damastah said: Spooks_McBones said: Is it morally wrong to bring a life into the world considering the world, how it is now, how its going to be. Nat not really. People still gave birth during two world wars.  Do you know what happened to little girls and boys after WW2 and the fall of Berlin? heres a poem from wwII The little daughter’s on the mattress, Dead. How many have been on it A platoon, a company perhaps? A girl’s been turned into a woman, A woman turned into a corpse. katsucats said: The world is safer than it's ever been. What are you talking about OP? You're seeing the now, not the many warning signs of the future. I could have said that 5 years ago and now we have ISIS rampaging through the middle east. A lot can change in a few years and you're only saying that from a probably first world bubble. The rest of the world is a little more turbulent just look at Russia, north Korea back then they had to march to invade, now they can press the nuke button at any time. |
SpooksJun 21, 2015 12:00 PM
 |
Tachii said: Protaku94 said: But not everyone wants to have as many children as possible. And people have all sorts of personal decisions they can make, and not all point to having a kid or that they thought about some grand global issue. So that doesn't look like a correct inference to me. In fact, just looking at developed countries, our growth rate is pretty much stabilized. Overpopulation is only a concern for developing countries, and frankly, I don't see it realistic at all they'll somehow "rise up" and try to take over the developed countries, when there's so many things that prevents that. "War" can't really be compared to pre-nuke era anymore. How realistically do you expect the impoverished and those who are experiencing overpopulation to rise up against countries that have support groups to help them, that have weapons to destroy them, etc?You're not thinking about the long run here. The condition of the people in this forum is irrelevant; It's not a slippery slope in saying these "underdeveloped" countries will not simply keel over and let the developed countries hoard the remaining resources some 50 years from now. That's where the first conflicts/wars will arise from, and eventually even first-world countries will have to compete for resources --- And we all know what happens when first-world countries fight over anything. The way you say "personal decision" infers too much to the"Just one more won't hurt" mentality. If everyone has this mindset, if dozens of babies keep being born every minute as our average lifespan increases, overpopulation is where we're headed and it's not pretty. There's being realistic, then there's something close to fearmongering. I mean, the just one won't hurt mindset is pretty much on the same coin if you possibly think not having one yourself will solve overpopulation or something. First of all, not everyone has that mindset to begin with, and second, why bring that point in? Are you saying everyone (including developed countries) should stop having the just one won't hurt mindset and lower our birth rate in our countries even further when certain countries like Japan are already facing an increasingly older population? It's unreasonable to look at one global issue (ex overpopulation) while excluding other issues (aging population). But sure, if you don't want to have a kid because you think you can help solve overpopulation, then yeah, you're free to do that. Also, what "remaining resources" are you talking about? Water is renewable. Processing plants can filter water. Natural gases might run out but we have plenty of potential to seek alternative renewable energy, while at the same time being less harmful environmentally. Trees I guess? You'd consider as a resource that will run out? It might be just me, but you keep implying that the situation of third-world countries is irrelevant to first-world countries and the world in general. Keep in mind that many issues like AIDS, ISIS, and Ebola that arise in third-world countries eventually worm their way into more developed countries, and not before spreading to other nearby countries; And when I said they'd rise up, I didn't mean it exclusively against first-world countries. Naturally, first there would be internal conflicts, what with their shaky governments if any, and again, that's where the first struggles will begin due to overpopulation and even you admit that. As for the threat of them rising up against us, nuclear deterrence is great sure, but you speak like we have free reign to use nukes as we well please when we have to jump though all sorts of hoops with the UN to do so, not to mention to civilian casualties that we would be held responsible for. There's no need for fear mongering when the facts are laid out right in front of you: How our average lifespans have nearly doubled in the last 200 years and has been steadily increasing since the the dawn of the medicine age and the invention of penicillin, a source. And you shouldn't be able to deny the growing population when juxtaposed with the growing average life expectancies, if history wasn't enough of it's own source. To deny it will just stop growing because we're first-world countries is asinine. Sure water is a renewable resource, but you have to keep in mind that water is probably the most important resource and only fresh water is really usable. Also, there aren't nearly enough processing plants to seriously consider ocean water as an alternative yet --- just look at California right now and how it's expected to run out of water in less than 2 years; Imagine that on a global scale and consider the fact that third-world countries are not capable of building their own desalination plants. Environmentalists also won't just keel over and allow mindless construction of these plants with the negative impact they'll have on marine life. And ah yes, trees; expect less of those too and the extinction of several prominent species if the human population keeps increasing at the rate it is. I'm not even being pessimistic, I'm being realistic. |
