Wow that's pretty extreme.
Not surprised though, some people don't like the non-conformity, some regret their choice, some are insecure and
some of them are twats. Sleep deprivation and breeding hormones probably come in too.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 22:31, Share, Reply)
Not surprised though, some people don't like the non-conformity, some regret their choice, some are insecure and
some of them are twats. Sleep deprivation and breeding hormones probably come in too.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 22:31, Share, Reply)
Making children is an entirely selfish act which ends up benefiting nobody.
Once somebody gives me a legitimate, selfless reason for reproducing, I might reconsider my stance. But honestly, just adopt a dog/child/cat/homeless person if you want to throw your life and bank balance away. Just don't make any bloody more of us, the world has enough!
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 22:37, Share, Reply)
Once somebody gives me a legitimate, selfless reason for reproducing, I might reconsider my stance. But honestly, just adopt a dog/child/cat/homeless person if you want to throw your life and bank balance away. Just don't make any bloody more of us, the world has enough!
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 22:37, Share, Reply)
There are enough people.
Indeed, help the living things that are here already.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 22:59, Share, Reply)
Indeed, help the living things that are here already.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 22:59, Share, Reply)
Well that's the same sense of moral superiority
that people find so endearing about militant vegans. If you expressed that opinion to people with children then I'm not entirely surprised you got a negative reaction.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:07, Share, Reply)
that people find so endearing about militant vegans. If you expressed that opinion to people with children then I'm not entirely surprised you got a negative reaction.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:07, Share, Reply)
Well, but you can find holes in militant vegans reasoning quite easily.
In his, not quite, unless you want bring in some eugenics to the table.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:12, Share, Reply)
In his, not quite, unless you want bring in some eugenics to the table.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:12, Share, Reply)
Nope, not following. How do you get from "My extended family seem to be quite happy to spend time with my kid" to "I'm trying to advance the Aryan master race"?
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:17, Share, Reply)
I can't speak for anyone else
But I had one because my wife wanted one and I thought it would make her happy. It did, and in the process I discovered that I quite like having the little guy around too.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:23, Share, Reply)
But I had one because my wife wanted one and I thought it would make her happy. It did, and in the process I discovered that I quite like having the little guy around too.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:23, Share, Reply)
"I/we/she wanted one" is pretty much the only answer anybody can give.
So like I said, it's an inherently selfish act. Now, I'm not personally attacking you or your wife's choices here, it's your life. But why not adopt instead?
I have friends who have kids, and I'm happy that it's made them happy. But I can't escape from the fact that they've basically introduced another harmful parasite into our already pretty overpopulated human planetary soup.
Sorry to call your child a parasite, but I'm not singling him/her out. We're all parasites, and we're the only lifeforms that willingly do damage to the planet on which we live in order to temporarily increase our levels of comfort, whilst spitting out more of us to live in the mess we've left behind, then do the same.
Yes, I'm aware there is an instinctual evolutionary drive to reproduce, but we've left plenty of our other redundant, less savoury instinctual habits behind, why not this one?
My girlfriend is also antinatalist. Someone once tried to reason with her:
"But once you're old and infirm, who will you have to take care of you if you don't have children?"
She just explained that she'd be able to afford at least one full time carer with all the fucking awesome money she will have saved by remaining child free.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:35, Share, Reply)
So like I said, it's an inherently selfish act. Now, I'm not personally attacking you or your wife's choices here, it's your life. But why not adopt instead?
I have friends who have kids, and I'm happy that it's made them happy. But I can't escape from the fact that they've basically introduced another harmful parasite into our already pretty overpopulated human planetary soup.
Sorry to call your child a parasite, but I'm not singling him/her out. We're all parasites, and we're the only lifeforms that willingly do damage to the planet on which we live in order to temporarily increase our levels of comfort, whilst spitting out more of us to live in the mess we've left behind, then do the same.
Yes, I'm aware there is an instinctual evolutionary drive to reproduce, but we've left plenty of our other redundant, less savoury instinctual habits behind, why not this one?
