PDA

View Full Version : Humans should stop producing



pragon
02 Jan 2019, 18:49
I'm not kidding. Why do people keep having children? The world is already populated as it is. The world is messed up with control/government. Why would anyone want to bring a kid in this world who has to get registered by the government as if they are owned... sure get them a social security number, name, and so forth. Let's become synthetic beings controlled by media and follow stupid society. Yep.... I would never want to bring my own child into a world to be forced into this bullshit.

Ula
03 Jan 2019, 06:31
I'm not kidding. Why do people keep having children? The world is already populated as it is. The world is messed up with control/government. Why would anyone want to bring a kid in this world who has to get registered by the government as if they are owned... sure get them a social security number, name, and so forth. Let's become synthetic beings controlled by media and follow stupid society. Yep.... I would never want to bring my own child into a world to be forced into this bullshit.

My choice to have kids is not your concern.

anunitu
03 Jan 2019, 06:38
great ula,kids are great

B. de Corbin
03 Jan 2019, 07:16
I'm not kidding. Why do people keep having children? The world is already populated as it is. The world is messed up with control/government. Why would anyone want to bring a kid in this world who has to get registered by the government as if they are owned... sure get them a social security number, name, and so forth. Let's become synthetic beings controlled by media and follow stupid society. Yep.... I would never want to bring my own child into a world to be forced into this bullshit.

Then don't have kids. Remove your genetic combination from the pool.

Shahaku
03 Jan 2019, 09:06
We chose to have a child because of a deep seated need to be parents. We chose to only have one child at the time (now two, but with three adults in the household) because we wanted to contribute to reducing the population of Earth. I honestly don't feel like our live are all the bad. We don't deal with hate crimes on a daily basis. We have food, water, and a roof over our head. That social security number also comes with quite a few benefits, at least for now. I don't feel owned, partially because I've done a lot of reading on modern day slavery and suppression and don't feel like I'm part of either category. Generally speaking, I'm allowed to express myself however I want, assuming that I don't do something that would harm someone else.

In general, the US population would be decreasing, if it weren't for immigration. Most people are choosing to have smaller families. And that effects our population in general.

kalynraye
04 Jan 2019, 08:33
First I'd like you to take a look at those Asian countries that restrict the number of children you are allowed to have. While yes the world is populated those countries are very quickly learning as majority of them age that there is not enough people to take care of them.

Second as a parent, I had my child with the intent to make the world a better place. To raise him to care and nurture the planet, to assist in saving and taking care of mother earth. My goal as a parent is to raise a good human being who contributes to society.

On another note we've pretty much kept records of marriages, children, property, animals and the like for 1,000's of years. This isn't new.

You made two statements above on why anyone wanted children: "the world is populated enough" and "the government is trying to own/control them" so my question is what's really your issue here? You think the world is overpopulated or the government.

I will also say I've got serious issue with anyone who tries to control my uterus and family planning. That's my body and my choice which in itself is a whole nother topic.

MaskedOne
04 Jan 2019, 12:30
Population growth will slow / reverse without any crusade against overpopulation. Increase the standard of living, increase opportunities for women and increase access to birth control. Population growth will slow as a side effect. Determining an economic model that's sustainable if population growth falls below replacement rates might be a good idea though. Granted, Japan seems to be volunteering for the job of figuring that out for us.

Bartmanhomer
04 Jan 2019, 12:36
In all honesty. I don't think the word will ever stop populating.

kalynraye
04 Jan 2019, 13:00
Population growth will slow / reverse without any crusade against overpopulation. Increase the standard of living, increase opportunities for women and increase access to birth control. Population growth will slow as a side effect. Determining an economic model that's sustainable if population growth falls below replacement rates might be a good idea though. Granted, Japan seems to be volunteering for the job of figuring that out for us.

I completely agree with you on this. Better living conditions, wages, opportunities, all the stated above does slow population growth.

Japan may want to figure a little faster before they get into serious trouble.

Also Bart the world doesn't NEED to stop populating.

Bartmanhomer
04 Jan 2019, 13:13
I completely agree with you on this. Better living conditions, wages, opportunities, all the stated above does slow population growth.

Japan may want to figure a little faster before they get into serious trouble.

Also Bart the world doesn't NEED to stop populating.

Exactly :)

Corvus
04 Jan 2019, 13:36
I believe this is called the voluntary extinction movement, where there is a group that believes humanity should move toward extinction by cessation of reproduction. Generally the reasoning is that humans have caused great environmental damage and there is a moral imperative to put ourselves down, the most humane way being to stop reproducing. There's some amount of validity to that line of reasoning but, your statement is inane and shows no depth of consideration.

Honestly, I agree there should be more thought put into the care of children. Perhaps it is my perspective as a queer person who is much less likely to accidentally have children, but I have seen many cases where parents have just not been good parents. This isn't even to touch on the many children in the foster system or who otherwise lack formal permanent care. I don't believe that it's appropriate for the only qualification for parents to be the ability to have sex and produce biogenetic children. I've heard suggestion of mandatory parenting classes, tax penalizations or benefits for children or taking classes after having children, up to parenting licenses. This obviously presents ethical problems depending on how far one is willing to go and reproductive rights are not easily regulated in a practical or moral manner. I don't intend to be a parent, I don't think I would be good at it and other factors in my life make children less desirable for me. However, there are people who desperately do want to be parents and there are many who are and would be wonderful caretakers.

