This is a question, I asked numerous co-workers about before.
Oddly enough, most people I asked said it was, in fact, not immoral to have children when you know that there is a large probability said kid is going to be born all sorts of messed up. One coworker told me about a family he knew back home that had 5 children. Every single one was born with severe muscle dystrophy.
All. 5. Of. Them.
One lived to graduate high school. My coworker wasn't sure, but he thought the one who graduated didn't make it far.
The question was bounced back to me as such - Can it be immoral to created a flawed life, when the only alternative is to not have lived at all?
When you put it that way, it's tougher to answer. My answer remains the same, but I'm slightly less sure.
Yes, I do think its immoral. But it's a tough call.
On the one hand, I want to say it's immoral, and I can't understand why you would have a kid who has death hovering over them the whole time. Just adopt. But what would a child in that situation say? That they wished they'd never existed at all, or that they're glad for the life they got to experience? People talk about wishing they were never born, but that's a monumental statement, far bigger than death. Desiring the total non existence of a human being is a thought I can barely fathom, and I'm not sure I would wish it on even the most evil men. I have a feeling the answer would vary. We're all dying all the time, so I'm not sure saying not existing is better than not living long is entirely true. After all, is a dogs life less valid just because it doesn't live as long as us? I'm not trying to compare an impaired person to an animal, but you get my point.
Having a child of any kind is immoral and selfish. Your genes aren't special. If they were really capable of creating someone special, you would be special. But you aren't. Breeding doesn't alleviate your failures. Instead of trying to pass on the responsibility of contributing something to the world to your child, maybe you should get off your rear and actually accomplish something worthwhile yourself if you're believe your genes are so incredible.
The above statement isn't entirely directed at OP, but at anyone considering having kids. Quit treating your reproductive organs like your at a slot machine in vegas. We have over 7 billion people on this planet already. Most of them contribute little beyond their own requirements if even that. Your crotch isn't likely to actually pay out this next time to make up for the billions we have already invested in human life on this earth. Quit trying to cover up ego and selfishness with thinly veiled attempts at "moral" arguments. There's nothing moral about our species breeding to death and taking most of the life on this planet with us to satisfy our own vanity.
I'm just going to take a poke at this, since anything more will likely devolve into a douchebag contest (Which I'm sure I wont win).
First, social responsibility ('fair share of the load') is a slippery slop. Especially when you start slinging it this close to genetics. So I'm not going to say much on it, beyond the fact that it's not really as important as you seem to think it is. Economic and social factors are far more important then genetics (Short of horrendous genetic flaws, as discussed in this thread).
Second, perhaps you shouldn't be assuming everyone here is a pathetic waste of DNA. I mean, I am (My medical history is a catastrophe), but assuming by default that everyone here is a waste of space and resources is a bit mean spiriterd an misplaced.
As for 'breeding to death,' I think its safe to say that most people on this forums are in a country that's either already in, or close, to negative birth rate. The US and most European countries (And Australia, I believe) populations continue to grow primarily due immigration from other countries. So, really, your message is completely misplaced. We've gotten our breeding problem primarily under control. Hell, the US alone can probably stand to double it's population without to much continued strain to its agricultural or housing capacity (Hell, it could probably help the domestic economy), though we may have some power and transport issues (Which would not be good at all).
The population problem is real, but here's the thing: It's not a problem any of us can fix by cutting our genitalia off. There's exactly one way to fix it - Increase standard of living. There's a strong correlation to technological advancement and increased stand of living, versus population growth.
So, really, if your so concerned about the issue you feel the need to spew bile on everyone here, than maybe YOU should get up and accomplish something by going to a third world country and bringing them up to speed. It's certainly more helpful than taking a piss on a theoretical, essentially impossible morality question.
I did not call for anyone's deaths. I did not call for anyone's junk to be removed. I just called for a little rational decision making when the question of breeding comes up. Why do we have to fill the planet to capacity with our race? It's not like we will lose our mastery of earth just because we didn't fill it up with more of us. Sure we could create another 7 billion more of us, but why? Why do we want to push all the earths available resources to the absolute limit? Eventually we will reach a tipping point and this notion of breeding as a right, will have to be addressed since it is obvious that we can't be trusted with it. We just have so little restraint on the matter.
Standards of living have gone up. So has the earths population. We still have people alive and running around from back when we had half as many people on the planet as we do now. We have doubled in number in the span of a single lifetime. That doesn't sound like a slowdown to me. It doesn't strike me as remotely under control.
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 1950s - 36
Birth rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2007 - 20.09
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2012 - 19.15
Our peak reproduction levels are already way past us, and the effect on economic standards reducing birth rates has been known since at least 1962 (The earliest article I could find on it was written by Robert Weintraub on October 1962. I didn't look further then the first 5 results I got on google).
