Why not reproduce more as we take life so valuable

After a disaster, people will suffer and die if they aren't attended to -- "treasure" won't perish and can be reclaimed at any point.

0 Replies

Re: Why not reproduce more as we take life so valuable

PONKOM wrote:

In any natural disaster,earthquake,for instance,people always rescue human lives first of all.At such times any treasure seems much less valuable compared to human lives.

My question is :why people not exert to reproduce more lives since they take life so valuabe?

Are you asking why people do not have more children? Many people in the world have more children than they can take care of. The world would be a better place if people only had the children they wanted and could care for. The earth is not able to sustain an endless population. Too much population results in starvation and disease.

0 Replies

Over-population will end us.

Through our utter ignorance of the Earths limitations and our misplaced conception that the Earth is ours for the taking, the human race merrily rape and pillage Earth until the last resource is gone and all thats left is a barren waste planet bearing the remains of a long dead, stupid, ignorant, overly self righteous herd of planet gobblers called Homo sapiens.

YAY!

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

After a disaster, people will suffer and die if they aren't attended to -- "treasure" won't perish and can be reclaimed at any point.

Can life also be reclaimed by reproducing?

After a disaster,or a war,when people estimate the loss,the first must be the loss of lifes,then treasure.Why?

0 Replies

PONKOM wrote:

Can life also be reclaimed by reproducing?

Think of someone you love very much. Could you replace this person with someone else? If your mother dies tomorrow, could you find a new mother? Every child is special to his or her parents, a mother or father could have a dozen children and all would be irreplaceable in their hearts.

0 Replies

PONKOM wrote:

After a disaster,or a war,when people estimate the loss,the first must be the loss of lifes,then treasure.Why?

How much would you sell your mother for?

0 Replies

Re: Why not reproduce more as we take life so valuable

Green Witch wrote:

Are you asking why people do not have more children? Many people in the world have more children than they can take care of. The world would be a better place if people only had the children they wanted and could care for. The earth is not able to sustain an endless population. Too much population results in starvation and disease.

You might be right ,but there are many people in this world who have different ideas about that.the consequence is:the people who disagree with you will reproduce more,and the people who have the same idea as yours will reproduce less,at last,the population comprised by the people who disagree your ideas will get larger and larger,and the population of your ideas will shrink.

In fact,the population in many European countreis are shrinking.Is that the
consequence that the people there have the same idea about population as yuors?

0 Replies

Re: Why not reproduce more as we take life so valuable

PONKOM wrote:

In fact,the population in many European countreis are shrinking.Is that the
consequence that the people there have the same idea about population as yuors?

In part that is true. Some people do not have children because they do not want to create over population. However, we know it is true that when women have access to good education they have less children. Poor women have more children than rich women. Most women who have more than 2 children say they did not want more children, but could not afford birth control or did not have access to birth control or come from a culture that expects them to have many children even if they do not want them. Very few women want large families. Large families are expensive to feed and take care of. When women have control of their reproduction, they almost always choose to have small families.

I am a woman who never had the desire to have children. My husband also does not want children. We like our freedom.

0 Replies

Xenoche wrote:

Over-population will end us.

Through our utter ignorance of the Earths limitations and our misplaced conception that the Earth is ours for the taking, the human race merrily rape and pillage Earth until the last resource is gone and all thats left is a barren waste planet bearing the remains of a long dead, stupid, ignorant, overly self righteous herd of planet gobblers called Homo sapiens.

YAY!

If everyone think Earth is over populated,and it is really so,then it should not be counted as a loss when people died in a disaster or war or terrorist attack.and the dying sick person should not be rescued as the rescue takes much of Earth's resources.

0 Replies

Re: Why not reproduce more as we take life so valuable

Green Witch wrote:

Some people do not have children because they do not want to create over population. ----------When women have control of their reproduction, they almost always choose to have small families.

I am a woman who never had the desire to have children. My husband also does not want children. We like our freedom.

If you decide not to have kids,what do you do with your so much free time every day?Can you be sure that your life is meaningful if you past your whole life like that?