My girlfriend is also antinatalist. Someone once tried to reason with her:
"But once you're old and infirm, who will you have to take care of you if you don't have children?"
She just explained that she'd be able to afford at least one full time carer with all the fucking awesome money she will have saved by remaining child free.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:35, Share, Reply)
People are not very good at leaving instinctual habits.
In fact, this is the reason we are here. That works on more than one level.
Oh, and I don't think we are 'worse' than animals (we are the only...). That's an emotional variation on a appeal to nature. We are just more efficient, that's all.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:54, Share, Reply)
In fact, this is the reason we are here. That works on more than one level.
Oh, and I don't think we are 'worse' than animals (we are the only...). That's an emotional variation on a appeal to nature. We are just more efficient, that's all.
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:54, Share, Reply)
Literally every lifeform on this planet is altering their environment in one way or another
often for their own convenience.
Build a nest or dig a burrow? That's altering the environment. Converting oxygen to carbon dioxide? That's altering the environment. Eating that cute furry thing over there because you're hungry? Altering the environment.
But if you're going to follow the line of reasoning that we're all parasites then why continue to live on this planet yourself? You'll be doing an immense amount of damage in the remaining years of your life. If the planet is so precious to you, then how can live with the knowledge that you did all that damage purely for your own comfort?
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:59, Share, Reply)
often for their own convenience.
Build a nest or dig a burrow? That's altering the environment. Converting oxygen to carbon dioxide? That's altering the environment. Eating that cute furry thing over there because you're hungry? Altering the environment.
But if you're going to follow the line of reasoning that we're all parasites then why continue to live on this planet yourself? You'll be doing an immense amount of damage in the remaining years of your life. If the planet is so precious to you, then how can live with the knowledge that you did all that damage purely for your own comfort?
( , Wed 15 Mar 2017, 23:59, Share, Reply)
^ he's right, up to a point of a voluntary suicide, that's quite tall order. Better to avoid this conundrum in the first place.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 0:02, Share, Reply)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 0:02, Share, Reply)
Yep
I've always been of the opinion that we are the one species that can decide not to be. We have that capacity. Don't know why we'd want to but...
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 0:22, Share, Reply)
I've always been of the opinion that we are the one species that can decide not to be. We have that capacity. Don't know why we'd want to but...
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 0:22, Share, Reply)
Simple, it wasn't his decision to be here.
The vast majority of organisms cannot decide as they don't have the sentience to do so.
As for voluntary suicide, isn't the decision to die or not to die, the ultimate existential decision?
I don't expect parents to have to justify anything to me, I have had many annoying interrogations as to why I don't though.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 0:20, Share, Reply)
The vast majority of organisms cannot decide as they don't have the sentience to do so.
As for voluntary suicide, isn't the decision to die or not to die, the ultimate existential decision?
I don't expect parents to have to justify anything to me, I have had many annoying interrogations as to why I don't though.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 0:20, Share, Reply)
Sorry, come to this a bit late...
Mr Penis' point about instinctual habits misses the point that reproduction is the most fundamental urge a living creature has. Breathing and eating are simply chores to be done to ensure that you get the chance to reproduce.
A few billion years ago, an organic molecule formed that had the ability to make copies of itself (something similar to RNA). One of them copied itself slightly differently and was better at making copies of itself than the others... This carried on for a while, and consciousness, intelligence, morality, opposable thumbs etc. were simply emergent properties that helped that molecule get better at making copies of itself.
So one could argue that the desire to reproduce isn't necessarily selfish - it's your core raison d'etre and anything beyond it is selfish foible.
Sentience, intelligence and morality have brought us to the point where we can reason about the world beyond our own instincts, and whilst I don't have a problem at all with anti-natalists (and agree that things like adoption are clearly the "moral high ground"), I think your argument misses this fundamental urge and mistakes it for selfishness.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 8:53, Share, Reply)
Mr Penis' point about instinctual habits misses the point that reproduction is the most fundamental urge a living creature has. Breathing and eating are simply chores to be done to ensure that you get the chance to reproduce.