Granted, these aren't the only factors. Certainly women's liberation and the wide spread acceptance of family planning is also to 'blame.' But these things are also linked, quite closely, to technological and economic gain.
Also, I don't recall insinuating that you wanted to kill people, and the chopping of people's junk wasn't meant to be taken literally.
EDIT: And how, exactly, are you going to moderate people's rights to have children? There's really only two ways to do so - Financially and through social engineering. Neither of those are very popular.
China did financial, and it's affects are, to say the least, contestable. The Chinese claim it helped a ton. Researchers just muse on the gap between male and female births. Numerous countries have tried outright social engineering, and it worked. It worked so well, in fact, that they're now back peddling in an attempt to get people to pop kids out again.
It seems the only programs that have worked without dire consequences are the ones most 'Western' countries have adopted - Contraceptive education and family planning.
Double Post are for Losers:
Fox12 said:
AccursedTheory said:
This is a question, I asked numerous co-workers about before.
Oddly enough, most people I asked said it was, in fact, not immoral to have children when you know that there is a large probability said kid is going to be born all sorts of messed up. One coworker told me about a family he knew back home that had 5 children. Every single one was born with severe muscle dystrophy.
All. 5. Of. Them.
One lived to graduate high school. My coworker wasn't sure, but he thought the one who graduated didn't make it far.
The question was bounced back to me as such - Can it be immoral to created a flawed life, when the only alternative is to not have lived at all?
When you put it that way, it's tougher to answer. My answer remains the same, but I'm slightly less sure.
Yes, I do think its immoral. But it's a tough call.
On the one hand, I want to say it's immoral, and I can't understand why you would have a kid who has death hovering over them the whole time. Just adopt. But what would a child in that situation say? That they wished they'd never existed at all, or that they're glad for the life they got to experience? People talk about wishing they were never born, but that's a monumental statement, far bigger than death. Desiring the total non existence of a human being is a thought I can barely fathom, and I'm not sure I would wish it on even the most evil men. I have a feeling the answer would vary. We're all dying all the time, so I'm not sure saying not existing is better than not living long is entirely true. After all, is a dogs life less valid just because it doesn't live as long as us? I'm not trying to compare an impaired person to an animal, but you get my point.
This is a question, I asked numerous co-workers about before.
Oddly enough, most people I asked said it was, in fact, not immoral to have children when you know that there is a large probability said kid is going to be born all sorts of messed up. One coworker told me about a family he knew back home that had 5 children. Every single one was born with severe muscle dystrophy.
All. 5. Of. Them.
One lived to graduate high school. My coworker wasn't sure, but he thought the one who graduated didn't make it far.
The question was bounced back to me as such - Can it be immoral to created a flawed life, when the only alternative is to not have lived at all?
When you put it that way, it's tougher to answer. My answer remains the same, but I'm slightly less sure.
Yes, I do think its immoral. But it's a tough call.
On the one hand, I want to say it's immoral, and I can't understand why you would have a kid who has death hovering over them the whole time. Just adopt. But what would a child in that situation say? That they wished they'd never existed at all, or that they're glad for the life they got to experience? People talk about wishing they were never born, but that's a monumental statement, far bigger than death. Desiring the total non existence of a human being is a thought I can barely fathom, and I'm not sure I would wish it on even the most evil men. I have a feeling the answer would vary. We're all dying all the time, so I'm not sure saying not existing is better than not living long is entirely true. After all, is a dogs life less valid just because it doesn't live as long as us? I'm not trying to compare an impaired person to an animal, but you get my point.
I feel I must throw my 2 cents in here, because I hear this set of points brought up a lot. Now I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but honestly, having suffered as I have throughout my life, if I had the option to completely forget everything that has happened in my life, I'd do it in a heartbeat. No trace, no possibility of it returning at any point, just gone. For me, at least, that would be much less painful than having 'lived'; and no, that is NOT the same as suicide.
But that's just from my perspective, I can't speak for everyone.
There is nothing immoral about parents deciding to have children despite such odds. It only becomes immoral if the parents not only knew about the risks, but then later (once the child has been born) decide that they would rather be without such a heavy burden.
I am very interested to hear your thoughts on the following scenario:
So, you're having a routine check-up at your doctor's office and as part of the process your doctor takes a blood sample. A week or two later you get a letter asking you to revisit your doctor following the results of your blood test.
Now your doctor sits you down and explains that you have a rare genetic disorder that will in no way impact your health, but could have serious implications should you have children. Your doctor explains that there is a high (80%+) chance that if you have children, the genetic disorder will cause the child to be born severely mentally impaired, and with a developmental disorder that will cause said child physical heath problems as well as limiting it's life expectancy (say to 40 years old). Initially the child would need 24hour care, and even as an adult would need to be cared for in sheltered / assisted accommodation. Currently there would be no treatment for this condition, and no way to screen for it prior to the child's birth.