I don't really know the answers but, the root of my dilemma is not throwing anger into the void over culture or the perceived harm of the government, it is actual concern for the quality of parenting. It is a desire to see future citizens be good and informed people and ensure an education and responsible populace capable of bringing that about. The argument which OP has presented is not an argument at all, nor does it appear to be informed, and this trend of random sweeping statements based on nothing productive will neither change opinion or facilitate debate in good conscious. It is my opinion that it is bad form to present a rant post as a debate subject.

Let's address your "points" here. The world is populated enough: While this is, strictly speaking, an opinion the earth can support a far greater population (https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html) with estimates of carrying capacity sitting around 10 billion, though past research has suggested as high as 13 billion provided the proper infrastructure and allocation of resources. Global population is rising, but only in select regions, principally areas of Asia and Africa. In most developed countries, population is sustained, declining, or growing at increasingly slow rates. Famously, Japan's population is plummeting but, similar trends can be seen across Europe and even in the US when examining select years.

Population change is essentially a function of (births - deaths) + (in-migration - out-migration) which accounts for fertility, mortality, and migration. In most developed countries birth rate remains below the replacement level, meaning the number of deaths (generally from the elderly but also accidents, which is why replacement is always a positive integer) is exceeding the amount of births causing population decline. This is then adjusted for immigration, population increases if the net product of these numbers is positive and above the replacement level and decreases if it is not.

So why the disparity between developed and undeveloped countries? It's a factor of relative wealth and technology. In developed countries there's greater access to birth control, more incentives to put off having children until later, economic and social barriers, as well as greater agency and mobility for women. In effect, women who are allowed greater reproductive control and resources have fewer children on average.

Medicine is also much better in developed countries. Those of us in such places generally do not die of the same things people in less developed nations. For example, some principal causes of death in developed nations are cancer and cardiovascular disease- that is to say chronic degenerative disorders. Compare this to less developed countries where the top causes of death are generally infectious diseases. This is also a factor for infant mortality and there is an important gender breakdown, since if for some reason women have higher death rates there's an according change in birth rate. I had a graph here but, I'm going over the character limit with it so, let's just go on without it. We can surmise that birth and death rates both decrease with industrialization because, you know, people have medicine and things are cleaner. There's also a greater nutritional difference between these societies and quite simply people are having children for very different reasons. There's economic incentive toward children in low income countries compared to the cost of a child in a high income country. These points over the past paragraphs are the science behind the demographic transition theory, that population rises, then falls, before stabilizing, in accordance with levels of industrial development.

The issue is not raw population growth but industrialization and exploitation. We can probably feed the entire world with current agricultural technology and it's only expected to improve (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/). The issue is that much of this food goes to waste. Low income countries have had a history of economic and material exploitation which has destabilized and slowed their growth. We have little reason to think their populations will not also eventually decline or stabilize and it may in fact be beneficial to assist them through economic and technological agreements. Sectionalism between nations is perhaps the largest barrier toward good for the entirety of earth and humanity. There's enough stuff in general, people just need to allocate it properly and stop hoarding, on a social and individual level.

OP's next point is that regulation, organization, and regulation is harmful, which is ridiculous. Surly, an overabundance of government control could limit liberty. However, the entire point of law is to limit freedom for the common good. We could discuss why social security is good (https://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/about/social-security-faq/), or how robust social programs make people and society better (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40972225?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), but I'm a bit distracted over how names are harmful here. Obviously, the impact of the media is important and often can be harmful, so let's just remove all forms of culture since they condition behavior. To proclaim society as the source of all ills is simplistic. Humans require society, we are social beings, civilization is our greatest achievement and has facilitated advancement in all axis of human creation. Of course society is the source of social problems, it's the source of large scale social-ness.

I think I've made my point clear on everything else OP has said. I believe these ill founded statements fueled by misplaced aggression are a prime source of continual social unrest. It's sweeping and pointing the figure in the wrong way. It makes things worse to be angry without anything to back it up, to shout into the void some misanthropic quip does nothing for good faith discussion.

anunitu
04 Jan 2019, 13:54
I was going to mention that Crow,but forgot.

Bartmanhomer
07 Jan 2019, 19:22
Look some people want to have kids and some don't. It's called choices.

Austin.Apollo
10 Feb 2019, 09:30
My personal opinion is we have to fight tooth and nail for the continued survival of our species.(At least thats my opinion at the moment. My opinions have been known to change frequently.) But on the other hand using artificial intelligence and cgi people in the future will be able to custom tailor personal relationships to their liking and have that perfect significant other but of course they wont be able to reproduce they would have to adopt or something. I'm assuming this is it how it will start and eventually 3d holograms and if you've got the money robots way in the future.

anunitu
11 Feb 2019, 06:42
i think not extinction,but more evolution into a greater species

Oshii
12 Feb 2019, 20:10
GATTACA is just around the corner. just sayin'

Sollomyn
09 Mar 2019, 04:46
I'm not kidding. Why do people keep having children? The world is already populated as it is. The world is messed up with control/government. Why would anyone want to bring a kid in this world who has to get registered by the government as if they are owned... sure get them a social security number, name, and so forth. Let's become synthetic beings controlled by media and follow stupid society. Yep.... I would never want to bring my own child into a world to be forced into this bullshit.

