celebratory response to having children

I guess she's not just a pretty face.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I'll give it a read, however my viewpoint is not so much based on "a conflict over finite resources between individual interests and the common good"

Same difference. The essay isn't just about resources per se and it happens to be largely about the earth's overpopulation. It's about the dilemma of an act being good for the individual but bad for the collective and the term "tragedy of the commons" has come to describe this kind of social trap very usefully.

What you are pointing out a "tragedy of the commons" in that having children may be good for an individual but bad for the society. The essay goes on to explain why you can expect the individuals to act this way.

Basically, it is due to the fact that the individual derives nearly all the positive while the group collectively shares the negative. So the rational course of action for the individual is toward the collective tragedy.

And that is why people congratulate those near them. They derive all the advantage while the society collectively shares the disadvantage. It was a net gain for them individually and is a rational course of action on the individual level.

0 Replies

Thanks for the clarification!

I might well counter however by saying that if we accept that we live in a closed system; then individual benefits cannot truly be considered to be a positive if they are as a whole negative. Regardless of individual perceptions to the contrary!

For example, if I was allowed to steal as much money as I want, I would benefit and the collective would suffer, this is not allowed both morally and legally.

It seems possible that these distinctions may have more in common with moral relativism, than with the "tragedy of the commons". Not as of yet having a good understanding of the "tragedy of the commons" I cannot by comparison be sure.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Well, actually, not always. Species like wolves and coyotes have pack members who serve as nannies - the good of the village mentality exists in the pack mind, why not in the human mind?

A valid question why man does not appear to have any self-regulatory village mentality systems, unless you consider short-sightedness and war.

I would not consider disease and resource limitations to be self-regulatory as they are external.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I might well counter however by saying that if we accept that we live in a closed system; then individual benefits cannot truly be considered to be a positive if they are as a whole negative. Regardless of individual perceptions to the contrary!

Yeah, but if you are the only one following the collective good (which is often likely in these scenarios) you get no benefit. So even if you recognize it sometimes the individually rational decision is to act selfishly.

The herd and fish examples are very good.

Imagine that you are a fisherman in a group of fishermen. The more you catch the more you can sell. But in the long term if you all do that you over fish to a collective negative.

Would you "under fish" if everyone else wasn't? Even if you recognized the collective good and appealed to the group to work together for the long term positive, if they ignored you and fished away it would be individually foolish to do otherwise yourself, since your under fishing would merely make you poor and the over fishing will still occur.

In a tragedy of the commons it is often the case that when you individually act to the collective benefit, you derive all the negative and none of the positive unless others do so as well.

0 Replies

A lot of the primitives were good at looking after the collective good, we modern technical society free market individualists.....not so much. Many human abilities have been allowed to wither away, under valued and unused for many generations .

The problem with individual looking after the collective good by limiting procreation is that those who would notice that population size is a problem, and would care enough to want to work to solve the problem, are going to be the best and the brightest of the species. Being intelligent and caring is not all a crap shoot of chance, much is derived and dependent upon our genes. Those who would choose not to have babies are the very genetic stock that humans could use more of, it would be the dumb ones who would keep squeezing out new copies. But then we are into thinking about genetic engineering and remembering with horror the Nazi "Master race" project and we are stuck.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I would only go as far as saying it is in need of "serious hand wringing" in as much as its net effects both pragmatically and morally promote the potential downfall of mankind in a most obvious and direct fashion; not that I do not understand human nature.

I would certainly rank it higher than (for example) parents promoting their kids to steal small items such as chocolate bars.

What?! Parents promoting their kids to steal small items? I have to say I find that troubling- very troubling - but I won't get off on that tangent as I know you were just coming up with something off the top of your head. Because I can see that scenario turning into something EXTREMELY troubling for society - in fact- it already has- and we're dealing with the effects of that interpretation of "if it doesn't impact me directly - I don't care how it impacts everyone else" in our society every day.

I don't think people who don't have children are genetically superior. In fact, many times it may speak to some (at least physical) genetic or chromosomal issue.