A few billion years ago, an organic molecule formed that had the ability to make copies of itself (something similar to RNA). One of them copied itself slightly differently and was better at making copies of itself than the others... This carried on for a while, and consciousness, intelligence, morality, opposable thumbs etc. were simply emergent properties that helped that molecule get better at making copies of itself.
So one could argue that the desire to reproduce isn't necessarily selfish - it's your core raison d'etre and anything beyond it is selfish foible.
Sentience, intelligence and morality have brought us to the point where we can reason about the world beyond our own instincts, and whilst I don't have a problem at all with anti-natalists (and agree that things like adoption are clearly the "moral high ground"), I think your argument misses this fundamental urge and mistakes it for selfishness.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 8:53, Share, Reply)
I understand how fundemental an urge it is.
But people choose not to do it all the time, so I don't really feel it's a case of 'We can't help it'. It's more of a case of 'We want it'.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:09, Share, Reply)
But people choose not to do it all the time, so I don't really feel it's a case of 'We can't help it'. It's more of a case of 'We want it'.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:09, Share, Reply)
Well, people who do not it are by definition evolutionary dead ends. Let it sit for a while.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:18, Share, Reply)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:18, Share, Reply)
The fact that we're living unsustainably as a species makes us evolutionary dead ends anyway.
Christ, we're so aware of our unsustainability that we're looking at terraforming/populating other planets so that when this one completely dries up, we can just move to another and start over.
But religion/greed/war will kill us all before that happens anyway.
My point is, if I thought we had a reasonably bright, harmonic future then I'd be all for human reproduction. But I don't, therefore I'm not.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:27, Share, Reply)
Christ, we're so aware of our unsustainability that we're looking at terraforming/populating other planets so that when this one completely dries up, we can just move to another and start over.
But religion/greed/war will kill us all before that happens anyway.
My point is, if I thought we had a reasonably bright, harmonic future then I'd be all for human reproduction. But I don't, therefore I'm not.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:27, Share, Reply)
So you are denying one species the will to life? That's not very reasonable and fair.
In fact, I think this is an emotional prejudice stemming from conflating external world with moral values.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:35, Share, Reply)
In fact, I think this is an emotional prejudice stemming from conflating external world with moral values.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:35, Share, Reply)
I suppose I am.
But only because I feel as a species we're a bit of a lost cause and contributing nothing. But like with my lifestyle/dietary choices, I'm aware that it's a personal thing and not something I'm going to try and unfairly push on others. I'd love it if everybody agreed with me but at the same time I'm not going to try and ram it down peoples throats, poison their hamburgers or throw acid on them for wearing animal skin. It's just nice to share my perspective every now and again :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:58, Share, Reply)
But only because I feel as a species we're a bit of a lost cause and contributing nothing. But like with my lifestyle/dietary choices, I'm aware that it's a personal thing and not something I'm going to try and unfairly push on others. I'd love it if everybody agreed with me but at the same time I'm not going to try and ram it down peoples throats, poison their hamburgers or throw acid on them for wearing animal skin. It's just nice to share my perspective every now and again :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:58, Share, Reply)
All successful species live unsustainably
That's just normal population flux that has occurred for millennia.
Herbivores find a big plain full of grass that they can eat, everyone thrives, has lots of babies, suddenly the grass gets eaten faster than it grows back and the population dies back. This pulses back and forth ad infinitum or until other environmental factors kick in as well.
We're just a bit smarter, and have the ability to foresee our impending correction and do something about it. I don't see a problem with terraforming other planets. Once we've figured out interstellar travel, then there's an awfully big universe to grow into.
Like, quite literally infinitely big, so over-population is only ever going to be a highly localised problem.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:56, Share, Reply)
That's just normal population flux that has occurred for millennia.
Herbivores find a big plain full of grass that they can eat, everyone thrives, has lots of babies, suddenly the grass gets eaten faster than it grows back and the population dies back. This pulses back and forth ad infinitum or until other environmental factors kick in as well.