I feel your pain; in both regards. I too feel there are too many people on Earth; I remember within my own lifetime, (I'm twenty-four), that there were only six billion people. Now there's over seven and a half billion people; closer to eight billion actually; 7.7 billion to be precise; that's 7,700,000,000. That is just...mind-boggling haha. Why can't guys just keep it in their pants? There's a few reasons. 1.) Men and women are essentially programmed to reproduce; it's an instinct that many have not overcome. 2.) Sex is pleasurable for most people, (except me; I'm asexual, sex is gross to me haha). 3.) People want to leave a legacy behind; the most special one for most being a child. 4.) People want more tax deductions. 5.) People are selfish by nature, and don't often think on a global scale.

In regards to the US Government, they pretty much ruined my life when I was a little kid because I threw a temper tantrum where no one got hurt and nothing got broken; I just happened to be in a public school that was located on a military missile defense base. As a result, I was locked up, and consequently beaten, raped, shanked, drugged, tortured, brainwashed and experimented on for the next five years until I was released just before turning eighteen. There are thousands and thousands of rules, laws and regulations in my country as well, so much so that it's impossible to follow them all, effectively branding everyone a criminal. It's just not just in my mind. That's why I'm planning on fleeing to the mountains to get away from it all. As populated as the Earth is though, it's just a matter of time before I end up bumping into somebody in the middle of nowhere who has deemed themselves fit to decide how I should live and what I should do with my life, hahaha.

--Sollomyn

Sean R. R.
09 Mar 2019, 18:58
Why can't guys just keep it in their pants? There's a few reasons. 1.) Men and women are essentially programmed to reproduce; it's an instinct that many have not overcome. 2.) Sex is pleasurable for most people, (except me; I'm asexual, sex is gross to me haha). 3.) People want to leave a legacy behind; the most special one for most being a child. 4.) People want more tax deductions. 5.) People are selfish by nature, and don't often think on a global scale.

I don't see a problem there.

1) Why do you think that instinct needs to be suppressed? It's part of our humanity, and part of what makes us the human animal.
2) Literally not a problem.
3) I'm inclined to think this stems for reason n1, the need for a legacy, especially in the form of a child, seems to scream "PASS DOWN THE GENES!" kind of instinct.
4) Honestly most countries in the world don't offer any kind of tax deduction for having children... Unless you count child labor.
5) Not a problem, I have a life of my own, I wasn't brought into this world to worry about everyone else.

The earth is not overpopulated, it's mismanaged.

I honestly want a population boom again, just to see what happens.

Hawkfeathers
09 Mar 2019, 19:42
I'm 100% pro-choice. My choice was always to not have kids, but most people's choice is to have them. As long as it's (in either case) what you really want, go for it.

Sollomyn
09 Mar 2019, 20:00
I don't see a problem there.

1) Why do you think that instinct needs to be suppressed? It's part of our humanity, and part of what makes us the human animal.
2) Literally not a problem.
3) I'm inclined to think this stems for reason n1, the need for a legacy, especially in the form of a child, seems to scream "PASS DOWN THE GENES!" kind of instinct.
4) Honestly most countries in the world don't offer any kind of tax deduction for having children... Unless you count child labor.
5) Not a problem, I have a life of my own, I wasn't brought into this world to worry about everyone else.

The earth is not overpopulated, it's mismanaged.

I honestly want a population boom again, just to see what happens.

1) Whoever said that I thought instinct needs to be suppressed? I used the word "overcome". There's a difference. Gain mastery of your instincts, or surely they will master you. If we never controlled ourselves, and just ran on pure instinct, we would have gone extinct a long time ago.

2) Whoever said that I thought sex being pleasureable was a problem? It's simply a factual contributing factor to the rapid population growth.

3) I think it stems from the fear of death and a desire to be immortalized in some form, but you could be right about it also being related to the first reason; like most things in Nature, it's likely multi-faceted.

4) I was referring to my own country in regards to tax deductions; other countries sometimes have other financial incentives for having children, such as in Russia, and as you mentioned, child slavery is another incentive in other countries as well. It's simply a possible reason for why people may choose to reproduce; an effort to answer the OPs original question.