0 Replies

Re: Why not reproduce more as we take life so valuable

PONKOM wrote:

Green Witch wrote:

Some people do not have children because they do not want to create over population. 。。。。。。When women have control of their reproduction, they almost always choose to have small families.

I am a woman who never had the desire to have children. My husband also does not want children. We like our freedom.

If you decide not to have kids,what do you do with your so much free time every day?Can you be sure that your life is meaningful if you past your whole life like that?

What do men, who are not as a rule as involved with the day to day child rearing, do with all their "free time" every day?

How can you be sure that your life if meaningful if you have children, if your interests and talents lie in other areas?

0 Replies

I agree Chai - everyone has different talents. If one has no desire to have children - then they should not have children. There are PLENTY of things for them to do. A world of opportunities await - whatever your choosing. There are so many needs in our world today. I wanted kids, I love my kids, I am growing them up to be responsible adults...they in turn will contribute to the world in a good way - that's my hope anyway. So my gift to the world is the future - with my children.

But I could have easily gone another way. I could have chosen to not have children and work and do any number of good things with my time. Big Brother, Big Sister Programs, soup kitchens, senior centers, charity volunteer work...this is just to name a few of the things. My life would have been every bit as meaningful without children as it is with them.

Legacy is up to the individual. You can live for yourself, enjoying your own interests - the people you encourage and love that you encounter will be your legacy...Or you can be a mom or dad and have kids - which would be your legacy. They do grow up and you have time to pursue other interests. Or you can live for others - much like Mother Theresa...not too many people can be that giving mind you and it is certainly a calling. Seems to me life is meaningful from whatever perspective. Life is what you make it.

0 Replies

Re: Why not reproduce more as we take life so valuable

PONKOM wrote:

[
If you decide not to have kids,what do you do with your so much free time every day?Can you be sure that your life is meaningful if you past your whole life like that?

I think my life is very meaningful. I have a job that helps the environment and only requires I work half of the year. I volunteer to feed people who need assistance and I help others learn to read. I have travelled all over the US and Europe with my free time and money. I have no debt to any bank or any person.I live in a beautiful place and probably could not have afforded my property if I had children to support. I am never bored and rarely sad. I have a big family and there are children within my family that I am very close to. I have many friends, and most of them have one or two children who think of me as an aunt. They will all be good citizens and stewards of the world one day.

I think the best parents are those who made the choice to have children and understand the importance of that decision. I think all of my friends and family are doing a wonderful job raising their children and I am happy to help them if they need me, but I feel no need to have my own. Let those who want to be parents populate the world. Let those who have no urge be free to make that choice. I think we would have less people if all women could chose without guilt or force.

0 Replies

Re: Why not reproduce more as we take life so valuable

Chai wrote:

What do men, who are not as a rule as involved with the day to day child rearing, do with all their "free time" every day?

How can you be sure that your life if meaningful if you have children, if your interests and talents lie in other areas?

If a man's wife is birthing and raising their children,he must be involved with more and harder working to provide food and residence for his wife and children.And since men are not as a rule as involved with the day to day child rearing,they have more energy and time to be involved with many other things that need humans to do,this is why there are much more politicians,scientists,engineers etc who are men than women.

Women's role in birthing and raising can never be replaced by men,but in recent decades, more and more traditional men's role are replaced by women.Maybe this is the consequence that modern society values too
much to the traditional men's job and values too less to women's traditional laboring.

As I can't be sure what is the meaning of life,I bear and raise my
offspring hoping eventually one of the generations make out the truth and meaning of life.

0 Replies

I would debate that men are involved in "more and harder" work than women are involved in raising children.

You say "I bear and raise my children".....am I to take that to mean you are a woman?

On the other hand, you contradict yourself by saying "since men are not as a rule as involved with the day to day child rearing,they have more energy and time to be involved with many other things that need humans to do"

So which is it? Do men work "more and harder", or "do they have more energy because they aren't involved in the day to day child rearing"

Let me ask you a question PONKOM.