We're just a bit smarter, and have the ability to foresee our impending correction and do something about it. I don't see a problem with terraforming other planets. Once we've figured out interstellar travel, then there's an awfully big universe to grow into.
Like, quite literally infinitely big, so over-population is only ever going to be a highly localised problem.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:56, Share, Reply)
But then we've essentially turned into the alien invaders we're supposed to fear in sci-fi movies.
Sucking a planet dry then moving onto the next. It's essentially colonization/invasion on a macroscopic scale. It's something that leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth personally, which is why I don't really support the idea.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:04, Share, Reply)
Sucking a planet dry then moving onto the next. It's essentially colonization/invasion on a macroscopic scale. It's something that leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth personally, which is why I don't really support the idea.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:04, Share, Reply)
But we won't be sucking planets dry, we'll fill them with life!
And again... the universe is INFINITE. It will never run out of anything.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:15, Share, Reply)
And again... the universe is INFINITE. It will never run out of anything.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:15, Share, Reply)
Creating life is creating death. Inifinite has many meanings.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:02, Share, Reply)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:02, Share, Reply)
Reminds me of that AI that they programmed to play Tetris
After a while, it realised that it always lost, so it just refused to play.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 17:27, Share, Reply)
After a while, it realised that it always lost, so it just refused to play.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 17:27, Share, Reply)
Planets, grass, what's the difference?
I get your point of view, especially after you admit it's emotional tint.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:02, Share, Reply)
I get your point of view, especially after you admit it's emotional tint.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:02, Share, Reply)
That ability to foresee and adapt intelligently is actually a problem.
It means that we prevent most natural die-backs, so our population only keeps growing.
Eventually we'll end up with a problem vastly more problematic than the normal natural disasters, but one which we will not be able to avoid, because it will be the product of ever more intricate optimisations with no room for adaptation left.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:11, Share, Reply)
It means that we prevent most natural die-backs, so our population only keeps growing.
Eventually we'll end up with a problem vastly more problematic than the normal natural disasters, but one which we will not be able to avoid, because it will be the product of ever more intricate optimisations with no room for adaptation left.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:11, Share, Reply)
Put far more eloquently than I could manage
Whilst pretending to be hard at work :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:14, Share, Reply)
Whilst pretending to be hard at work :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:14, Share, Reply)
Everyone keeps referring to the 'Natural' way of things
We are part of nature too - everything that happens is natural.
To quote a Facebook platitude - "You are not in a traffic jam; You ARE the traffic jam".
And your argument that we'll end up at a point where we 'run out of adaptations' just suggests a lack of imagination.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:23, Share, Reply)
We are part of nature too - everything that happens is natural.
To quote a Facebook platitude - "You are not in a traffic jam; You ARE the traffic jam".
And your argument that we'll end up at a point where we 'run out of adaptations' just suggests a lack of imagination.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:23, Share, Reply)
Very fair point.
But my way of thinking is more along the lines of:
"I've contributed to this traffic jam by relying on my car. Perhaps if people didn't rely on cars so much, car shared or chose alternative means of transport, nobody would need to suffer traffic jams such as these."
Actually, my thinking is more along the lines of:
"Stop making cars, we use far too many of them!" But I'm pretty happy with either solution :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:37, Share, Reply)
But my way of thinking is more along the lines of:
"I've contributed to this traffic jam by relying on my car. Perhaps if people didn't rely on cars so much, car shared or chose alternative means of transport, nobody would need to suffer traffic jams such as these."
Actually, my thinking is more along the lines of:
"Stop making cars, we use far too many of them!" But I'm pretty happy with either solution :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:37, Share, Reply)
Yes, this natural fallacy irks me still, but I'm glad there is some acknowledgement : p
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:04, Share, Reply)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:04, Share, Reply)
I don't mean this to be rude
but you seem to have a very short-sighted way of viewing these problems.