5) No; you weren't brought into this world to worry about everyone else. You probably weren't brought into this world for any particularly special reason whatsoever. If your content to only ever worry about yourself, then more power to you I suppose. Personally I care about my home and my neighbors though, and would like to do what I can to help out; it makes me feel good inside, and it makes the world a bit of a better place too. Imagine if everyone cared. :o

I personally feel the world is overpopulated, AND mismanaged hahaha. I honestly want a solar flare to knock us all back to medieval times. Just to see what happens. I imagine the proverbial wheat would be separated from the proverbial chaff pretty quickly hahaha....and the population would be re-stabilized as well because all the idiots would end up dying of starvation or killing each other off as they loot each other's resources, because they're incapable of surviving on their lonesome, because they've always been taken care of by the government, and never bothered educating themselves, because it was too boring to them, and because their government never taught any of the necessary subjects for survival in school. Poor souls. Just the circle of life I suppose; only the strong survive. :cool:

PS: There's these new places called orphanges where you can actually adopt existing children without bringing forth your own into the world; orphanages also aren't the best places for children; a lot are abused and neglected. If I ever want kids, personally, I'd rather adopt; I'd be doing at least two good things with just one act; sounds like some nice karma to me if nothing else. ;)

--Sollomyn

- - - Updated - - -


I'm 100% pro-choice. My choice was always to not have kids, but most people's choice is to have them. As long as it's (in either case) what you really want, go for it.

Same here; pro-choice...in the sense I believe people should have the right to choose for themselves whether or not to have children; I don't feel it is the Government's place to say one CAN'T have any children (or NEEDS to have children). I'm not an advocate of abortion though; I personally feel that attacking human life is wrong, and that if one doesn't want a baby, they shouldn't have unprotected sex; not kill the baby when it starts growing inside them after unprotected sex.

Sean R. R.
10 Mar 2019, 09:19
1) Whoever said that I thought instinct needs to be suppressed? I used the word "overcome". There's a difference. Gain mastery of your instincts, or surely they will master you. If we never controlled ourselves, and just ran on pure instinct, we would have gone extinct a long time ago.

2) Whoever said that I thought sex being pleasureable was a problem? It's simply a factual contributing factor to the rapid population growth.

3) I think it stems from the fear of death and a desire to be immortalized in some form, but you could be right about it also being related to the first reason; like most things in Nature, it's likely multi-faceted.

4) I was referring to my own country in regards to tax deductions; other countries sometimes have other financial incentives for having children, such as in Russia, and as you mentioned, child slavery is another incentive in other countries as well. It's simply a possible reason for why people may choose to reproduce; an effort to answer the OPs original question.

5) No; you weren't brought into this world to worry about everyone else. You probably weren't brought into this world for any particularly special reason whatsoever. If your content to only ever worry about yourself, then more power to you I suppose. Personally I care about my home and my neighbors though, and would like to do what I can to help out; it makes me feel good inside, and it makes the world a bit of a better place too. Imagine if everyone cared. :o

I personally feel the world is overpopulated, AND mismanaged hahaha. I honestly want a solar flare to knock us all back to medieval times. Just to see what happens. I imagine the proverbial wheat would be separated from the proverbial chaff pretty quickly hahaha....and the population would be re-stabilized as well because all the idiots would end up dying of starvation or killing each other off as they loot each other's resources, because they're incapable of surviving on their lonesome, because they've always been taken care of by the government, and never bothered educating themselves, because it was too boring to them, and because their government never taught any of the necessary subjects for survival in school. Poor souls. Just the circle of life I suppose; only the strong survive. :cool:

PS: There's these new places called orphanges where you can actually adopt existing children without bringing forth your own into the world; orphanages also aren't the best places for children; a lot are abused and neglected. If I ever want kids, personally, I'd rather adopt; I'd be doing at least two good things with just one act; sounds like some nice karma to me if nothing else. ;)

--Sollomyn

- - - Updated - - -



Same here; pro-choice...in the sense I believe people should have the right to choose for themselves whether or not to have children; I don't feel it is the Government's place to say one CAN'T have any children (or NEEDS to have children). I'm not an advocate of abortion though; I personally feel that attacking human life is wrong, and that if one doesn't want a baby, they shouldn't have unprotected sex; not kill the baby when it starts growing inside them after unprotected sex.

1) "Overcoming" instincts is indistinguishable from suppressing them. Explain to me that difference for I don't see it. Instincts don't "master" you, don't equate them with compulsions. Instincts are a very intricate network of functions and reactions that can be trained to enhance them and let them take over. Instincts need to be properly used, not suppressed.

2) Well you're equating pleasurable sex to rapid population growth, and you see rapid population growth as a problem, therefore it is implied you see sex being pleasurable as a problem. It just struck me as A=B, B=C so A=C.

3) I understand what you mean. However I always saw it not as fear for death, but rather acceptance and realization of it, coupled with a desire to leave something behind. Someone who fears death would rather try to do something to prevent it, instead of think beyond his own death.

4) If you're referring to your country only (or let's say, countries with similar policies), then it's not an argument as for why overpopulation is a thing. In fact, countries where tax reductions apply for having children are usually countries where there's an aging demographic and not enough births to support the aging population. So it is kind of a response to a certain kind of under-population (of young people). This clearly shows that underpopulation and overpopulation are localized problems, further supporting my point about it being a managing issue, not an actual numbers kind of issue.

5) If it didn't make you feel any good... Would you still do it? ;)

There is no internet in medieval times :( Also, things would probably return to our current civilization scheme anyway.

