiness of the human race."
> Do you intend to argue that if severe defects can be
> detected by amniocentesis, ultrasound, etc. that the child
> should proceed to term regardless?
No. I feel that bringing any pregnancy to term is a decision best
left to the mother and should not be imposed upon her by others.
> A few years ago in Australia a guy in his mid fifties, from
> memory, was out surfing, got dumped by a wave, ended up with
> a high cervical fracture which meant that he ended up in
> hospital not only paralyzed from the neck down but not even
> able to breathe on his own, let alone suicide.
>
> Some kind person assisted him to suicide. Or would you see
> this as an act of kindness and mercy? Please do try to
> reply to this question, incidentally.
If the individual is aware of their condition and able to communicate
such a desire, I think it could be an act of kindness and mercy.
However, I would have a great deal of concern about whether such a
desire was a temporary reaction (i.e. I think it best to give them
adequate time to adjust mentally to their situation and see if they
still feel that way). Without knowing more of such specifics in the
case you've cited, I can't say definitely one way or the other.
> >> If you have children, don't you ever feel any guilt for
> >> bringing them into the world? If not, why not?
> >
> >No, I don't feel guilt. Why not? Why should I? I don't feel guilt
> >for having children anymore than I feel guilt for being alive, for
> >eating, drinking, and polluting the world with my bodily wastes.
> >Should people feel guilty for peeing? For breathing in oxygen and
> >breathing out carbon dioxide?
>
> Just because your parents cursed you with life doesn't mean
> that you have to perpetuate the mistake, does it?
I don't feel that I was cursed with life but blessed with it. I don't
think of having children as perpetuating a ‘mistake', but as giving
the gift of life and as a sharing of the joy I take in being alive.
> >I'll look for your response in sci.econ. Regards.
>
> You will see it in both groups. Thanks for the post. I do
> realize that you are sincere and that perhaps you and I just
> view the world from very different points of view.
>
> However, the basic question may be why people are so
> intolerant of other points of view on any given issue.
Indeed, that is one that I ponder deeply myself. I have no good
answers, but I enjoy finding out more about other people's opinions on
many different issues. I love the Internet because it allows me to
hear others discuss their values and ideas and why they feel the way
they do.
> Anyway, though, have spent too much time on this particular
> post and have others to deal with. Nevertheless, looking
> forward to any replies from either group, although cannot
> promise to answer them all at such length. :-)
Thanks. I've enjoyed your reply. Hopefully, you'll find time for
more conversation.
- Next message: Rue The Day: "Re: Refuting supply-side economics"
- Previous message: Some Guy: "Re: Refuting supply-side economics"
- In reply to: nilkids_at_invalid.com.au: "Re: Re: Quest for the CFers"
- Next in thread: nilkids_at_invalid.com.au: "Re: Re: Quest for the CFers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