And I do think that someone has to take up the mantle of carrying the species forward - unfortunately there are way too many people unthinkingly willing to do that- but as someone (I forget who) mentioned, we'd be in even more of a pickle if everyone just said, "It's not my job to populate the earth...let someone else worry about that."

I agree Chumly - it is troubling that people think the only way they can parent is to produce their own offspring. And it does have an effect on all of us as all of our systems are and will continue to be overloaded (and I'm talking in society as a whole- nevermind the environment) if there's not more thought put into things.

But I have to say that I do look happily on every person who is born, however briefly I allow myself to do it before I start worrying about those who are already here (and I always do have that thought almost immediately after I express my delight at this new child, whoever he or she is) because it's just promise waiting to be expressed. You never know who or what that kid will turn out to be and what he or she might do for the world.
You have to have some hope...

*(How do you know what my face looks like when I don't know what yours looks like?)

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

littlek wrote:
Well, actually, not always. Species like wolves and coyotes have pack members who serve as nannies - the good of the village mentality exists in the pack mind, why not in the human mind?
A valid question why man does not appear to have any self-regulatory village mentality systems, unless you consider short-sightedness and war.

I would not consider disease and resource limitations to be self-regulatory as they are external.

I suspect that we (humans) have more of that village mentality than you may recognize. Give a wolf pack space, ample food supplies and moderate temperatures and you'll see the size of the pack increase rapidly. With most animals, given better conditions, the size of annual litters increases and those born tend to survive at higher rates. We happen to have the ability to modify our environment enough to overcome the natural barriers.

But if you look at the countries with stable political environments and without major weather issues (droughts, floods, etc...) you'll see low population growth. Many European countries are in a neutral or negative population groth phase due to self-regulation by their own populations. Birth rates amongst humans tends to correlate directly with mortality rates - in countries where people live longer there are fewer births. In countries where people tend to die at younger ages the birth rates are much higher. On it's face, that would appear to be a self-regulatory system.

0 Replies

Re: celebratory response to having children

Chumly wrote:

If you accept the argument (as I do) that a large percent decrease in human population would be a large benefit to man's survival / success / safety going forward, then how by the same token can one reconcile the expected celebratory response to having children?

Where is the moral outrage for jepordizing man's future that excess childbirth represents?

Every time one of my leftist, socialist or liberal acquaintances tell me that they have decided they don't want to raise children , I will congratulate them and tell them what a wise decision it is, and how future generations will be grateful. Cool

0 Replies

I used to concern myself with overpopulation. Presently, I tend to focus on the self destructive nature of the populace. I believe that we could constructively handle overpopulation, if such were our goal. But, for now, we seem more intent on pillaging than preserving. I raised four children and I don't feel guilty about it at all.

0 Replies

Robert Gentel wrote:

Would you "under fish" if everyone else wasn't?

- Isn't that (arguably) the nature of certain types of altruism and/or sacrifice?

- Isn't that one of pillars that supports the concept of society?

- How many have given how much for the sake of principles, even if the cause was (presumably) lost?

- Again I might well ask (rephrased to fit with your fishy question): would you steal if everyone else wasn't?

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Chumly wrote:
littlek wrote:
Well, actually, not always. Species like wolves and coyotes have pack members who serve as nannies - the good of the village mentality exists in the pack mind, why not in the human mind?
A valid question why man does not appear to have any self-regulatory village mentality systems, unless you consider short-sightedness and war.

I would not consider disease and resource limitations to be self-regulatory as they are external.

I suspect that we (humans) have more of that village mentality than you may recognize. Give a wolf pack space, ample food supplies and moderate temperatures and you'll see the size of the pack increase rapidly. With most animals, given better conditions, the size of annual litters increases and those born tend to survive at higher rates. We happen to have the ability to modify our environment enough to overcome the natural barriers.

But if you look at the countries with stable political environments and without major weather issues (droughts, floods, etc...) you'll see low population growth. Many European countries are in a neutral or negative population groth phase due to self-regulation by their own populations. Birth rates amongst humans tends to correlate directly with mortality rates - in countries where people live longer there are fewer births. In countries where people tend to die at younger ages the birth rates are much higher. On it's face, that would appear to be a self-regulatory system.

