What's up everybody! Just a quick message. We will be relaunching AllHipHop.com with the goal of keeping the community front and center. I have worked with Jamal and select moderators, to make sure The Illl Community's needs are being addressed as we evolve. We are encouraging you to use the new platform.

We will NOT be closing the current community, but we will be porting user data over to the new system over time, so please get used to using the new community!

We will be working on it every single day until it's exactly what you want!

Please feel free to join now, test, as we are in beta:

https://www.allhiphop.com

Is there any justification for having (biological) children?

HurumaHuruma Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
edited February 2011 in The Social Lounge
ecological - there's no point in reducing your carbon footprint if you're just going to create more carbon footprints. Climate change will be unbelievable in a few decades, and even more so in a few centuries. Soon, the planet will be unrecognizable and almost uninhabitable by human beings. Maybe future technology or discovering a new, renewable source of energy will improve the situation but this can't be assumed. It would be best if the global human population were less than 1 billion. It's amazing that hunters can justify killing wolves and other non-human animals in the interests of maintaining their population so that the ecosystem can support them but they can't apply the same reasoning to their own species when, relative to the impact humans have on the environment, no other group of animals is as overpopulated.

philanthropic - for evolutionary reasons, animals feel pain more easily than we feel pleasure (this is why it's easier to harm someone than it is to make them happy, because of this, we can't even imagine happiness that is equivalent to the worst suffering in the world). Maybe genetic engineering or biotechnology will eliminate human suffering in the future but for the time being, any child brought into the world has more to lose than to gain. The risk of creating children who will suffer unimaginably outweighs the possibility (even likeliness) of them living a comparatively, mildly pleasant life (there's also some research that suggests people exaggerate the quality of their lives but I won't stand by this since I can't find it online and people can determine for themselves whether they live relatively happy lives, the fact remains that any child brought into existence could have an unbearably painful genetic disease, there's a 1 in 6 chance they will develop some kind of mental illness, it's probable that they'll spend their adult lives working at jobs they can't stand, they might be permanently disfigured from some kind of accident, they might be diagnosed with cancer or some other pain disease, terminal or otherwise, no parent has any idea what kind of lives their children might have).

Doesn't it make more sense to take care of already existing children (adoption) than to create more?
«1

Replies

  • KTULU IS BACKKTULU IS BACK Posts: 6,617 ✭✭
    edited February 2011
    How you gonna decide who should reproduce though?
  • Mvpbrodie93Mvpbrodie93 Posts: 8,036 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    How you gonna decide who should reproduce though?

    ...................
  • HurumaHuruma Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    How you gonna decide who should reproduce though?

    That refers more to the ecological argument against breeding. People should have a right to reproductive autonomy (only because I think the consequences of denying them this right would do more harm than good), some people will always choose to have children but it would make a big difference if most people were convinced not to. I would hope that the ones who do decided to continue breeding would be among the most intelligent, compassionate and healthy (those who have a genetic disposition to cheerfulness and optimism and are less likely to pass on harmful genetic diseases/conditions or a tendency towards anti-social behavior).
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Although I'd call bullshit on the climate change predictions, I do think the world is overpopulated and the genetic quality of the species is too low. So not everyone should reproduce.

    If I willingly procreated, it would be to see if I could produce another version of myself, and what the results would be.
  • KTULU IS BACKKTULU IS BACK Posts: 6,617 ✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    I would hope that the ones who do decided to continue breeding would be among the most intelligent, compassionate and healthy

    Idiocracy. Not the best movie, but the premise is valid.
  • BiblicalAtheist BiblicalAtheist Prude FieldsPosts: 15,628 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Idiocracy. Not the best movie, but the premise is valid.

    Welcome to Cosco, i love you.
  • DarcSkiesDarcSkies TRUST IN ALLAH BUT TIE UP YOUR CAMEL Posts: 13,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    i have yet to hear a sound reason for anybody to have children.

    Its just a biological urge to reproduce that mostly all living beings have. Compounded by the fact that societies idea of social success & fulfillment is a "family."

    I dont share that view.
    http://darcskies.tumblr.com/

    LATEST SUBJECTS: ***NEW PHOTOGRAPHY POST****

    NEXT SUBJECT: The slow destruction of the gaming industry.

    irNe3jt.gif
  • edeeesqedeeesq Posts: 511
    edited February 2011
    Isn't this one of the theories for homosexuality existing?
  • glowyglowy Posts: 3,995 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Why should people be forced to take care of some fool's kids when we could make are own? Wouldn't be fair at all, the dumb ass gets to continue his/her gene line, while smarter people are forced to raise them. (excluding kids that are orphans due to their parents dying)


    But yeah, people need to stop having all these babies.
  • tru_m.a.ctru_m.a.c Posts: 9,090 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    glowy wrote: »
    Why should people be forced to take care of some fool's kids when we could make are own? Wouldn't be fair at all, the dumb ass gets to continue his/her gene line, while smarter people are forced to raise them. (excluding kids that are orphans due to their parents dying)


    But yeah, people need to stop having all these babies.