Now, with the information you have been given, and assuming you desired to have children, would it be morally acceptable to do so?
Assuming this is some backwards dimension where I wanted kids, I wouldn't do it. And once it happens, there's no undoing it and you'll cause yourself, your family, and the child a lot of problems (mental, physical, financial, etc).
It may seem kinda strange, but let's look at this in the animal breeder world. It's generally considered bad practice and unethical to breed animals like dogs and cats without testing for genetic problems known in a breed (some of these tests won't grant a 100% zero chance of the condition appearing, but it's good for screening), and even worse if you breed them despite knowing that the pairing has a high chance of problems. I know of a puppy that was put down for a crippling case of hip dysplasia before his first birthday. Some moron bred two Great Danes, one merle and the other double-merle (double-merle itsef being caused by breeding two merles, which creates a situation where many pups will be stillborn and the living may have problems) and had pretty much all of the "triple-merle" pups were dead on arrival. My Ragdoll cat (who's turning 10 this year) could've died years ago if his breeder didn't test his parents for a fatal genetic heart condition. If I was a breeder, knowing something I neglected to do was involved in the pain of one of my animals or a family who has lost their best friend, that would feel really scummy. Part of the difference you see in morons pairing dogs for the sake of "cute puppies" or money (puppymills, pet stores, backyard breeders) compared to buying from a good breeder.
Having a child of any kind is immoral and selfish. Your genes aren't special. If they were really capable of creating someone special, you would be special. But you aren't. Breeding doesn't alleviate your failures. Instead of trying to pass on the responsibility of contributing something to the world to your child, maybe you should get off your rear and actually accomplish something worthwhile yourself if you're believe your genes are so incredible.
The above statement isn't entirely directed at OP, but at anyone considering having kids. Quit treating your reproductive organs like your at a slot machine in vegas. We have over 7 billion people on this planet already. Most of them contribute little beyond their own requirements if even that. Your crotch isn't likely to actually pay out this next time to make up for the billions we have already invested in human life on this earth. Quit trying to cover up ego and selfishness with thinly veiled attempts at "moral" arguments. There's nothing moral about our species breeding to death and taking most of the life on this planet with us to satisfy our own vanity.
I'm just going to take a poke at this, since anything more will likely devolve into a douchebag contest (Which I'm sure I wont win).
First, social responsibility ('fair share of the load') is a slippery slop. Especially when you start slinging it this close to genetics. So I'm not going to say much on it, beyond the fact that it's not really as important as you seem to think it is. Economic and social factors are far more important then genetics (Short of horrendous genetic flaws, as discussed in this thread).
Second, perhaps you shouldn't be assuming everyone here is a pathetic waste of DNA. I mean, I am (My medical history is a catastrophe), but assuming by default that everyone here is a waste of space and resources is a bit mean spiriterd an misplaced.
As for 'breeding to death,' I think its safe to say that most people on this forums are in a country that's either already in, or close, to negative birth rate. The US and most European countries (And Australia, I believe) populations continue to grow primarily due immigration from other countries. So, really, your message is completely misplaced. We've gotten our breeding problem primarily under control. Hell, the US alone can probably stand to double it's population without to much continued strain to its agricultural or housing capacity (Hell, it could probably help the domestic economy), though we may have some power and transport issues (Which would not be good at all).
The population problem is real, but here's the thing: It's not a problem any of us can fix by cutting our genitalia off. There's exactly one way to fix it - Increase standard of living. There's a strong correlation to technological advancement and increased stand of living, versus population growth.
So, really, if your so concerned about the issue you feel the need to spew bile on everyone here, than maybe YOU should get up and accomplish something by going to a third world country and bringing them up to speed. It's certainly more helpful than taking a piss on a theoretical, essentially impossible morality question.
I did not call for anyone's deaths. I did not call for anyone's junk to be removed. I just called for a little rational decision making when the question of breeding comes up. Why do we have to fill the planet to capacity with our race? It's not like we will lose our mastery of earth just because we didn't fill it up with more of us. Sure we could create another 7 billion more of us, but why? Why do we want to push all the earths available resources to the absolute limit? Eventually we will reach a tipping point and this notion of breeding as a right, will have to be addressed since it is obvious that we can't be trusted with it. We just have so little restraint on the matter.
Standards of living have gone up. So has the earths population. We still have people alive and running around from back when we had half as many people on the planet as we do now. We have doubled in number in the span of a single lifetime. That doesn't sound like a slowdown to me. It doesn't strike me as remotely under control.