On the face of it your views have merit, but as to the essence of my argument that a small population is much safer and healthier for man going forward, your views lack merit.

Your views lack merit because to increase population to fit what appears to be the available resources is (I would ague) a likely road to self-destruction and/or the path to needless suffering, regardless of whether said population is at some later given point stable, or even declining to some moderate measure.

Further you provide zero legitimate rationale for the high-risk high-population conditions in the first place given the (arguably) inherent risks such populations represent to mankind's long term survivability.

0 Replies

Re: celebratory response to having children

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
If you accept the argument (as I do) that a large percent decrease in human population would be a large benefit to man's survival / success / safety going forward, then how by the same token can one reconcile the expected celebratory response to having children?

Where is the moral outrage for jepordizing man's future that excess childbirth represents?

Every time one of my leftist, socialist or liberal acquaintances tell me that they have decided they don't want to raise children , I will congratulate them and tell them what a wise decision it is, and how future generations will be grateful.

I gather you consider that politicizing the circumstances has a genetic underpinning. Rather humorous considering you don't think evolution is real.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I used to concern myself with overpopulation. Presently, I tend to focus on the self destructive nature of the populace. I believe that we could constructively handle overpopulation, if such were our goal. But, for now, we seem more intent on pillaging than preserving. I raised four children and I don't feel guilty about it at all.

Just for the sake of a what-if (they can be fun is nothing else):

What-if you could go forward into the future, and found out that one of your four offspring's offspring was a serial killer?

No I don't mean killing Captain Crunch & Tony the Tiger albeit the airwaves might have been less strident without their contribution to pop culture.

What-if you had the power to extinguish one of your present four offspring's lives, and thus stop this serial killer from existing; would you do it?

Would you take your own life and thus stop this serial killer from existing?

0 Replies

What if you could go in the future, and you found you passed out behind the wheel of your car and ran over a child that otherwise would have grown up and presented the world with one of the great scientific advances of all time. Without him, five hundred years of war and devastation might take place. And he fell on the last animal of a then extinct species. His Mama, in a sucidal rage flies a plane into an orphanage, killing 200 children, each of whom was destined for greatness. What then, huh?
Laughing

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

fishin wrote:
Chumly wrote:
littlek wrote:
Well, actually, not always. Species like wolves and coyotes have pack members who serve as nannies - the good of the village mentality exists in the pack mind, why not in the human mind?
A valid question why man does not appear to have any self-regulatory village mentality systems, unless you consider short-sightedness and war.

I would not consider disease and resource limitations to be self-regulatory as they are external.

I suspect that we (humans) have more of that village mentality than you may recognize. Give a wolf pack space, ample food supplies and moderate temperatures and you'll see the size of the pack increase rapidly. With most animals, given better conditions, the size of annual litters increases and those born tend to survive at higher rates. We happen to have the ability to modify our environment enough to overcome the natural barriers.

But if you look at the countries with stable political environments and without major weather issues (droughts, floods, etc...) you'll see low population growth. Many European countries are in a neutral or negative population groth phase due to self-regulation by their own populations. Birth rates amongst humans tends to correlate directly with mortality rates - in countries where people live longer there are fewer births. In countries where people tend to die at younger ages the birth rates are much higher. On it's face, that would appear to be a self-regulatory system.

On the face of it your views have merit, but as to the essence of my argument that a small population is much safer and healthier for man going forward, your views lack merit.

Your views lack merit because to increase population to fit what appears to be the available resources is (I would ague) a likely road to self-destruction and/or the path to needless suffering, regardless of whether said population is at some later given point stable, or even declining to some moderate measure.

Ummm... So my view lacks merit because it doesn't match up with a supposition that you've come up with but you've failed to provide any evidence for?

Before my views can be held to lack merit you have to demonstrate that your contention is accurate - which you haven't done.

