Mon 12 May 2008
For the sake of our children, and our children’s children, two things need to happen. First, we need to populate the Moon and/or Mars. Second, regardless of our achievements in extra-terrestrial colonization, we still need to deal with the overpopulation problem on Earth, and it seems to me that the best way to do this is to stop having children.
OK, I can hear the laughs and guffaws already. And yes, it is probably ridiculous to ask every one of us to humble ourselves for the sake of future generations. But hey, it just might help.
I’m not necessarily saying to have NO children. But I am saying to cut it down to one, at max two. But if you really wanna sacrifice for a cause, then quit the baby making. Think of the future generations as your children, and a less populated planet as your gift to them. The effects of overpopulation are potentially devastating: too many people and too little water and food. If we do not make a conscious effort to curb this growing trend, Nature will inevitably balance itself out via disease.
For those of you whose religious faith resists the use of birth control, you may soon be faced with a great moral dilemma. Which is more selfish: To individually control and consciously deny the possibility of life and progeny, or to freely birth multiple children knowing full well the dangerous results of overpopulation?
Images
Overpopulation courtesy of Geographyalltheway.com
Popularity: 14% [?]
May 12th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Andrew, thus far over 30 million abortions have been recorded since Row v. Wade.
Also, the average child per family is down to less than 2. I believe it is 1.7 now. This is what scares people about social security.
Deaths related to alcohol, nicotine, drugs, poor diet, poor healthy, etc. are on the rise.
It seems as if population control is happening whether we like it or not. I think people should have to have a license to have kids also. I know a few of you agree with me on that.
Crazy pic!!
May 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I agree with you, Andrew. I hope you don’t mind but I have to say something else about certain religions being anti-birth control.
This concept was developed at a time when children didn’t always make it to adulthood. Much like other mammals, we compensated by having greater numbers of children in the hopes that the fittest would live.
Seeing as we have removed that from the equation with modern medicine, the tables have turned and it is our population’s sheer size, not it’s lack of size, that demands compensation. Many religions’ fatal flaw is the inflexibility to its guiding principles forcing people to adhere to rules that may be extremely outdated and inappropriate, no matter what the cost to the greater good.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:00 am
You go and tell the family that is about to have their third child that it must be aborted and then tell me what you think. It’s not that I disagree with you but that it’s much easier to talk about it then to be the one to dole it out. It’s kind of like supporting the death penalty but not being able to throw the switch.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Jim, abortion is a touchy issue, but I’m posting on it later this week.
The real solution in my opinion is mandatory birth control. We can’t force people to take the birth control, otherwise we’d go against the basic rights of our country. But we can supply every individual with what they need, and then instate brainwashing programs (oops, I mean public education) to try to create positive habits.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
The problem is you are applying logic to an emotional issue. I speak as a father who has been neutered to keep from having any more kids.
Before I had kids I would have agreed with you 100%. Now, I find it difficult to take a side. Whose to say that the 3rd kid is not going to be the one to discover a cure for cancer. The are too many questions to answer to validate your argument or to disprove it.
Yes abortion is the touchiest of issues. Watch yourself my friend.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
You don’t tell them that they have to abort their third child, you make them pay dearly for it.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Allow me to play devils advocate:
Well whose to say the 3rd child isn’t going to discover the cure for cancer? Well that depends on belief. Do you believe in personal destiny? Or do you believe in social conditioning?
I’m of the belief that with the right training and support the majority of people can pull off whatever they put their mind to, even finding a cure for x. I’m not too keen on destiny as an individual phenomenon.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I think that you might be setting yourself up for disappointment with that much faith in other people’s abilities.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Ha, probably, but its a hard one to test. It doesn’t take much effort to skirt by and survive in society. And nowadays there isn’t much need to push people’s potential - there are more people than needed skills or trades.
And the ingredients for success tend to weigh more on the side of social position and contacts, rather than intelligence. There are millions of people who are born in third-world countries who have the intelligence to research cancer, but don’t have the infrastructure or social support needed to develop these skills.
If being born in the right place at the right time is destiny, than thats as close as I can get to believing in destiny.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
The question I guess would be is genius born or created?
May 12th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Genius is born, but must be cultivated, prodded, and mentored.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Intelligence is a marriage of nature and nurture. Genius requires a certain degree of social support, that without it, even the DNA coding of Einstein would not lead to an intellect as formidable as it could be; however, without the genes, the right social support can do nothing to enhance the intelligence of the individual beyond what their DNA allows.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
This explains George Bush
May 12th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“Whose to say that the 3rd kid is not going to be the one to discover a cure for cancer.”
Jim, the argument of whether nature vs. nurture produces a genius is a great discussion. My personal opinion is that a true genius will openly admit that they truly do not know how a genius comes to be.
I think what you are referring to is the “potential” of every life. Every human life does have the “potential” (whether its social conditioning or destiny) to be the one who discovers cures for such diseases you mention. To be fair, every life also have the “potential” to be a very bad person.
So of the 30 million lives that have been aborted since the Roe v. Wade decision, what is more probable? A genius who makes a breakthrough in medicine and/or science? An average human being? Or a bad person.
For those of you who take the “how do you know what good vs. bad is” position, I will give you an example… Holding a door open for a senior citizen is a good thing. Rape is a bad thing. Some people cannot grasp the concept of good vs. bad.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Actually I was just fueling the fire to see what you guys would come up with.
Nice work so far.