I recently read on a website that, in America, the divorce rate is around 50%. It went on to say that approximately 50% of the workforce is women.

Do you believe this is a mere coincidence?

(sits back and waits for the show to start)

0 Replies

Thats a very interesting little factoid Chai.

I am male, and I do the majority of the child rearing ( always sounds so animalistic using the term "rearing", nevermind ) because my wife is a restaurant manager and is pretty busy alot of the time.

I used to bring in the lions share of the working income, but since my wifes promotion I kinda feel like I've taken the back seat in that regard. This has had a noticeable effect on the kids. My eldest daughter writes her mum letters like shes gone to another country.

Kids need there Mum's more then they need there Dad's, well thats how I feel most the time anyway. Makes me kinda feel disposable.

I never planned to have kids, but there here now.

0 Replies

Xenoche wrote:

Thats a very interesting little factoid Chai.

That was a total joke Xenoche.

I found that on some fundementalist site the other day....they were using those totally unrelated figures to put forth their argument that women need to stay in the home.....it went on to say how women are more liable to give into temptation, and have an affair with someone they met in the office.

Which begs the question....so, who are they having these affairs with? Rolling Eyes

Other men, who are also giving into temptation, or other women, which is a totally different subject.

Maybe it's because if a woman is "allowed" to work, she becomes more masculine, and that turns her into a lesbian.

Yeah.....yeah that's it.....

anyway....a child optimally need the kind of love both parents can provide. But, in some cases, both parents may be women, or men or a man or woman.

Might be a single parent, of either sex.

Talking of the woman staying home to keep the population up sounds like a males idea.....you know, the men who pushed women out of the way and got all the good jobs like politicians, doctors, etc......well, at least for a while.

Putting the onus on women to be fruitful and multiple is no more than another ring in her nose, showing who she belongs to.

I'm sure you're doing a fine job with your kids Xenoche, a job you should be proud of.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

I would debate that men are involved in "more and harder" work than women are involved in raising children.
So which is it? Do men work "more and harder", or "do they have more energy because they aren't involved in the day to day child rearing"

I recently read on a website that, in America, the divorce rate is around 50%. It went on to say that approximately 50% of the workforce is women.

I mean the man who has children work more and harder than the man who has no children.

The divorce rate must has some relation with women working outside.

I can be sure that one of the meanings of life is that life can exist generation after generation and thus exist forever.

0 Replies

PONKOM wrote:

Chai wrote:
I would debate that men are involved in "more and harder" work than women are involved in raising children.
So which is it? Do men work "more and harder", or "do they have more energy because they aren't involved in the day to day child rearing"

I mean the man who has children work more and harder than the man who has no children.
The divorce rate must has some relation with women working outside.

I can be sure that one of the meanings of life is that life can exist generation after generation and thus exist forever.

If a man's wife is birthing and raising their children,he must be involved with more and harder working to provide food and residence for his wife and children.And since men are not as a rule as involved with the day to day child rearing,they have more energy and time to be involved with many other things that need humans to do,this is why there are much more politicians,scientists,engineers etc who are men than women.

I don't believe that's what you meant at all...

following that logic, the only men who have more energy and time to do important things like doctoring and politicing are those without children.

The divorce rate related to women in the workplace? Maybe so, in fact, I hope so. What that means is that women who are in a bad marriage are able to support themselves and get out of a bad relationship.

If a woman doesn't support herself, it is almost totally at the mans discretion if there is to be a divorce.

If a man with children wants a divorce, he can freely do so, if he is willing to continue to support his children. A woman who has no means of support on her own has no option but to stay where she is.

The continuance of the human race? I don't see us going extinct any time soon.

Last I looked even with Chinas one child policy (which BTW I totally do NOT agree with) there are still about a gazillion people there.

Which brings me to another question....Do you not think there is a limit to how many people the earth can support without the scales tipping, endangering the survival of future generations?

0 Replies

Why not reproduce more as we take life so valuable

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know