But, if you are going to claim someone's views lack merit you might try looking at what they actually wrote. I simply pointed out what has been demonstrated to be scientific fact. Populations DO increase to fit the available resources. I made no argument one way or the other as to whether that is a positive or negative.

Quote:

Further you provide zero legitimate rationale for the high-risk high-population conditions in the first place given the (arguably) inherent risks such populations represent to mankind's long term survivability.

Sorry, I didn't realize that I was assigned the task of creating a rationale for your argument.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

A lot of the primitives were good at looking after the collective good, we modern technical society free market individualists.....not so much.

Unless of course one believes that our governments now aptly perform this "collective good" function Laughing

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

What if you could go in the future, and you found you passed out behind the wheel of your car and ran over a child that otherwise would have grown up and presented the world with one of the great scientific advances of all time. Without him, five hundred years of war and devastation might take place. And he fell on the last animal of a then extinct species. His Mama, in a sucidal rage flies a plane into an orphanage, killing 200 children, each of whom was destined for greatness. What then, huh?

Your slippery slope argument isn't going to cut it unless you show relevance as per your analogy. If you don't understand the relevance of my analogy let me know.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Chumly wrote:
fishin wrote:
Chumly wrote:
littlek wrote:
Well, actually, not always. Species like wolves and coyotes have pack members who serve as nannies - the good of the village mentality exists in the pack mind, why not in the human mind?
A valid question why man does not appear to have any self-regulatory village mentality systems, unless you consider short-sightedness and war.

I would not consider disease and resource limitations to be self-regulatory as they are external.

I suspect that we (humans) have more of that village mentality than you may recognize. Give a wolf pack space, ample food supplies and moderate temperatures and you'll see the size of the pack increase rapidly. With most animals, given better conditions, the size of annual litters increases and those born tend to survive at higher rates. We happen to have the ability to modify our environment enough to overcome the natural barriers.

But if you look at the countries with stable political environments and without major weather issues (droughts, floods, etc...) you'll see low population growth. Many European countries are in a neutral or negative population groth phase due to self-regulation by their own populations. Birth rates amongst humans tends to correlate directly with mortality rates - in countries where people live longer there are fewer births. In countries where people tend to die at younger ages the birth rates are much higher. On it's face, that would appear to be a self-regulatory system.

On the face of it your views have merit, but as to the essence of my argument that a small population is much safer and healthier for man going forward, your views lack merit.

Your views lack merit because to increase population to fit what appears to be the available resources is (I would ague) a likely road to self-destruction and/or the path to needless suffering, regardless of whether said population is at some later given point stable, or even declining to some moderate measure.

Ummm... So my view lacks merit because it doesn't match up with a supposition that you've come up with but you've failed to provide any evidence for?

Before my views can be held to lack merit you have to demonstrate that your contention is accurate - which you haven't done.

But, if you are going to claim someone's views lack merit you might try looking at what they actually wrote. I simply pointed out what has been demonstrated to be scientific fact. Populations DO increase to fit the available resources. I made no argument one way or the other as to whether that is a positive or negative.

Quote:
Further you provide zero legitimate rationale for the high-risk high-population conditions in the first place given the (arguably) inherent risks such populations represent to mankind's long term survivability.

Sorry, I didn't realize that I was assigned the task of creating a rationale for your argument.

I for one am not willing to risk man's future on the false logic of a wait and see argument as to whether the sex drive is a more persuasive impetus than long term survivability.

I consider it outside the scope of this thread to present empirical arguments for the risks of needless population sizing, but suffice it to say they are readily available and Google is your friend.

Recall my first post as per "If you accept the argument (as I do) that a large percent decrease in human population would be a large benefit to man's survival"

Thus the thread has more to do with moral / ethical considerations under the set of given conditions; not to dismiss the implications of population size.

0 Replies

For the sake of good humors (if anyone's inclined) let's further my what-if scenario to edgarblythe by saying that his lovely four offspring are the pivotal numerical qualifiers in setting off the butterfly effect as per a global ecological / resource-scarcity meltdown.

0 Replies

celebratory response to having children

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know