real life wrote:
Mind your own business.
Forcing others to follow your view and have only one child is not 'sharing sacrifice'. It's totalitarianism. Nothing admirable about that.
Live consistently with your view and I'll live with mine.
When the lifeboat is not big enough to carry all, the group decides who stays and who goes overboard. You are only as free as the group allows you to be, there are more of them then there are of you.
hawk,
The problem with your analogy is that a physical lifeboat is easily measurable, and won't grow in size when out on the ocean.
Earth's capacity to support humans,( i.e. man's ability to produce food, prevent and cure disease, etc), DOES increase.
'Limits' of what the Earth was once thought capable of supporting are meaningless today, just as today's 'limits' will likely be meaningless tomorrow.
Simplistic analogies, such as the lifeboat, appeal to simplistic thinkers and to those that they are able to sway with their demagoguery.
China's totalitarian methods are not acceptable, nor will ever be , to a free society.
The Chinese 'one-child' policy is unacceptable here. (It's not even very popular there.) Go to China if you are uncomfortable in a free society.
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?
I believe human's natural celebratory response to having children is
better for the future of humans than any accepted argument.
Am I to assume you do not differentiate between so-called "accepted arguments" and what one might well call, by the same token, "accepted facts"?