   I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it  |
| If you don't have the means to provide then sure |
 |
| Yeah I don't want kids because of this either. |
 |
| @ protaku Not saying 3rd world countries are irrelevant to first world countries at all. But it is not as relevant when you're an average citizen deciding if you want a baby or not. I think the difference is quite clear. One is about global politics, another is entirely a private and personal matter. One can totally care about global politics, but still make the decision to have a baby. I've said it over and over again whether or not citizens in developed countries have a kid will have little impact to overpopulation, and now it's just beating on a dead horse. Again, you're implying a bit too much. Deterrence does not mean a country will use nukes as they will. But I don't need to explain deterrence now do I? Realistically, developed countries already have established spy systems that will consider whatever threat other countries will have as well so... again, it still doesn't seem realistic to consider they'll rise up and specifically target the well-off nations. Not sure what the point of your second paragraph is about. I've been telling this thread that our life expectancy has increased, all for the better lol And also that there is indeed overpopulation, didn't deny any of this. My pessimistic line is addressed to OP. But you keep implying global issues such as overpopulation should be ground to advocate for less birth in developed countries (correct me if I'm wrong on that aspect), how do you address the declining growth rate in said countries? If anything, it's developing countries that need to curb their reproduction. It brings a repeating cycle of more and more people competing for whatever limited resources they have. But advocating developed countries to lower their birth rate? That just seems... I dunno, weird. |
| I think that's a pretty pessimistic way of looking at things, though I completely understand where you're coming from. Some days I agree with you, some days I don't. I'm still holding out hope for humanity getting their shit together. The future hasn't happened yet, and it's not like things are fated to always be this way. |
Tachii said: @ protaku Not saying 3rd world countries are irrelevant to first world countries at all. But it is not as relevant when you're an average citizen deciding if you want a baby or not. I think the difference is quite clear. One is about global politics, another is entirely a private and personal matter. One can totally care about global politics, but still make the decision to have a baby. I've said it over and over again whether or not citizens in developed countries have a kid will have little impact to overpopulation, and now it's just beating on a dead horse. Again, you're implying a bit too much. Deterrence does not mean a country will use nukes as they will. But I don't need to explain deterrence now do I? Realistically, developed countries already have established spy systems that will consider whatever threat other countries will have as well so... again, it still doesn't seem realistic to consider they'll rise up and specifically target the well-off nations. Not sure what the point of your second paragraph is about. I've been telling this thread that our life expectancy has increased, all for the better lol And also that there is indeed overpopulation, didn't deny any of this. My pessimistic line is addressed to OP. But you keep implying global issues such as overpopulation should be ground to advocate for less birth in developed countries (correct me if I'm wrong on that aspect), how do you address the declining growth rate in said countries? If anything, it's developing countries that need to curb their reproduction. It brings a repeating cycle of more and more people competing for whatever limited resources they have. But advocating developed countries to lower their birth rate? That just seems... I dunno, weird. Well there really is not much more of personal choice than deciding if you should have a child or not, and it's true the individual choice of having or not having a baby will almost no impact on the problem of overpopulation; But I'll keep beating a similar horse in saying that this mentality is not healthy either when it's shared uniformly by all citizens (which it's not). Think about the lights you leave on, the water you leave running, the gas you leave leaking; If it was just you, it wouldn't be a problem, but these utilities are attached in some way to finite resources. Imagine