Sollomyn
10 Mar 2019, 10:19
1) "Overcoming" instincts is indistinguishable from suppressing them. Explain to me that difference for I don't see it. Instincts don't "master" you, don't equate them with compulsions. Instincts are a very intricate network of functions and reactions that can be trained to enhance them and let them take over. Instincts need to be properly used, not suppressed.

2) Well you're equating pleasurable sex to rapid population growth, and you see rapid population growth as a problem, therefore it is implied you see sex being pleasurable as a problem. It just struck me as A=B, B=C so A=C.

3) I understand what you mean. However I always saw it not as fear for death, but rather acceptance and realization of it, coupled with a desire to leave something behind. Someone who fears death would rather try to do something to prevent it, instead of think beyond his own death.

4) If you're referring to your country only (or let's say, countries with similar policies), then it's not an argument as for why overpopulation is a thing. In fact, countries where tax reductions apply for having children are usually countries where there's an aging demographic and not enough births to support the aging population. So it is kind of a response to a certain kind of under-population (of young people). This clearly shows that underpopulation and overpopulation are localized problems, further supporting my point about it being a managing issue, not an actual numbers kind of issue.

5) If it didn't make you feel any good... Would you still do it? ;)

There is no internet in medieval times :( Also, things would probably return to our current civilization scheme anyway.

Ohhh...I like you. :D

1) The difference between overcoming and suppressing, is that to overcome means to succeed in dealing with a problem or difficulty, whereas to suppress means to forcibly put an end to. It is true that perhaps your way of overcoming an obstacle is to forcibly put an end to it, but in my opinion, if you want to overcome something, you don't necessarily have to forcibly put an end to it; simply develop the willingness to learn and exercise the wisdom of when to let your instincts assist you; following your head, and when to ignore your instincts in favor of something else; following your heart. :o

2) To equate something means to consider something the same as, or equivalent to another; I don't think I said sex being pleasurable is the same thing as overpopulation, and my apologies if I wasn't clear enough about that; it just seems to me like a logical conclusion that it could be a contributing factor as to why there's almost two billion more people on the planet than there was little more than a decade ago haha; among many other variables, I strongly suspect.

3) That sounds right to me!

4) Sorry; I didn't mean to imply tax deductions was any kind of argument as for why overpopulation is a thing; I simply suggested that it could be a contributing factor; among many other variables to be considered. You probably make an excellent point in legislation in this regard being connected to not enough births to support the aging population; an under-population of young people of sorts, despite there being nearly eight billion people on this planet; I think that's even more than Spock's home world of Vulcan! :XD laugh: ...If I may be so bold to suggest...but just maybe the "aging population" needs to support themselves instead of relying on "new births" until such a time that they can't anymore then...well..."go out on the ice" as the Eskimos back in Alaska would say hahaha. Seriously; once the elderly become a burden to the rest of their tribe, they just up and decide to launch themselves off to sea on a floating chunk of ice, to eventually die with what they perceive to be honor, and dignity...it's actually kind of beautiful, in a bit of a sad way. :=S:

5) I'd like to think I'd still do it, but it would probably be a lot harder without that warm and fuzzy feeling I get from it haha. I guess if I decided that caring about the world around me was causing me too much grief that I, for whatever reason, was unable to cope with, causing me to give up on humanity, then I'd probably sink into a pretty deep depression; I wouldn't feel as much purpose in life, and would start to isolate myself, in my own little world with no thought to the needs of others; just worrying about myself and my own needs. I'd probably feel bad for not interfering in a situation where I could've helped someone, but at risk to my own momentary well-being. I'd ask myself "what if" for quite some time afterwards, and feel guilty and responsible for what happened, because I was too self-concerned to do anything to try to stop it. ...I don't know; that just doesn't sound like any kind of life to live for me personally; all that regret, low inhibitions and virtual uselessness to my fellow brothers and sisters. I likely would end up not being able to take it anymore, and start doing what I felt was right, even if it meant I may suffer negative consequences for it. It all goes back to having the wisdom to know the difference between the times when one should follow either their head or their heart. ;)

PS: You are absolutely correct; there is no internet in medieval times; it would be a sad thing for many people to not have the capability of carrying the virtual sum total of all human knowledge at their fingertips wherever they may be. You're also right on the money when you say things would probably return to our current civilization anyway. This is nothing new; it's happened multiple times throughout history. Humanity begins to rise, reaches a peak, then it falls, then it rebuilds itself, sometimes stronger than before, before it inevitably falls again. It's like the heartbeat of Human evolution; kind of beautiful, in a divinely chaotic sense.

--Sollomyn

Hawkfeathers
10 Mar 2019, 10:21
1)
Same here; pro-choice...in the sense I believe people should have the right to choose for themselves whether or not to have children; I don't feel it is the Government's place to say one CAN'T have any children (or NEEDS to have children). I'm not an advocate of abortion though; I personally feel that attacking human life is wrong, and that if one doesn't want a baby, they shouldn't have unprotected sex; not kill the baby when it starts growing inside them after unprotected sex.