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 1950s - 36
Birth rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2007 - 20.09
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2012 - 19.15
Our peak reproduction levels are already way past us, and the effect on economic standards reducing birth rates has been known since at least 1962 (The earliest article I could find on it was written by Robert Weintraub on October 1962. I didn't look further then the first 5 results I got on google).
Granted, these aren't the only factors. Certainly women's liberation and the wide spread acceptance of family planning is also to 'blame.' But these things are also linked, quite closely, to technological and economic gain.
Also, I don't recall insinuating that you wanted to kill people, and the chopping of people's junk wasn't meant to be taken literally.
EDIT: And how, exactly, are you going to moderate people's rights to have children? There's really only two ways to do so - Financially and through social engineering. Neither of those are very popular.
China did financial, and it's affects are, to say the least, contestable. The Chinese claim it helped a ton. Researchers just muse on the gap between male and female births. Numerous countries have tried outright social engineering, and it worked. It worked so well, in fact, that they're now back peddling in an attempt to get people to pop kids out again.
It seems the only programs that have worked without dire consequences are the ones most 'Western' countries have adopted - Contraceptive education and family planning.
Problem with your statistics is that as the life spans have increased a great deal since the 50's, many more of the people in your "per 1000" are past or before parenting age than what was presented in the earlier "per 1000" statistics which skews the statistics a bit. At this point maybe 500 out of that 1000 are even capable of having kids given how many older people we have now combined with children as part of the 1000. Which may in fact indicate that those that can still breed are possibly breeding at the same rate as we were in the 50's or much closer to it, than your simplistic graph pretends.
What cannot be denied is that around 1960, we had just 3 billion people. We now have 7 billion. I didn't have to play with facts to get either of those numbers. Its all right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg
Having a child of any kind is immoral and selfish. Your genes aren't special. If they were really capable of creating someone special, you would be special. But you aren't. Breeding doesn't alleviate your failures. Instead of trying to pass on the responsibility of contributing something to the world to your child, maybe you should get off your rear and actually accomplish something worthwhile yourself if you're believe your genes are so incredible.
The above statement isn't entirely directed at OP, but at anyone considering having kids. Quit treating your reproductive organs like your at a slot machine in vegas. We have over 7 billion people on this planet already. Most of them contribute little beyond their own requirements if even that. Your crotch isn't likely to actually pay out this next time to make up for the billions we have already invested in human life on this earth. Quit trying to cover up ego and selfishness with thinly veiled attempts at "moral" arguments. There's nothing moral about our species breeding to death and taking most of the life on this planet with us to satisfy our own vanity.
I'm just going to take a poke at this, since anything more will likely devolve into a douchebag contest (Which I'm sure I wont win).
First, social responsibility ('fair share of the load') is a slippery slop. Especially when you start slinging it this close to genetics. So I'm not going to say much on it, beyond the fact that it's not really as important as you seem to think it is. Economic and social factors are far more important then genetics (Short of horrendous genetic flaws, as discussed in this thread).
Second, perhaps you shouldn't be assuming everyone here is a pathetic waste of DNA. I mean, I am (My medical history is a catastrophe), but assuming by default that everyone here is a waste of space and resources is a bit mean spiriterd an misplaced.
As for 'breeding to death,' I think its safe to say that most people on this forums are in a country that's either already in, or close, to negative birth rate. The US and most European countries (And Australia, I believe) populations continue to grow primarily due immigration from other countries. So, really, your message is completely misplaced. We've gotten our breeding problem primarily under control. Hell, the US alone can probably stand to double it's population without to much continued strain to its agricultural or housing capacity (Hell, it could probably help the domestic economy), though we may have some power and transport issues (Which would not be good at all).
The population problem is real, but here's the thing: It's not a problem any of us can fix by cutting our genitalia off. There's exactly one way to fix it - Increase standard of living. There's a strong correlation to technological advancement and increased stand of living, versus population growth.
So, really, if your so concerned about the issue you feel the need to spew bile on everyone here, than maybe YOU should get up and accomplish something by going to a third world country and bringing them up to speed. It's certainly more helpful than taking a piss on a theoretical, essentially impossible morality question.
I did not call for anyone's deaths. I did not call for anyone's junk to be removed. I just called for a little rational decision making when the question of breeding comes up. Why do we have to fill the planet to capacity with our race? It's not like we will lose our mastery of earth just because we didn't fill it up with more of us. Sure we could create another 7 billion more of us, but why? Why do we want to push all the earths available resources to the absolute limit? Eventually we will reach a tipping point and this notion of breeding as a right, will have to be addressed since it is obvious that we can't be trusted with it. We just have so little restraint on the matter.