the number of people who don't go out to vote because they think their one vote won't matter; All this is the same logic as people who carelessly have offspring because they don't believe their children would add to the growing population problem, when all those little bits do eventually add up to something big --- In this case, overpopulation. No, I know how deterrence works. It's probably the only reason we're still alive as a species today. The main issue I had was with suggesting nuclear warfare to quell simple uprisings when nukes would never be put on the table for something like that. I was correlating the relevance of the growing human life expectancy with the sudden spike in our population, which I shouldn't have to. Higher average life expectancies are a double edged sword though for obvious reasons I also shouldn't have to explain. There is also a difference between simply acknowledging overpopulation and acknowledging it as a major problem. I admit that implementing something like a one-child limit in countries like the USA would be difficult since we give such an emphasis on rights here, and who is the government to infringe on the most natural right of reproduction. As for less developed countries though, it's almost impossible since their governments are so weak or their leaders couldn't be bothered to care about such things. Keep in mind though that overpopulation is a global problem and not one just limited to any one country or continent. Aging populations are only limited to a few select countries and can be easily remedied in a few decades or so. |
I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it |
| Naturally the world will face difficulties, but has it arrived to the point where humanity could end soon? That's one difficult question for me to provide a plausible answer. If you go for a biblical approach - then you might find that answer to your question. |
| Good looking, smart, rich people should continue to have kids. Usually the opposite happens though. |
| welll while it is kinda cruel only people who sorta overthink will ever bothre to not have more kids -/ while those dumbshit trash will keep popping out babies like Greg house pops Vicodin ... and well the world will end up like that luke wilson movie shit |
| I may have 1 or 2 children, I depends how fucked up the world in in 15+ years though. If the shit looks like it will probably hit the fan then no. I would be sad if I never had any children but I have no reason to worry now. |
 Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
| @ protaku But that's just the thing though. Not everyone has that idea at all. Like I said, tons of people choose not to have a kid. Not everyone has that mentality, or even thought about that mentality at all. So keep suggesting this is an issue when it's not is kinda... sure why not. You can beat on that horse lol Again, overpopulation is mostly due to poor and developing countries and is affecting them the most. You can mention high life expectancies, but really high life expectancies is observed in primarily developed countries, where, surprise, we're not really facing overpopulation. It doesn't even make sense for the US to have a 1 child policy when US isn't really facing overpopulation issues. I mean sure there's a lot of people in urban centres and I guess California, but there's tons of places in US where there isn't as many people. Aging population is actually something most developed countries are facing. Where overpopulation is not an issue for most developed countries. |
| For the kid? Fairly often 'not cruel'. It's perfectly possible to raise a kid well even if you're not part of the megarich, just make sure you can support them, and are dedicated to them. For everyone else? Fairly often 'a little cruel'. I don't think that's what your interested in though. Spooks_McBones said: You're seeing the now, not the many warning signs of the future. I could have said that 5 years ago and now we have ISIS rampaging through the middle east. A lot can change in a few years and you're only saying that from a probably first world bubble. The rest of the world is a little more turbulent just look at Russia, north Korea back then they had to march to invade, now they can press the nuke button at any time. Overall the world is pretty safe for the time being, even considering ISIS and believing whatever the media says about them, www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en Maybe we will someday die in a nuclear explosion but we won't regret it afterwards, seeing as we're dead and all. We won't hate our parents for birthing us just because we blew up. Our kids won't hate us either. But, the real reason I commented, Russia and Korea are not going to attack or invade anybody unprovoked. They might seem aggressive but it's a policy of 'aggressive defense'. Their reasons for this policy are easy to see and understand. i need sleep |
 ~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
| As a species, we should care less about the children themselves, and focus on procreating. We should also cannibalize our own babies that we determine to be genetically inferior as many rodents do to ensure species purity. |
 |
| Such fate. Its kinda cruel sometimes. Deal with it. |
| WEABOO SCIENTIST |
