celebratory response to having children

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?

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.

No, I just think that if an individual is going to view his children as a 'jeopardizing mankind's survival', then it's better if he/she decides not to have any.

Kids don't need a parent who views them as 'the problem'.

Chumly wrote:

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.

No, I just think that if an individual is going to view his children as a 'jeopardizing mankind's survival', then it's better if he/she decides not to have any.

Kids don't need a parent who views them as 'the problem'.

Chumly wrote:

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?

Yes, but altruism that actually makes a difference, as opposed to causing a net negative for all is more common. I'm not arguing that it's not noble, just that there are compelling personal reasons to take a different course of action in these situations.

Quote:

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

In relation to all those who didn't, fairly few, and the concept of the essay purports to explain why, given that a far larger share can easily acknowledge the inherent goodness of doing so. I detract nothing from these brave men and women and only wanted to bring you what I think is the most illuminating sociological commentary on social traps that I have encountered.

Quote:

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

No, but I don't know how much of that is due to the immediate personal negatives (imprisonment, scorn...) and I think a more appropriate example would be if I would steal if it were acceptable in society and everyone was doing it.

I don't know the answer to that. As a kid I stole candy a few times, but have since developed a stronger moral compass that holds such activity in very low regard. But in any case this question seems to be part of the misunderstanding I allude to above.

When I say that the tragedy of the commons illustrates situations in which it is reasonable for the individual to act to the detriment of the collective I detract nothing from the individuals who do act for the benefit of the collective, nor the concept of doing so. On the contrary, I, and nearly everyone, can see the inherent reason in doing so but on the whole don't tend to do so and the essay is illuminating mainly in that it explains that dichotomy.

So don't get me wrong when I say that the "reasonable" course of action is to the group's detriment. These individuals who make great social sacrifices and defy reason are the rare people who have a chance at elevating mankind.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw

real life wrote:

No, I just think that if an individual is going to view his children as a 'jeopardizing mankind's survival', then it's better if he/she decides not to have any.

Kids don't need a parent who views them as 'the problem'.

A position one can get to only if they consider the kids responsible for being born. Hopefully not, hopefully these parents would loath themselves and not their kids.

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

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.

No, I just think that if an individual is going to view his children as a 'jeopardizing mankind's survival', then it's better if he/she decides not to have any.

Kids don't need a parent who views them as 'the problem'.

You do like to turn a specific into a generalization for the sake of an argument I did not make.

I hear straw men collapsing in vain efforts.......if nothing else logical fallacies are your forte.

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?

There is no way to prove population is a problem that can't be handled.

edgarblythe wrote:

There is no way to prove population is a problem that can't be handled.

You're way off the reservation there, EB.

Interesting thread, and something that has been a struggle with lately. A conflict of interests that I feel on a very personal level.

On the one hand, delight at the prospect of any new child. Look - he/she is beautiful. Or will be beautiful. New life. Joy. Blessings and possibility.

On the other hand, a bit of horror. Even disguist sometimes.

And this gets me to thinking about it in my head.

Because I too am keenly aware - and concerned - about the rise of the human population. And more importantly; what seems to be oftentimes a great mass indifference/denial/ or even rejection that population can be, is, a problem.

The attitudes of people, that concerns me. Instead of looking curb and shape more thoughtfully how many new humans we bring to the planet and how we manage with what we got! - it seems we so often look for the quick fix.

This concerns me.

But essentially, resolved, the conflict is more a matter of how than having to choose between one thing or the other.

The delight at new life: normal. It is lovely to see human life flourish.
The sometimes negative feelings to new life: normal too. Especially when there are real concerns for what this new life will mean to The collective well being of all humans.

We all want the same thing, essentially, well most of us. And that is a healthy, happy human population.



Chumly.....on a bit of tangeant....I'm starting to think this is a bit of a Canadian thing as well!

I'm not joking, completely. What a typical born and bred Canadian sees as "too little space for too many people" "overpopulated" is often a far cry from what the average Indian will tell ya.

I say "Too many people! Ugh! We're in danger!"
My native-to-india friend would say "Hmm. Feels a bit lonely here! Very sad."


This is a topic dear to my heart. Space is sacred to me. Space...free of human inhabitance ....this is important!! To the "soul" if not only for more scientific and practical reasons.

Since I am way outnumbered in the US by the population control crowd, I think it is fairly simple to see how we can both get our way.

If the majority who seems to think there are too many people would simply stop having children , i.e. act in consistency with their beliefs............

.............and the rest of us who don't worry about 'overpopulation' can then continue to reproduce fanatically .........................

...............there will be a precipitous drop in population, pleasing the ZPGers to no end................

...............and ZPGers won't have the opportunity to indoctrinate the next generation with notions like 'you are endangering humanity', which will please those of us who love and cherish our kids as blessings not curses.

I am more concerned with freedom being passed on to the next generation.

Since you seem not to value allowing others their freedom, I think the fewer children you raise to think like you, the better.

real life wrote:

I am more concerned with freedom being passed on to the next generation.

Since you seem not to value allowing others their freedom, I think the fewer children you raise to think like you, the better.

Unless you think that kids are a burden your argument is crap. Kids are a joy, they are a privilege, they enrich life. If we are to have fewer kids then we are going to make a sacrifice, and that sacrifice should be shared equitably. That is why the one couple one child law of China is a moral and just law, the sacrifice is shared equally. Your so called freedom is the right of those who want the most to get the most at the expense of everyone else....there is nothing admirable about that.