Cars are not the problem, burning fossil fuels is the problem. People need to get around, always have, always will.
Saying that we should stop building cars is to entirely miss the point. Build electric cars that are charged via renewable energy sources. Put your energy into finding alternatives and actions that let us have the best of both worlds - it's not selfish to want to be happy and to be able to do the things you want to do. It is selfish to do such things in the knowledge that you are harming others, and doing absolutely nothing to mitigate it.
In this particular case I can hold my head up high, as I've founded a company that does car sharing, and efficient allocation of car stock etc. but in general, I think that as the human race is already trying to solve most of these problems, you don't need to be actively involved in the solution in order to do it with a clear conscience.
So looping back to the original premise - having children is not the problem. Not spending enough on research into space exploration, harnessing the power of the sun, and efficient food growth are the problems.
Humans are living creatures and want to do anything possible to survive and thrive, you can either sit back and say that that's a bad thing and wither away into nothing, or you can join the other amazing human beings who have come up with solutions to our problems that benefits everyone.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 14:37, Share, Reply)
but you seem to have a very short-sighted way of viewing these problems.
Cars are not the problem, burning fossil fuels is the problem. People need to get around, always have, always will.
Saying that we should stop building cars is to entirely miss the point. Build electric cars that are charged via renewable energy sources. Put your energy into finding alternatives and actions that let us have the best of both worlds - it's not selfish to want to be happy and to be able to do the things you want to do. It is selfish to do such things in the knowledge that you are harming others, and doing absolutely nothing to mitigate it.
In this particular case I can hold my head up high, as I've founded a company that does car sharing, and efficient allocation of car stock etc. but in general, I think that as the human race is already trying to solve most of these problems, you don't need to be actively involved in the solution in order to do it with a clear conscience.
So looping back to the original premise - having children is not the problem. Not spending enough on research into space exploration, harnessing the power of the sun, and efficient food growth are the problems.
Humans are living creatures and want to do anything possible to survive and thrive, you can either sit back and say that that's a bad thing and wither away into nothing, or you can join the other amazing human beings who have come up with solutions to our problems that benefits everyone.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 14:37, Share, Reply)
Man trapped in giant sealed septic tank, slowly filling with sewage:
"The shit filling up this tank is NOT what's threatening to drown me, it's the lack of foresight to research the possibility of building other septic tanks we can then fill with shit"
....glub glub glub
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 16:07, Share, Reply)
"The shit filling up this tank is NOT what's threatening to drown me, it's the lack of foresight to research the possibility of building other septic tanks we can then fill with shit"
....glub glub glub
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 16:07, Share, Reply)
Man trapped in giant sealed septic tank, slowly filling with sewage:
Man figures out how to turn the shit tap off. Goes and builds another septic tank to live in that doesn't fill with shit, and leaves everyone else wallowing in the remaining shit arguing about who turned the tap on in the first place.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 17:44, Share, Reply)
Man figures out how to turn the shit tap off. Goes and builds another septic tank to live in that doesn't fill with shit, and leaves everyone else wallowing in the remaining shit arguing about who turned the tap on in the first place.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 17:44, Share, Reply)
The logical conclusion of your argument, however, is that we nuke the planet from orbit
and return it to a barren sphere of rock and dust so that bad things can't possibly happen.
But the trouble is, neither can the good things. Life is inherently 'unfair' (whatever that means), and we all just muddle on through doing the best we can.
If everyone decided that they didn't want to reproduce, then the human population would be wiped out in roughly 100 years from that decision. Then what?
Global overpopulation isn't the problem that most people think it is. It won't continually increase exponentially ( www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth ), and even if it did, we'll have the ability to travel to and terraform Mars within the next century or so.
So whilst I completely respect your decision not to have kids, calling those that do 'selfish' is to create a false dichotomy. It isn't a question of massive overpopulation vs eradication of the human race.
I do agree that more should be done to encourage adoption, and have considered it quite actively myself (my daughter was an IVF baby, on the 5th time of trying), but one could argue that your decision to not have kids, but then also choose to not adopt an unwanted child is hypocrisy...