You have every right to your opinion and how to conduct yourself in order to abide by it, same as any other citizen. None of us here have any right or business saying "people should..."; only that "I should...". Example: I'm very old-school about things that surprise many folks. I wouldn't live with someone I'm not married to. But in no way would I attempt to instill that kind of conduct on anyone else, so long as they're within the laws of the land. It's MY right and MY business to live MY life according to MY values. YOU may live according to YOURS, under the general umbrella of the afore-mentioned laws of the land. The topic of abortion has been known to lead to a lot of problems on this and other forums, so I'm not going to address it specifically other than to say if the government decides that life with rights begins at conception, I'll expect Medicare at 64 & 3 mos. :D

Sollomyn
10 Mar 2019, 10:41
You have every right to your opinion and how to conduct yourself in order to abide by it, same as any other citizen. None of us here have any right or business saying "people should..."; only that "I should...". Example: I'm very old-school about things that surprise many folks. I wouldn't live with someone I'm not married to. But in no way would I attempt to instill that kind of conduct on anyone else, so long as they're within the laws of the land. It's MY right and MY business to live MY life according to MY values. YOU may live according to YOURS, under the general umbrella of the afore-mentioned laws of the land. The topic of abortion has been known to lead to a lot of problems on this and other forums, so I'm not going to address it specifically other than to say if the government decides that life with rights begins at conception, I'll expect Medicare at 64 & 3 mos. :D

Hmmm...I don't know. Having the right to suggest a potentially better solution for social issues to other people is kind of the basis for progression as a more enlightened species; if none of us ever spoke up about the things that bothered us, we would probably all end up exploding and shouting at each other instead of having healthy debates; suppression doesn't work out too well in a lot of cases. :XD laugh:

Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything else you said! :D


--Sollomyn

Pythagoras
04 Jun 2019, 21:29
Marriage, sexual interaction, reproduction, and having families is at a fifty to sixty year low, becareful what you wish for.


Now we're becoming a society of isolated, lonely, indifferent, and apathetic individuals, these sorts of things have huge destructive social consequences for society as a whole.

Sean R. R.
04 Jun 2019, 22:19
these sorts of things have huge destructive social consequences for society as a whole.

We don't really know that.

Pythagoras
04 Jun 2019, 23:16
We don't really know that.

I'll have to disagree with that statement.

Sean R. R.
04 Jun 2019, 23:31
I'll have to disagree with that statement.

I mean, sure, you can disagree, but that doesn't make it any less of an assumption.

I'm really curious to see where humanity is headed. In times of crisis, the stronger and smarter rise up, and the true potential of resilience of humans shine. Self-interest is IMHO a better motivator for survival and advancement than "empathy" or altruistic cooperation.

B. de Corbin
05 Jun 2019, 01:19
I mean, sure, you can disagree, but that doesn't make it any less of an assumption.

I'm really curious to see where humanity is headed. In times of crisis, the stronger and smarter rise up, and the true potential of resilience of humans shine. Self-interest is IMHO a better motivator for survival and advancement than "empathy" or altruistic cooperation.

Common error.

50 people practicing empathy and cooperation can defeat a single selfish individual.

Strength comes in a variety of forms, one of them is "community."

Heka
05 Jun 2019, 05:55
First thought: Australia doesnt have social security numbers. Sure we have other things, but not in the same "ownership" sense mentioned. Your name and date of birth are usually enough, not some special number assigned at birth or whatever (I dont actually know how it workss).

Second thought: I have long been an advocate for a 'license to breed'. I mean hell, we need a license to drive a car, and need to be a certain age to be able to drink etc, and if you do those things outside the regulations, there is punishment. Now I'm no legislator, but imagine a license to breed. There would be an appropriate age limit. There would be restrictions placed on inappropriate behaviours (drug conviction = revoking license for a period of time). There should be fines for breaking the law (no having babies for the baby bonus, instead, disincentives to breed). I think this could create positive implications on issues relating to child sex crimes too. Of course this goes hand in hand with good education and free birth control. And those things should come first. But anyway.

As a well educated, married, aging (lol yeah but) woman, who has had two miscarriages since I was last here, I'm not saying everyone shouldnt have the choice, but thay the choice should be a well informed one. Yes, mistakes happen (or dont), but imagine if everyone knew how a womans menstrual cycle worked, and took precautions around it so they didnt get fined. Yes it's an extrinsic system, but our current extrinsic systems reward births. Breeding in itself isnt special (coming from someone who cant breed btw). Being educated enough to know what environment you're bringing a child into, and having the right understanding of the implications for you, the child, etc, should be a core part of the license to breed.

Of course there will be f**** ups, but imagine if anyone could drive and no one was policing it?

Pythagoras
05 Jun 2019, 08:03
Common error.

50 people practicing empathy and cooperation can defeat a single selfish individual.

Strength comes in a variety of forms, one of them is "community."

As a collectivist I agree with that statement.

- - - Updated - - -


I mean, sure, you can disagree, but that doesn't make it any less of an assumption.