Standards of living have gone up. So has the earths population. We still have people alive and running around from back when we had half as many people on the planet as we do now. We have doubled in number in the span of a single lifetime. That doesn't sound like a slowdown to me. It doesn't strike me as remotely under control.
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 1950s - 36
Birth rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2007 - 20.09
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2012 - 19.15
Our peak reproduction levels are already way past us, and the effect on economic standards reducing birth rates has been known since at least 1962 (The earliest article I could find on it was written by Robert Weintraub on October 1962. I didn't look further then the first 5 results I got on google).
Granted, these aren't the only factors. Certainly women's liberation and the wide spread acceptance of family planning is also to 'blame.' But these things are also linked, quite closely, to technological and economic gain.
Also, I don't recall insinuating that you wanted to kill people, and the chopping of people's junk wasn't meant to be taken literally.
EDIT: And how, exactly, are you going to moderate people's rights to have children? There's really only two ways to do so - Financially and through social engineering. Neither of those are very popular.
China did financial, and it's affects are, to say the least, contestable. The Chinese claim it helped a ton. Researchers just muse on the gap between male and female births. Numerous countries have tried outright social engineering, and it worked. It worked so well, in fact, that they're now back peddling in an attempt to get people to pop kids out again.
It seems the only programs that have worked without dire consequences are the ones most 'Western' countries have adopted - Contraceptive education and family planning.
Problem with your statistics is that as the life spans have increased a great deal since the 50's, many more of the people in your "per 1000" are past or before parenting age than what was presented in the earlier "per 1000" statistics which skews the statistics a bit. At this point maybe 500 out of that 1000 are even capable of having kids given how many older people we have now combined with children as part of the 1000. Which may in fact indicate that those that can still breed are possibly breeding at the same rate as we were in the 50's or much closer to it, than your simplistic graph pretends.
What cannot be denied is that around 1960, we had just 3 billion people. We now have 7 billion. I didn't have to play with facts to get either of those numbers. Its all right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg
It depends on who has to foot the bill for your informed decision.
If you foot the bill for the child's care entirely from your own immediate family unit then by all means spawn as many disabled children as you want.
If a single cent for their care falls on the taxpayer then what you are doing is immoral.
In fact, with such information I would be willing to offer that individual OPTIONAL government funded sterilization to assist them with not having children. It'll probably save the taxpayer a lot of money in the long-term.
As for the having kids part? It?s not as though the world doesn?t have enough people. Would the kids also pass on this defect?
Having a child of any kind is immoral and selfish. Your genes aren't special. If they were really capable of creating someone special, you would be special. But you aren't. Breeding doesn't alleviate your failures. Instead of trying to pass on the responsibility of contributing something to the world to your child, maybe you should get off your rear and actually accomplish something worthwhile yourself if you're believe your genes are so incredible.
The above statement isn't entirely directed at OP, but at anyone considering having kids. Quit treating your reproductive organs like your at a slot machine in vegas. We have over 7 billion people on this planet already. Most of them contribute little beyond their own requirements if even that. Your crotch isn't likely to actually pay out this next time to make up for the billions we have already invested in human life on this earth. Quit trying to cover up ego and selfishness with thinly veiled attempts at "moral" arguments. There's nothing moral about our species breeding to death and taking most of the life on this planet with us to satisfy our own vanity.
I'm just going to take a poke at this, since anything more will likely devolve into a douchebag contest (Which I'm sure I wont win).
First, social responsibility ('fair share of the load') is a slippery slop. Especially when you start slinging it this close to genetics. So I'm not going to say much on it, beyond the fact that it's not really as important as you seem to think it is. Economic and social factors are far more important then genetics (Short of horrendous genetic flaws, as discussed in this thread).
Second, perhaps you shouldn't be assuming everyone here is a pathetic waste of DNA. I mean, I am (My medical history is a catastrophe), but assuming by default that everyone here is a waste of space and resources is a bit mean spiriterd an misplaced.
As for 'breeding to death,' I think its safe to say that most people on this forums are in a country that's either already in, or close, to negative birth rate. The US and most European countries (And Australia, I believe) populations continue to grow primarily due immigration from other countries. So, really, your message is completely misplaced. We've gotten our breeding problem primarily under control. Hell, the US alone can probably stand to double it's population without to much continued strain to its agricultural or housing capacity (Hell, it could probably help the domestic economy), though we may have some power and transport issues (Which would not be good at all).
The population problem is real, but here's the thing: It's not a problem any of us can fix by cutting our genitalia off. There's exactly one way to fix it - Increase standard of living. There's a strong correlation to technological advancement and increased stand of living, versus population growth.