Just a thought... :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:49, Share, Reply)
and return it to a barren sphere of rock and dust so that bad things can't possibly happen.
But the trouble is, neither can the good things. Life is inherently 'unfair' (whatever that means), and we all just muddle on through doing the best we can.
If everyone decided that they didn't want to reproduce, then the human population would be wiped out in roughly 100 years from that decision. Then what?
Global overpopulation isn't the problem that most people think it is. It won't continually increase exponentially ( www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth ), and even if it did, we'll have the ability to travel to and terraform Mars within the next century or so.
So whilst I completely respect your decision not to have kids, calling those that do 'selfish' is to create a false dichotomy. It isn't a question of massive overpopulation vs eradication of the human race.
I do agree that more should be done to encourage adoption, and have considered it quite actively myself (my daughter was an IVF baby, on the 5th time of trying), but one could argue that your decision to not have kids, but then also choose to not adopt an unwanted child is hypocrisy...
Just a thought... :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:49, Share, Reply)
My choice to not adopt.
Is based entirely on the fact that I'd be a fucking terrible parent, and I don't feel it's fair to put that burden on a child. The dogs and the girlfriend are about the limits of what I feel I'm capable of sustaining a healthy environment for :)
Plus, as much as I don't hate children, I'm not massively fond of them either.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:12, Share, Reply)
Is based entirely on the fact that I'd be a fucking terrible parent, and I don't feel it's fair to put that burden on a child. The dogs and the girlfriend are about the limits of what I feel I'm capable of sustaining a healthy environment for :)
Plus, as much as I don't hate children, I'm not massively fond of them either.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:12, Share, Reply)
"The logical conclusion of your argument, however, is that we nuke the planet from orbit"
...it really isn't.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:00, Share, Reply)
...it really isn't.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:00, Share, Reply)
The logical conclusion, reductio ad absurdum more like.
Terraform Mars? That might take THOUSANDS of years.
Some of us are making a personal choice to reduce suffering by not reproducing, now.
I don't think anyone has mentioned that a small child is one of the best disease vectors known.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 15:19, Share, Reply)
Terraform Mars? That might take THOUSANDS of years.
Some of us are making a personal choice to reduce suffering by not reproducing, now.
I don't think anyone has mentioned that a small child is one of the best disease vectors known.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 15:19, Share, Reply)
I'm fully aware that other species also alter their habitat to suit their needs.
Burrowing, hollowing out trees, etc. The difference is that their impact on the planet is completely sustainable. To put it another way (and as much as I HATE the term), every other species on this planet is completely carbon neutral. They consume what they need and no more, and their local surroundings adapt to sustain them. They have practically zero negative impact on the ecosystem because they are a natural part of it. When things do get a bit out of hand, nature restores the balance using disease or a dynamic increase in parasite/predator population.
Humans on the other hand, fight against the natural order all the bloody time. Almost all of us eat more than we need to eat, take up more space than we require, then exploit the oceans and land beyond breaking point in order to sustain our greed and create unfathomable amounts of pollution in the process.
On top of that, when nature steps in to do a bit of population control by introducing disease, we go out of our way to develop a bloody cure.
We are the only species that fights against nature on a mass scale.
I'm well aware that I'm typing this at the moment on a plastic keyboard connected to a mass produced piece of electronic gubbery, sitting at a desk made of MDF while wearing clothes that contain man-made fibres. And I'm not prepared to jump off a bridge in order to remove my particular carbon footprint from the planet. That's just silly! Comfort and convenience are lovely and I wouldn't deny either to anybody currently residing on this planet.