I'm really curious to see where humanity is headed. In times of crisis, the stronger and smarter rise up, and the true potential of resilience of humans shine. Self-interest is IMHO a better motivator for survival and advancement than "empathy" or altruistic cooperation.


For me much of the world's problems come from selfish egoism and extreme individualism.

- - - Updated - - -


First thought: Australia doesnt have social security numbers. Sure we have other things, but not in the same "ownership" sense mentioned. Your name and date of birth are usually enough, not some special number assigned at birth or whatever (I dont actually know how it workss).

Second thought: I have long been an advocate for a 'license to breed'. I mean hell, we need a license to drive a car, and need to be a certain age to be able to drink etc, and if you do those things outside the regulations, there is punishment. Now I'm no legislator, but imagine a license to breed. There would be an appropriate age limit. There would be restrictions placed on inappropriate behaviours (drug conviction = revoking license for a period of time). There should be fines for breaking the law (no having babies for the baby bonus, instead, disincentives to breed). I think this could create positive implications on issues relating to child sex crimes too. Of course this goes hand in hand with good education and free birth control. And those things should come first. But anyway.

As a well educated, married, aging (lol yeah but) woman, who has had two miscarriages since I was last here, I'm not saying everyone shouldnt have the choice, but thay the choice should be a well informed one. Yes, mistakes happen (or dont), but imagine if everyone knew how a womans menstrual cycle worked, and took precautions around it so they didnt get fined. Yes it's an extrinsic system, but our current extrinsic systems reward births. Breeding in itself isnt special (coming from someone who cant breed btw). Being educated enough to know what environment you're bringing a child into, and having the right understanding of the implications for you, the child, etc, should be a core part of the license to breed.

Of course there will be f**** ups, but imagine if anyone could drive and no one was policing it?

How would one acquire a license to breed? Who gets to breed and, who doesn't?

For me government controlling who people can sleep around with is totally absurd as there shouldn't be any policing over sex.

Heka
05 Jun 2019, 13:59
How would one acquire a license to breed? Who gets to breed and, who doesn't?

For me government controlling who people can sleep around with is totally absurd as there shouldn't be any policing over sex.

For me, people who cant tell the difference between sex and procreation are totally absurd.

Pythagoras
05 Jun 2019, 17:22
For me, people who cant tell the difference between sex and procreation are totally absurd.

Well, one does naturally lead to the other, does it not?

Corvus
05 Jun 2019, 18:15
Well, one does naturally lead to the other, does it not?

Nah, people have sex for a lot of reasons. These days the intent isn't to have a kid most of the time. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, as a society develops birthrate peaks, then declines, and part of that reason is the greater availability of birth control. This seems to imply that, at least eventually, people don't want to have as many children, but I would venture the amount of actual sex occurring isn't substantially different over time when accounting for cultural norms.

Heka
05 Jun 2019, 20:17
Well, one does naturally lead to the other, does it not?

Only if you want kids. Or if you're undereducated about bitch control, menstrual cycles, the impacts of having/raising children and/or sex in general.

volcaniclastic
06 Jun 2019, 08:25
Well, one does naturally lead to the other, does it not?

I've had sex for 12 years now, and have still never gotten pregnant. Not once in those 12 years have I had sex with the intent of procreation.

Biologically, one leads to the other in a heterosexual relationship, pending reproductive health, but that is ignoring sexual education, protective contraceptives, and the free will of people involved.

Bartmanhomer
06 Jun 2019, 08:37
I feel like this topic should be in the adult section in my opinion.

Pythagoras
06 Jun 2019, 12:45
I feel like this topic should be in the adult section in my opinion.

I've never seen this in main sections of the forum, at any rate I have no desire to talk about this subject beyond philosophical or social implications.

- - - Updated - - -


Nah, people have sex for a lot of reasons. These days the intent isn't to have a kid most of the time. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, as a society develops birthrate peaks, then declines, and part of that reason is the greater availability of birth control. This seems to imply that, at least eventually, people don't want to have as many children, but I would venture the amount of actual sex occurring isn't substantially different over time when accounting for cultural norms.

Sex without contraceptive artifices naturally leads to procreation, that it is a derivative of pleasurable social activity doesn't change anything. The artifice of contraceptives only neutralizes the procreation aspect of sex. At any rate in this discussion I don't believe in policing sex, reproduction, breeding, or procreation.

Bartmanhomer
06 Jun 2019, 15:17
I've never seen this in main sections of the forum, at any rate I have no desire to talk about this subject beyond philosophical or social implications.

- - - Updated - - -



Sex without contraceptive artifices naturally leads to procreation, that it is a derivative of pleasurable social activity doesn't change anything. The artifice of contraceptives only neutralizes the procreation aspect of sex. At any rate in this discussion I don't believe in policing sex, reproduction, breeding, or procreation.

Yes we have sn adult forum for members that 18 years old and up? Ask the moderators or admin about for more details.

Corvus
06 Jun 2019, 17:40
Sex without contraceptive artifices naturally leads to procreation, that it is a derivative of pleasurable social activity doesn't change anything. The artifice of contraceptives only neutralizes the procreation aspect of sex. At any rate in this discussion I don't believe in policing sex, reproduction, breeding, or procreation.