| Hell Ya especially in my fucked up world, I once didn't have have wifi for like three weeks. I had to masturbate to sports magazines |
 |
McGibletz said: Hell Ya especially in my fucked up world, I once didn't have have wifi for like three weeks. I had to masturbate to sports magazines You can always come over to my house and watch porn if you want :) |
McGibletz said: Hell Ya especially in my fucked up world, I once didn't have have wifi for like three weeks. I had to masturbate to sports magazines you dont even need sport magazines to masturbate use your imagination dude! |
| WEABOO SCIENTIST |
Tachii said: @ protaku But that's just the thing though. Not everyone has that idea at all. Like I said, tons of people choose not to have a kid. Not everyone has that mentality, or even thought about that mentality at all. So keep suggesting this is an issue when it's not is kinda... sure why not. You can beat on that horse lol Again, overpopulation is mostly due to poor and developing countries and is affecting them the most. You can mention high life expectancies, but really high life expectancies is observed in primarily developed countries, where, surprise, we're not really facing overpopulation. It doesn't even make sense for the US to have a 1 child policy when US isn't really facing overpopulation issues. I mean sure there's a lot of people in urban centres and I guess California, but there's tons of places in US where there isn't as many people. Aging population is actually something most developed countries are facing. Where overpopulation is not an issue for most developed countries. Well I'd like to wrap up this little discourse by saying that even though most of what you say is true, you're still focusing too much on the current state of overpopulation when this whole time I've been trying to convince you of the threat of overpopulation in the near future. If we're not facing overpopulation issues now, we will be in the future and it'll suck for everyone. Sure we'll always have our more rural areas, but as history has shown time and time again, urban areas and cities are where most of everyone tends to go if only for the jobs you can't get anywhere else. I'm shooting in the dark, but you probably also don't believe in the adverse effects of climate change (not global warming) will have in the future. |
I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it |
| If I was a woman, I want to have 10 kids by the time I am 35. |
 |
Protaku94 said: You would be shooting yourself in the dark. Climate changes are definitely happening. But... then what? What have you been doing with this knowledge? Being on topic, will you not have a kid on the basis that you know somewhere in the future we'll have some potential climate disaster?Tachii said: @ protaku But that's just the thing though. Not everyone has that idea at all. Like I said, tons of people choose not to have a kid. Not everyone has that mentality, or even thought about that mentality at all. So keep suggesting this is an issue when it's not is kinda... sure why not. You can beat on that horse lol Again, overpopulation is mostly due to poor and developing countries and is affecting them the most. You can mention high life expectancies, but really high life expectancies is observed in primarily developed countries, where, surprise, we're not really facing overpopulation. It doesn't even make sense for the US to have a 1 child policy when US isn't really facing overpopulation issues. I mean sure there's a lot of people in urban centres and I guess California, but there's tons of places in US where there isn't as many people. Aging population is actually something most developed countries are facing. Where overpopulation is not an issue for most developed countries. Well I'd like to wrap up this little discourse by saying that even though most of what you say is true, you're still focusing too much on the current state of overpopulation when this whole time I've been trying to convince you of the threat of overpopulation in the near future. If we're not facing overpopulation issues now, we will be in the future and it'll suck for everyone. Sure we'll always have our more rural areas, but as history has shown time and time again, urban areas and cities are where most of everyone tends to go if only for the jobs you can't get anywhere else. I'm shooting in the dark, but you probably also don't believe in the adverse effects of climate change (not global warming) will have in the future. |
| @Tachii Well at least you understand climate change is real; it's inevitable like overpopulation though, so it's pretty rare from what I've seen at least for one person to only agree with one of those issues. On the basis of not having a kid due to climate change, that doesn't make much unless you're some die hard pessimistic that doesn't want to give your child life because you know he'll die someday; Everyone dies so that makes even less sense. That's like a Californian like myself not wanting to have a kid because we know they San Andrews fault will shift sometime soon. And I know you'll want to juxtapose a climate disaster with overpopulation to contradict me, but I'm not some overpopulation doomsday extremist that won't have kids because I think I'm saving the world or something. Imagine me saying something like " I refuse to drink fountain water because I think I'm actually saving the fishes." Same logic. |
