Posted by ryan on 18/5/2009, 13:42:25, in reply to "procreation"
My opinion is just that, and it is not imposing on anyone else's. Clearly you have your own opinion and as mine carries no more weight than yours - as I have no measurable say in government - I do not understand the umbrage you seem to have taken. I was interested in discussion, however, so..
I have plenty of tolerance and respect, what I don't have to do is like that population continues to explode at unchecked rates.
You make claims of going with nature [well, you make claims against what I say as, 'against nature,'] and also that I must "[tolerate] and respect," and "deal with consequences" of a democracy. Except nature and democracy are not amenable. Every instance of a natural society that I can think of uses a hierarchy, and usually a monarchy or very small oligarchy. So which do you want?
Further, in nature, poor parenting or misfortunes of genetics can get weeded out, whereas in humans it is all but impossible to tell anyone that maybe it would be a good idea to allow a severely sick, severely deformed, severely distressed infant to be allowed a more peaceful - if shorter - existence, rather than to keep that body alive through countless massive surgeries and painful day-to-day life for decades all because someone else felt guilty about allowing that child to be allowed to pass naturally. That's the point, you don't want nature, you want to do whatever you want. Meanwhile millions starve and billions suffer.
All I really want is for the population growth rate to stabilize and then go slightly negative. I don't think it is unthinkably horrible to want a two children per family average. Is it really so important that everyone be able to do everything that we destroy that nature, to which you make reference, in the process?
Babies born from glass tubes is not the debate here, however there are plenty of examples of test-tube babies. And if you really want an answer, it doesn't bother me so long as the result is the same. How about instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on fertilization treatments that more often than not either don't work or produce litters of children, that those adults wanting to be parents adopt? That would solve a lot of problems, and it would be going with nature instead of against. Funny.
An argument could be made that adoption laws are too strict and that many of people who would otherwise be good parents are kept from adopting. I would say that maybe not everyone needs to be a parent, one. And, two, then fix the laws, don't just have kids in an unnatural and medically-assisted (let alone morally-specious) way to spite the government.
While it was not my intention to indicate that "some are more equal than others," according to nature, that is actually the case. All I was implying was that not everyone needs to have children, which is a very simple and very direct statement. Furthermore, I do not see how it is even controvertable.
Some people must have kids, otherwise the species dies out. That average needs to be slightly over two, per couple, to allow for deaths of individuals who do not make it to the point where they are having children of their own, for whatever reason. Beyond that, why is it necessary for every person to be allowed to have as many children as they want simply because they can?
As there is no threat of me becoming a political official, let alone "the world's dictator," what does it matter if I create a thought exercise? My entire point is that I am looking at more sustainable living, putting less strain on the environment before we break it completely, which will make for a better life for all people, including your current or future children, should you have or choose to have any.
If wanting those things (sustainability, a less-stressed and more manageable environment, better life for all) make me "right-wing," so be it. I suppose that they do not, but if they do, I don't really care. Does having a hypothetical discussion about controlling births make me right-wing? Again, I don't think so but who cares? I will always be right of someone and left of someone. Bush was left of Mussolini but I don't like him. I don't care what I get labeled, I care about having the discussion, which you, "me," seem to think is beyond discussion.
If you want a democracy this is the only way, we have to deal with the consequences. Look familiar? Do not throw grand ideals about democracy around if having a civil discussion about some hypothetical topic is beyond conceivable to you. That's all I want, is exchange of ideas on the matter because the topic is never even broached by the media or any other outlet.
Finally, while I certainly welcome further discussion and debate on the matter from you and any others - regardless of your opinion, my, how democratic of me - if my voicing of my opinion or ideas is that reprehensible to you, you are also welcome to simply close the window. I'd rather you stick around as discussion is welcome, but do as you wish.
Cheers.
61
Message Thread:
« Back to thread