As for the 30 million aborted fetuses you have to ask your self if you believe in a purpose for things that happen or if it is all in our own hands and there is no fate or destiny.
Personally I see that both sides of the argument but there is this little thing called possibility that can never really be accounted for.
Really the argument is possibility vs probability. You have to remember that while it may be highly improbable there is very little that is not possible.
We could debate the merits of going either way but in the end no matter how many “facts” are dug up it is all rhetoric. Fun rhetoric to play with for a while but rhetoric none the less.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I really don’t see how abortion factors into this discussion at all. Abortion is not, and should not ever be, a sanctioned form of birth control. The abortions that take place in the U.S. are not in the spirit of, “We are over populated so I should have an abortion to help curb over population.” They are for other reasons, some I can understand and some I cannot, but ultimately the point is I do not see how abortion factors into this discussion at all. Those 30 million fetuses have nothing to do with proper foresight and the utilization of birth control.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Andrew initially said in his post, “Second, regardless of our achievements in extra-terrestrial colonization, we still need to deal with the overpopulation problem on Earth, and it seems to me that the best way to do this is to stop having children.”
Abortion factors into this discussion because it is, in fact, a way for people to stop having children.
Why should we disturb or stop our act of lubricated emotional friction and penitration for pleasure when we can simply stop having children with a legal medical procedure on the other end of our contraceptive decision-making conscience?
May 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Abortion is, and should only be used as a last resort. There is no valid reason to ever use abortion as a form of birth control when there are many other ways to effectively curtail having children, such as putting a rubber on or taking birth control pills. Seeing that abortion should have no place in this discussion, people will always have their rights to have as many children as they want. We don’t live in China. If you want to be a responsible adult then you should be able to make the decision whether or not you want to have children.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I was playing devil’s advocate. Those of you who know me, know that I would never support abortion for birth control. The sad part is that people actually do use it as a form of birth control.
Kinda getting back to what Andrew said, how can anyone tell someone to stop having children?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Jon, if you state that you are playing devils advocate a couple hours or days later, people might be confused by what you are putting out and where you actually stand. In my opinion you support abortion. I made this conclusion from the comments you wrote.
My own stance on the post I have written is that we need to legalize the distribution of birth control to all citizens. This should start with condoms, and when enough studies have been done on Pills to clarify whether they increase the risk or directly cause cancer - Pills then should be dished out to everyone.
But as I stated - All we can mandate is the provision of equipment and the education of how to use that equipment. We CANNOT force anyone to take any form of birth control. We can only provide them with accurate information so they can make an educated decision.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
“In my opinion you support abortion.”
Andrew, you just made me laugh harder than I did after watching the O’Reilly meltdown video.
Here is a little tip…When I include “lubricated emotional friction and penitration for pleasure” in any of my statements, I am not being serious.
I am looking forward to your post on abortion since it has been banned from this thread.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Dedicated readers of Daniel Quinn would argue that birth control is nothing without food control. Stop producing a food surplus and the population will stop rising to meet the food supply.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Claire, interesting point on food control. How does Quinn advocate reducing the food supply? It seems great in theory, and applicable to later generations that have yet to be born - but what about the current generation raised on the current food supply levels? Do we just cut them off and expect them to deal?
Jon, this was the exact statement that confused me:
“So of the 30 million lives that have been aborted since the Roe v. Wade decision, what is more probable? A genius who makes a breakthrough in medicine and/or science? An average human being? Or a bad person. For those of you who take the “how do you know what good vs. bad is” position, I will give you an example… Holding a door open for a senior citizen is a good thing. Rape is a bad thing. Some people cannot grasp the concept of good vs. bad.”
Please explain what you meant by this. Its vague enough that I’m sure you can see why I was led to believe you support abortion on some level.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Jim had said that the 3rd baby born could be the one who ends up curing cancer. Whether it is an abortion or deciding to stop after 2 children, I just wanted to be fair in saying that, yes it could be the one who cures cancer. It could also be the one who commits the most crazy criminal act in the world.
On average, there are a lot more average people and criminals born than brilliant minds who make medical breakthroughs. Thats what I was saying. A lot of people say that 30 million lives have been aborted…imagine how many of them could have cured cancer.
It has been made clear that abortion has no place in this conversation, but if you are going to ask me as the author of this post, then here goes…
I hate abortion. The idea disgusts me and makes me sick. If I had an opportunity to council a girl into adoption rather than abortion, I would try my hardest. I do, however, respect that it is an idividual right for a girl to choose whatever she wants to do with her body. It should not be up to the government.
Medical technology will soon exist that will be able to keep a fetus at any age (as young as 1 week) alive in a lab incubator after abortion. Should the mother have the right to order it dead? Or once it is out of her body, is it no longer “her body?” It could be used for couples who wish to adopt.
Sorry, you asked for clarification…and this happens to be my favorite topic to discuss.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t really care if you are for or against it, I just didn’t want other readers to misinterpret your comments like I did.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
gotcha
May 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Artificially inflated food supply leads to artificially inflated population that expands beyond the land’s ability to support it. Unfortunately the hand of nature is going to have to rip the food from our mouths before those of us fortunate enough to survive understand the pitfalls of creating a false food surplus. The sad part is the fatties will be the last to fall.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Would the obese naturally succumb to cannibalism before the thinner humans?
Or perhaps they’d eat themselves…now wouldn’t that be the epitome of self-indulgence.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
It gives biting your finger nails a whole new meaning.