    You do realize the overpopulation thread starter is referencing comes from underdeveloped countries right....

    Which leads to my question for the T/S. So overpopulation is the problem right. Well what has caused said problem? Me thinks you woke up and thought you had a grand idea instead of doing some real research.
  • judahxulujudahxulu Posts: 3,988 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    smart dumb nigga thread. prime example of when mental masturbation goes wrong. btw...overpopulation is a myth.
  • tru_m.a.ctru_m.a.c Posts: 9,090 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    judahxulu wrote: »
    smart dumb nigga thread. prime example of when mental masturbation goes wrong. btw...overpopulation is a myth.

    I'll agree with the first part of you post

    but it being a myth??? wtf are you talking about
  • DarcSkiesDarcSkies TRUST IN ALLAH BUT TIE UP YOUR CAMEL Posts: 13,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    tru_m.a.c wrote: »
    I'll agree with the first part of you post

    but it being a myth??? wtf are you talking about
    The world is NOT overpopulated. You can fit the entire world's population in the state of Texas with the same density of the population of Tokyo.

    People think the world is over populated for 2 reasons:


    1. Everybody says it and when you say something enough people dont bother to see if it's really true they just accept it.

    2. European + American's are greedy and steal other people's resources and when there is a crisis in the land's they steal from they say, "oooh well there isnt enough water in the world. We have a water shortage. There isnt enough food in the world for all these people."

    But there is plenty of water & plenty of food. Just that Americans and Europeans consume way more than what we need to survive and leave everybody else with next to nothing. So instead of just admitting that and changing the easiest conclusion to come to is, "well...must be too many muthafukkas on the planet I guess."
    http://darcskies.tumblr.com/

    LATEST SUBJECTS: ***NEW PHOTOGRAPHY POST****

    NEXT SUBJECT: The slow destruction of the gaming industry.

    irNe3jt.gif
  • tru_m.a.ctru_m.a.c Posts: 9,090 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Darxwell wrote: »
    The world is NOT overpopulated. You can fit the entire world's population in the state of Texas with the same density of the population of Tokyo.

    Proof? I think that's drastically overstated.

    And I agree population density isn't as dire as ppl make it.
    Darxwell wrote: »
    there is plenty of water & plenty of food. Just that Americans and Europeans consume way more than what we need to survive and leave everybody else with next to nothing. So instead of just admitting that and changing the easiest conclusion to come to is, "well...must be too many muthafukkas on the planet I guess."

    At least we both agree that there is a finite amount of resources but an ever increasing rate of consumption amongst humans. That consumption part we both agree gets distorted.

    But as I say this, if the UN came back with a report (and they may have already) that says Americans/Europeans have to knock their consumption down to pre Vietnam (just throwing out a time period) which would effect: oil, water, food, clothing.....you would be agree to live your life that way?

    I hate to quote the internet phrase, "Once you see it, you can't unsee it," but once you live a modern American lifestlye its kind of hard to go back. Of course this depends on how far back we would have to live.

    I'm all for moderation by the way.....
  • glowyglowy Posts: 3,995 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    tru_m.a.c wrote: »
    You do realize the overpopulation thread starter is referencing comes from underdeveloped countries right....

    Which leads to my question for the T/S. So overpopulation is the problem right. Well what has caused said problem? Me thinks you woke up and thought you had a grand idea instead of doing some real research.

    I was under the impression that he was talking about all humans, and the reference was directed at all humans. We could just kill the unwanted children, but people wont have that....

    (well yes they will, as long as they don't know about it, and don't have to get their hands dirty)
  • HurumaHuruma Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Darxwell wrote: »
    i have yet to hear a sound reason for anybody to have children.

    Its just a biological urge to reproduce that mostly all living beings have. Compounded by the fact that societies idea of social success & fulfillment is a "family."

    I dont share that view.

    I would argue that most humans have a biological urge to mate (and a psychological urge to nurture and form close, familial relationships), the idea of 'living on through your genes' is a cultural one. Humans are probably the only animals who realize that sex leads to offspring and are even aware of the concept of genetic inheritance.

    As for overpopulation, I'm aware that people starve for political reasons, not because there isn't enough food to go around. The world is probably capable of feeding 12 billion humans. My concern was with the carbon footprint of a larger population and how this will further contribute to anthropogenic global warming, not about running out of food and clean water (although global warming will negatively effect crop production).