So, really, if your so concerned about the issue you feel the need to spew bile on everyone here, than maybe YOU should get up and accomplish something by going to a third world country and bringing them up to speed. It's certainly more helpful than taking a piss on a theoretical, essentially impossible morality question.
I did not call for anyone's deaths. I did not call for anyone's junk to be removed. I just called for a little rational decision making when the question of breeding comes up. Why do we have to fill the planet to capacity with our race? It's not like we will lose our mastery of earth just because we didn't fill it up with more of us. Sure we could create another 7 billion more of us, but why? Why do we want to push all the earths available resources to the absolute limit? Eventually we will reach a tipping point and this notion of breeding as a right, will have to be addressed since it is obvious that we can't be trusted with it. We just have so little restraint on the matter.
Standards of living have gone up. So has the earths population. We still have people alive and running around from back when we had half as many people on the planet as we do now. We have doubled in number in the span of a single lifetime. That doesn't sound like a slowdown to me. It doesn't strike me as remotely under control.
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 1950s - 36
Birth rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2007 - 20.09
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2012 - 19.15
Our peak reproduction levels are already way past us, and the effect on economic standards reducing birth rates has been known since at least 1962 (The earliest article I could find on it was written by Robert Weintraub on October 1962. I didn't look further then the first 5 results I got on google).
Granted, these aren't the only factors. Certainly women's liberation and the wide spread acceptance of family planning is also to 'blame.' But these things are also linked, quite closely, to technological and economic gain.
Also, I don't recall insinuating that you wanted to kill people, and the chopping of people's junk wasn't meant to be taken literally.
EDIT: And how, exactly, are you going to moderate people's rights to have children? There's really only two ways to do so - Financially and through social engineering. Neither of those are very popular.
China did financial, and it's affects are, to say the least, contestable. The Chinese claim it helped a ton. Researchers just muse on the gap between male and female births. Numerous countries have tried outright social engineering, and it worked. It worked so well, in fact, that they're now back peddling in an attempt to get people to pop kids out again.
It seems the only programs that have worked without dire consequences are the ones most 'Western' countries have adopted - Contraceptive education and family planning.
Problem with your statistics is that as the life spans have increased a great deal since the 50's, many more of the people in your "per 1000" are past or before parenting age than what was presented in the earlier "per 1000" statistics which skews the statistics a bit. At this point maybe 500 out of that 1000 are even capable of having kids given how many older people we have now combined with children as part of the 1000. Which may in fact indicate that those that can still breed are possibly breeding at the same rate as we were in the 50's or much closer to it, than your simplistic graph pretends.
What cannot be denied is that around 1960, we had just 3 billion people. We now have 7 billion. I didn't have to play with facts to get either of those numbers. Its all right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg
I like how your taking an estimate(1 out of 3) which supports your position as evidence. That's reaching. One of the estimates shows that i'm correct. But i would not insult anyone's intelligence by trying to pass that off as evidence of my point. The only thing the 3 estimates from the UN shows, is that they have no idea. Let's stick to actual verifiable facts, shall we?
Having a child of any kind is immoral and selfish. Your genes aren't special. If they were really capable of creating someone special, you would be special. But you aren't. Breeding doesn't alleviate your failures. Instead of trying to pass on the responsibility of contributing something to the world to your child, maybe you should get off your rear and actually accomplish something worthwhile yourself if you're believe your genes are so incredible.
The above statement isn't entirely directed at OP, but at anyone considering having kids. Quit treating your reproductive organs like your at a slot machine in vegas. We have over 7 billion people on this planet already. Most of them contribute little beyond their own requirements if even that. Your crotch isn't likely to actually pay out this next time to make up for the billions we have already invested in human life on this earth. Quit trying to cover up ego and selfishness with thinly veiled attempts at "moral" arguments. There's nothing moral about our species breeding to death and taking most of the life on this planet with us to satisfy our own vanity.
I'm just going to take a poke at this, since anything more will likely devolve into a douchebag contest (Which I'm sure I wont win).
First, social responsibility ('fair share of the load') is a slippery slop. Especially when you start slinging it this close to genetics. So I'm not going to say much on it, beyond the fact that it's not really as important as you seem to think it is. Economic and social factors are far more important then genetics (Short of horrendous genetic flaws, as discussed in this thread).
Second, perhaps you shouldn't be assuming everyone here is a pathetic waste of DNA. I mean, I am (My medical history is a catastrophe), but assuming by default that everyone here is a waste of space and resources is a bit mean spiriterd an misplaced.
As for 'breeding to death,' I think its safe to say that most people on this forums are in a country that's either already in, or close, to negative birth rate. The US and most European countries (And Australia, I believe) populations continue to grow primarily due immigration from other countries. So, really, your message is completely misplaced. We've gotten our breeding problem primarily under control. Hell, the US alone can probably stand to double it's population without to much continued strain to its agricultural or housing capacity (Hell, it could probably help the domestic economy), though we may have some power and transport issues (Which would not be good at all).