But there's absolutely no logical reason to make more people. Most of us with any sense are well aware of the negative impact we're having on the planet. It's completely unsustainable and although I don't think it's right to deny anybody the choice to live how they want while they're here, I think it's a bit shitty that they still feel the need to reproduce in the knowledge of how much harm we do. Like MadCatMan said earlier. If you want to take care of something, take care of something that's already here.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:06, Share, Reply)
Burrowing, hollowing out trees, etc. The difference is that their impact on the planet is completely sustainable. To put it another way (and as much as I HATE the term), every other species on this planet is completely carbon neutral. They consume what they need and no more, and their local surroundings adapt to sustain them. They have practically zero negative impact on the ecosystem because they are a natural part of it. When things do get a bit out of hand, nature restores the balance using disease or a dynamic increase in parasite/predator population.
Humans on the other hand, fight against the natural order all the bloody time. Almost all of us eat more than we need to eat, take up more space than we require, then exploit the oceans and land beyond breaking point in order to sustain our greed and create unfathomable amounts of pollution in the process.
On top of that, when nature steps in to do a bit of population control by introducing disease, we go out of our way to develop a bloody cure.
We are the only species that fights against nature on a mass scale.
I'm well aware that I'm typing this at the moment on a plastic keyboard connected to a mass produced piece of electronic gubbery, sitting at a desk made of MDF while wearing clothes that contain man-made fibres. And I'm not prepared to jump off a bridge in order to remove my particular carbon footprint from the planet. That's just silly! Comfort and convenience are lovely and I wouldn't deny either to anybody currently residing on this planet.
But there's absolutely no logical reason to make more people. Most of us with any sense are well aware of the negative impact we're having on the planet. It's completely unsustainable and although I don't think it's right to deny anybody the choice to live how they want while they're here, I think it's a bit shitty that they still feel the need to reproduce in the knowledge of how much harm we do. Like MadCatMan said earlier. If you want to take care of something, take care of something that's already here.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:06, Share, Reply)
People usually don't care enough for strangers so they are not suitable vehicles for denying mortality :)
Speaking of reason, people reason after deed is done (it's called rationalisation), if at all.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:31, Share, Reply)
Speaking of reason, people reason after deed is done (it's called rationalisation), if at all.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 9:31, Share, Reply)
Humans are not above nature. We are not 'special'
You talk about humans from the inside looking out. If you take one further step back, you'll see that we are doing the same as every other species - we're just way better at it.
The clever thing about humans is that we can also fix the problems that we create. You picked carbon footprints as the measure of damage, but a billion or so years ago, it was plants that oxygenated the atmosphere - presumably killing off a huge number of species in the process, but that gave rise to animals and myriad other species.
We might be fucking the place up a bit right now, but give it a hundred years or so, and we will have solved that problem.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:12, Share, Reply)
You talk about humans from the inside looking out. If you take one further step back, you'll see that we are doing the same as every other species - we're just way better at it.
The clever thing about humans is that we can also fix the problems that we create. You picked carbon footprints as the measure of damage, but a billion or so years ago, it was plants that oxygenated the atmosphere - presumably killing off a huge number of species in the process, but that gave rise to animals and myriad other species.
We might be fucking the place up a bit right now, but give it a hundred years or so, and we will have solved that problem.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:12, Share, Reply)
Despite my personal feelings on the matter at hand...
I love how B3ta is still capable of calm, reasoned debate occasionally :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:22, Share, Reply)
I love how B3ta is still capable of calm, reasoned debate occasionally :)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 10:22, Share, Reply)
Well your feelings are WRONG, even if the conclusion happens to be right ;)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:11, Share, Reply)
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:11, Share, Reply)
Preach on, Brother Penis...
I agree with all your points - a friend of mine can not seem to grasp that the most environmentally unfriendly thing you can do is have children (he has two and is a complete recycling nazi).
He's basically extended his carbon footprint potentially another 35 years minimum assuming his kids don't have kids as well.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:16, Share, Reply)
I agree with all your points - a friend of mine can not seem to grasp that the most environmentally unfriendly thing you can do is have children (he has two and is a complete recycling nazi).
He's basically extended his carbon footprint potentially another 35 years minimum assuming his kids don't have kids as well.
( , Thu 16 Mar 2017, 11:16, Share, Reply)