    Fiat,

    There's empirical research to support 'my' predictions.
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    ...Fiat,

    There's empirical research to support 'my' predictions.
    ...Climate change will be unbelievable in a few decades, and even more so in a few centuries. Soon, the planet will be unrecognizable and almost uninhabitable by human beings....
    Proof/link?

    Or are these some kind of "worst case scenario" theories?
  • jonlakadeadmicjonlakadeadmic Posts: 4,735 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    judahxulu wrote: »
    smart dumb nigga thread. prime example of when mental masturbation goes wrong. btw...overpopulation is a myth.

    no its not.........
  • phantom0900phantom0900 Posts: 1,313 ✭✭
    edited February 2011
    no its not.........

    Yes it is, as Darx already stated, we live off of wasteful models for life in the west. Vertical greenhouses replacing office buildings of the same height can solve a lot of the food shortages. We could put everyone in the world in comfortable sized condos scattered through out america, and have the rest of the world as wilderness.

    Cats are just livin it up right now and dont want to be taken out of their comfort zone, so they hype up hyperdense 3rd - 1st world communities as an excuse to tell everyone to cut back everyones lifestyle, while the dudes cakin at the top continue to exploit land for fun, leisure and resources.
  • BiblicalAtheist BiblicalAtheist Prude FieldsPosts: 15,628 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    no its not.........

    What they really mean by 'over population' is: the world is full of undesirable humans
  • phantom0900phantom0900 Posts: 1,313 ✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Useless eaters
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    What they really mean by 'over population' is: the world is full of undesirable humans
    Real shit, this is exactly what I'm referring to when I say the world is overpopulated. It's mainly humans who aren't children and still can't survive on their own, but also the humans with presently-incurable contagious diseases, and severely genetically defective humans as well.
  • KTULU IS BACKKTULU IS BACK Posts: 6,617 ✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Darxwell wrote: »
    You can fit the entire world's population in the state of Texas with the same density of the population of Tokyo.

    a texas-sized tokyo would drive everyone insane

    tokyo-sized tokyo is bad enough as it is
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Bronx, NY birthplace of hip-hopPosts: 14,266 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Darxwell wrote: »
    i have yet to hear a sound reason for anybody to have children.

    Its just a biological urge to reproduce that mostly all living beings have. Compounded by the fact that societies idea of social success & fulfillment is a "family."

    I dont share that view.

    I don't share that view either. Having kids in an already overpopulated planet (financially speaking) seems stupid and crazy to me. I've given up good relationships because of my desire to never have kids, but I like my peace of mind even more. I'd much prefer playing my PS3 and fucking as many bitches as I want than being tied down to watch how often my seed is gona shit in his or her diaper.

    In either case, I'm happier than most parents I know.
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Bronx, NY birthplace of hip-hopPosts: 14,266 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    ecological - there's no point in reducing your carbon footprint if you're just going to create more carbon footprints. Climate change will be unbelievable in a few decades, and even more so in a few centuries. Soon, the planet will be unrecognizable and almost uninhabitable by human beings. Maybe future technology or discovering a new, renewable source of energy will improve the situation but this can't be assumed. It would be best if the global human population were less than 1 billion. It's amazing that hunters can justify killing wolves and other non-human animals in the interests of maintaining their population so that the ecosystem can support them but they can't apply the same reasoning to their own species when, relative to the impact humans have on the environment, no other group of animals is as overpopulated.

    philanthropic - for evolutionary reasons, animals feel pain more easily than we feel pleasure (this is why it's easier to harm someone than it is to make them happy, because of this, we can't even imagine happiness that is equivalent to the worst suffering in the world). Maybe genetic engineering or biotechnology will eliminate human suffering in the future but for the time being, any child brought into the world has more to lose than to gain. The risk of creating children who will suffer unimaginably outweighs the possibility (even likeliness) of them living a comparatively, mildly pleasant life (there's also some research that suggests people exaggerate the quality of their lives but I won't stand by this since I can't find it online and people can determine for themselves whether they live relatively happy lives, the fact remains that any child brought into existence could have an unbearably painful genetic disease, there's a 1 in 6 chance they will develop some kind of mental illness, it's probable that they'll spend their adult lives working at jobs they can't stand, they might be permanently disfigured from some kind of accident, they might be diagnosed with cancer or some other pain disease, terminal or otherwise, no parent has any idea what kind of lives their children might have).

    Doesn't it make more sense to take care of already existing children (adoption) than to create more?

    You're a smart guy, and I agree with everything you said. And I do believe it makes sense to take care of the kids who exist already, rather than add to the tons of people out here who are a burden on society financially and ecologically. My reasons for not wanting kids though are very selfish, I just don't want the stress.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.