The population problem is real, but here's the thing: It's not a problem any of us can fix by cutting our genitalia off. There's exactly one way to fix it - Increase standard of living. There's a strong correlation to technological advancement and increased stand of living, versus population growth.
So, really, if your so concerned about the issue you feel the need to spew bile on everyone here, than maybe YOU should get up and accomplish something by going to a third world country and bringing them up to speed. It's certainly more helpful than taking a piss on a theoretical, essentially impossible morality question.
I did not call for anyone's deaths. I did not call for anyone's junk to be removed. I just called for a little rational decision making when the question of breeding comes up. Why do we have to fill the planet to capacity with our race? It's not like we will lose our mastery of earth just because we didn't fill it up with more of us. Sure we could create another 7 billion more of us, but why? Why do we want to push all the earths available resources to the absolute limit? Eventually we will reach a tipping point and this notion of breeding as a right, will have to be addressed since it is obvious that we can't be trusted with it. We just have so little restraint on the matter.
Standards of living have gone up. So has the earths population. We still have people alive and running around from back when we had half as many people on the planet as we do now. We have doubled in number in the span of a single lifetime. That doesn't sound like a slowdown to me. It doesn't strike me as remotely under control.
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 1950s - 36
Birth rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2007 - 20.09
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2012 - 19.15
Our peak reproduction levels are already way past us, and the effect on economic standards reducing birth rates has been known since at least 1962 (The earliest article I could find on it was written by Robert Weintraub on October 1962. I didn't look further then the first 5 results I got on google).
Granted, these aren't the only factors. Certainly women's liberation and the wide spread acceptance of family planning is also to 'blame.' But these things are also linked, quite closely, to technological and economic gain.
Also, I don't recall insinuating that you wanted to kill people, and the chopping of people's junk wasn't meant to be taken literally.
EDIT: And how, exactly, are you going to moderate people's rights to have children? There's really only two ways to do so - Financially and through social engineering. Neither of those are very popular.
China did financial, and it's affects are, to say the least, contestable. The Chinese claim it helped a ton. Researchers just muse on the gap between male and female births. Numerous countries have tried outright social engineering, and it worked. It worked so well, in fact, that they're now back peddling in an attempt to get people to pop kids out again.
It seems the only programs that have worked without dire consequences are the ones most 'Western' countries have adopted - Contraceptive education and family planning.
Problem with your statistics is that as the life spans have increased a great deal since the 50's, many more of the people in your "per 1000" are past or before parenting age than what was presented in the earlier "per 1000" statistics which skews the statistics a bit. At this point maybe 500 out of that 1000 are even capable of having kids given how many older people we have now combined with children as part of the 1000. Which may in fact indicate that those that can still breed are possibly breeding at the same rate as we were in the 50's or much closer to it, than your simplistic graph pretends.
What cannot be denied is that around 1960, we had just 3 billion people. We now have 7 billion. I didn't have to play with facts to get either of those numbers. Its all right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg
I like how your taking an estimate(1 out of 3) which supports your position as evidence. That's reaching. One of the estimates shows that i'm correct. But i would not insult anyone's intelligence by trying to pass that off as evidence of my point. The only thing the 3 estimates from the UN shows, is that they have no idea. Let's stick to actual verifiable facts, shall we?
I did. Birth rates have dropped dramatically. Rude assertions that we should all not produce because we haven't earned it and because we're strangling the planet more and more are demonstrably false.
Also, at least 2 of their estimates are in favor of lowered overall population, particularly since average life expectancy has begun to level out (In modernized countries).
I also just checked the actual study done by the UN. The medium is them actually doing a realistic prediction. The high and low are them just adding or subtracting .5 kids.
It also states, like I did originally, that the population of developed countries (1st world in the non-PC), will remain mostly unchanged after the next 100 years, while undeveloped countries will experience massive increases in population that will account for almost all the growth.
Having a child of any kind is immoral and selfish. Your genes aren't special. If they were really capable of creating someone special, you would be special. But you aren't. Breeding doesn't alleviate your failures. Instead of trying to pass on the responsibility of contributing something to the world to your child, maybe you should get off your rear and actually accomplish something worthwhile yourself if you're believe your genes are so incredible.
The above statement isn't entirely directed at OP, but at anyone considering having kids. Quit treating your reproductive organs like your at a slot machine in vegas. We have over 7 billion people on this planet already. Most of them contribute little beyond their own requirements if even that. Your crotch isn't likely to actually pay out this next time to make up for the billions we have already invested in human life on this earth. Quit trying to cover up ego and selfishness with thinly veiled attempts at "moral" arguments. There's nothing moral about our species breeding to death and taking most of the life on this planet with us to satisfy our own vanity.