Yeah, that's just not correct and I'm not even sure where to begin taking it apart. There's tons of reasons why people may be unable to reproduce. People have also literally always used contraceptive measures. There's thousands of years old medical papyri for the equivalent of the morning after pill. When such measures were unavailable or unknown people figured other ways out. For example, couples might time their intercourse to avoid fertile periods, or use coitus interruptus, or just have sex that doesn't involve penetration. This has been something people have done for as long as they've been able to communicate.

Also, like... I cannot emphasize to you enough that same sex intercourse exists and has been happening for as long as there has been complex multicellular life engaging in sex and that no one considers that a procreative activity. Sex is a thing people do with their bodies. It cannot be boiled to simple biology because sex in humans is inherently informed by culture and context. People have sex generally because they like it, there's a lot of potential reasons and reproduction is only one of them.

Heka
06 Jun 2019, 18:04
Sex without contraceptive artifices naturally leads to procreation, that it is a derivative of pleasurable social activity doesn't change anything. The artifice of contraceptives only neutralizes the procreation aspect of sex. At any rate in this discussion I don't believe in policing sex, reproduction, breeding, or procreation.

Sex without contraceptive artifices does NOT naturally lead to procreation. You're displaying your ignorance here. There are a maximum of 5 days a month where sex is biologically able to result in reproduction. MAX 5 days a month. The fertile window of most women is 12 hours long. (the 5 days comes from the ability of sperm to live in a woman for up to 5 days, more usual is 3) Therefore, sex on any of the other 25 'safe' days of the month, sex without contraceptive artifices WILL NOT lead to procreation.

One of my biggest gripes is that this information isn't well known. But a simple google search on menstrual cycles and becoming pregnant will provide this knowledge.

Also, that's only IF a person has normal fertility. You're talking to a person who's had 2 (clear) miscarriages in the past 3 years (with the possibility of up to 5 other 'chemical pregnancies' in the past 5); has been trying to get pregnant for over 5 years now; hasn't been able to get pregnant at all for more than 12 months; who's partner has now had a sperm count done to find he has a high percentage of immotile and morphological abnormal sperm. We still don't know if we will ever be able to have kids. So even IF you have all the information, sex does NOT naturally lead to procreation.

Juniper
06 Jun 2019, 20:50
I feel like this topic should be in the adult section in my opinion.

That's not necessary at this time.

Heka
06 Jun 2019, 21:35
That's not necessary at this time.

Plus, if we leave sex education to adults, then we're likely to have more issues going forward!

Juniper
06 Jun 2019, 23:24
No, that's not it. I just don't feel like moving it. No line has been crossed that warrants moving it into another section.

Heka
07 Jun 2019, 17:02
No, that's not it. I just don't feel like moving it. No line has been crossed that warrants moving it into another section.

Oh yeah I know that, just pointing out the importance of sex education for our youth ��

mathieu
01 Nov 2019, 05:34
I think a one child policy should be input in africa and in asia.

Rhythm
01 Nov 2019, 05:46
Why those two places, specifically, as opposed to France or the US? Have you looked at the data from China's one child experiment? It didn't go well. Not only did the policy generate an impressive list of human rights abuses and trafficking, it created a demographic nightmare for china in the present that they hope to remedy by urging people to have at least two children, lol. Otherwise, by 2050, it's projected that more than a third of their population will be over 60, gutting their state services and the worlds second largest economy.

Shahaku
01 Nov 2019, 11:58
I think a one child policy should be input in africa and in asia.

While most undeveloped countries (which is why I'm guessing you're targeting Africa and Asia) tend to have many more children per person than developed countries, their children also tend to die much more quickly and often. And women die much sooner as well. I think the average is 1 in 3 survive their childbearing years, but it may even be less than that. Many families than have 5-10 children may only see half of them, if that, make it to adulthood. Realistically, undeveloped countries tend to have more undisturbed natural areas and be more environmentally friendly, even if they have a much higher mortality rate. If anyone should be limiting their children per person, it should be the developed world.

And one child policies, at least in developing countries, tend to have an effect of families murdering their infant girls so they can have the prized boy who will take care of them in old age. Which is sickening and disheartening.

Rhythm
01 Nov 2019, 13:17
I sometimes wonder whether, if polled, there would be any correlation between holding strong opinions in favor of a one child policy and actually being an only child.

Or, if it turned out that this wasn't a factor, whether the people who hold those opinions have given any thought to whom among their own group of siblings shouldn't have been allowed..and, additionally, whether or not it might possibly be them?

Ultimately, I suspect that people with a malthusian bent don't belong anywhere near decisions that impact other people.

-mind, these are only the biased musings of a known breeder with at least half a dozen kids and just as many brothers and sisters. Many hands makes light work, lol.

Corvus
04 Nov 2019, 00:07
I think a one child policy should be input in africa and in asia.

This is a bad take for a few reasons, not least of which are the ethics of it. Mostly though it just wouldn't be effective. I recommend reading the reply I made on page 2 for more details on how populations naturally grow.