I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it |
| Im more worried about the things going on in the world that we don't know about. All those powerful nations operating so many secret projects against other nations and planning new weapons of war. All it takes is someone to tip those scales I still remember that thing that happened during the cold war when the Russian nuke guy got a reading saying America had launched nukes and he had to choose in that moment to hit the fire back button. He chose not to and it turned out to be a computer glitch but thats how close we can come every day. |
|
Spooks_McBones said: I still remember that thing that happened during the cold war when the Russian nuke guy got a reading saying America had launched nukes and he had to choose in that moment to hit the fire back button. He chose not to and it turned out to be a computer glitch but thats how close we can come every day. How do you remember it if you were born in 1991? |
| Signature removed. Bro, can you please follow the signature rules? How many times do I have to tell you, 300kb MAX. You know we don't have the server space for your giant ass gifs. Site & Forum Guidelines (read them dumbass). |
-Axcel- said: Spooks_McBones said: I still remember that thing that happened during the cold war when the Russian nuke guy got a reading saying America had launched nukes and he had to choose in that moment to hit the fire back button. He chose not to and it turned out to be a computer glitch but thats how close we can come every day. How do you remember it if you were born in 1991? was I? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) |
|
Spooks_McBones said: -Axcel- said: How do you remember it if you were born in 1991? was I? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Spooks_McTimeTravel the man who went back in time, blended into the Russian army, and saved the world from nuclear destruction. I salute you  |
| Signature removed. Bro, can you please follow the signature rules? How many times do I have to tell you, 300kb MAX. You know we don't have the server space for your giant ass gifs. Site & Forum Guidelines (read them dumbass). |
Spooks_McBones said: -Axcel- said: How do you remember it if you were born in 1991? was I? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) well, the last time this happened wasn't in the cold war, but 1995, with the traitor Yeltsin but actually there are protocols you have to wait before you retaliate, while people work out if the threat is real nobody will launch the moment there might be one (even if they will a few moments later) |
VoltiiJun 26, 2015 12:47 PM
~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
Spooks_McBones said: The first one is Illuminati.Im more worried about the things going on in the world that we don't know about. All those powerful nations operating so many secret projects against other nations and planning new weapons of war. All it takes is someone to tip those scales |
 |
Spooks_McBones said: Is it morally wrong to bring a life into the world considering the world, how it is now, how its going to be. I mean beyond if its right to bring life into the world if you don't have stable income or a safe environment to bring them up in IE: conflict in the middle east is no place for a new born. The world seems to be inevitably heading towards war and ruin, natural disaster the future is grim for the next generation. People starve on the streets and immigrants flee warzones in hope of asylum. The number of people murdering or preying on children grows. Crime is rampant and children are always going missing now a days. Is it just wrong to bring an innocent life into this reality as it stands, to raise them (if they do survive long enough) into a world that will probably see them turn soldiers eventually to fight someone elses war. Raising a child knowing what really awaits them as you lie to their face and show them moral values in cartoons and animated movies you know don't exist in reality. Then we have all those people who just can't handle existing in the world as it is, the suicide rates keep going up, depression and pain await a lot of children. How many of you can say that life is good. I'm sure plenty of depressives would have said they had wished their parents hadn't have birthed them in the first place into a cruel and unforgiving world. Are people selfish for creating a life just to satisfy their own desire for offspring when aware of how the world is and where its heading. Try looking on the bright side sometimes as well. |
More topics from this board
» What if Burger is on a stick?Dragevard - Feb 10, 2022 |
11 |
by Nayborie
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be a good partner? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 14 |
57 |
by Ejrodiew
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» What's the best way to translate Yu-Yu-Hakusho's titleAlphaMaleScotty - 9 hours ago |
6 |
by Dumb
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» The level of NoLifer / NEET / Hiki you are?IpreferEcchi - 6 hours ago |
10 |
by Zarutaku
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» (Personality) Try to paste 3 different statements that matter to youIpreferEcchi - Yesterday |
9 |
by fae
»»
2 hours ago |