I'm just going to take a poke at this, since anything more will likely devolve into a douchebag contest (Which I'm sure I wont win).
First, social responsibility ('fair share of the load') is a slippery slop. Especially when you start slinging it this close to genetics. So I'm not going to say much on it, beyond the fact that it's not really as important as you seem to think it is. Economic and social factors are far more important then genetics (Short of horrendous genetic flaws, as discussed in this thread).
Second, perhaps you shouldn't be assuming everyone here is a pathetic waste of DNA. I mean, I am (My medical history is a catastrophe), but assuming by default that everyone here is a waste of space and resources is a bit mean spiriterd an misplaced.
As for 'breeding to death,' I think its safe to say that most people on this forums are in a country that's either already in, or close, to negative birth rate. The US and most European countries (And Australia, I believe) populations continue to grow primarily due immigration from other countries. So, really, your message is completely misplaced. We've gotten our breeding problem primarily under control. Hell, the US alone can probably stand to double it's population without to much continued strain to its agricultural or housing capacity (Hell, it could probably help the domestic economy), though we may have some power and transport issues (Which would not be good at all).
The population problem is real, but here's the thing: It's not a problem any of us can fix by cutting our genitalia off. There's exactly one way to fix it - Increase standard of living. There's a strong correlation to technological advancement and increased stand of living, versus population growth.
So, really, if your so concerned about the issue you feel the need to spew bile on everyone here, than maybe YOU should get up and accomplish something by going to a third world country and bringing them up to speed. It's certainly more helpful than taking a piss on a theoretical, essentially impossible morality question.
I did not call for anyone's deaths. I did not call for anyone's junk to be removed. I just called for a little rational decision making when the question of breeding comes up. Why do we have to fill the planet to capacity with our race? It's not like we will lose our mastery of earth just because we didn't fill it up with more of us. Sure we could create another 7 billion more of us, but why? Why do we want to push all the earths available resources to the absolute limit? Eventually we will reach a tipping point and this notion of breeding as a right, will have to be addressed since it is obvious that we can't be trusted with it. We just have so little restraint on the matter.
Standards of living have gone up. So has the earths population. We still have people alive and running around from back when we had half as many people on the planet as we do now. We have doubled in number in the span of a single lifetime. That doesn't sound like a slowdown to me. It doesn't strike me as remotely under control.
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 1950s - 36
Birth rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2007 - 20.09
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2012 - 19.15
Our peak reproduction levels are already way past us, and the effect on economic standards reducing birth rates has been known since at least 1962 (The earliest article I could find on it was written by Robert Weintraub on October 1962. I didn't look further then the first 5 results I got on google).
Granted, these aren't the only factors. Certainly women's liberation and the wide spread acceptance of family planning is also to 'blame.' But these things are also linked, quite closely, to technological and economic gain.
Also, I don't recall insinuating that you wanted to kill people, and the chopping of people's junk wasn't meant to be taken literally.
EDIT: And how, exactly, are you going to moderate people's rights to have children? There's really only two ways to do so - Financially and through social engineering. Neither of those are very popular.
China did financial, and it's affects are, to say the least, contestable. The Chinese claim it helped a ton. Researchers just muse on the gap between male and female births. Numerous countries have tried outright social engineering, and it worked. It worked so well, in fact, that they're now back peddling in an attempt to get people to pop kids out again.
It seems the only programs that have worked without dire consequences are the ones most 'Western' countries have adopted - Contraceptive education and family planning.
Problem with your statistics is that as the life spans have increased a great deal since the 50's, many more of the people in your "per 1000" are past or before parenting age than what was presented in the earlier "per 1000" statistics which skews the statistics a bit. At this point maybe 500 out of that 1000 are even capable of having kids given how many older people we have now combined with children as part of the 1000. Which may in fact indicate that those that can still breed are possibly breeding at the same rate as we were in the 50's or much closer to it, than your simplistic graph pretends.
What cannot be denied is that around 1960, we had just 3 billion people. We now have 7 billion. I didn't have to play with facts to get either of those numbers. Its all right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg
I like how your taking an estimate(1 out of 3) which supports your position as evidence. That's reaching. One of the estimates shows that i'm correct. But i would not insult anyone's intelligence by trying to pass that off as evidence of my point. The only thing the 3 estimates from the UN shows, is that they have no idea. Let's stick to actual verifiable facts, shall we?
I did. Birth rates have dropped dramatically. Rude assertions that we should all not produce because we haven't earned it and because we're strangling the planet more and more are demonstrably false.
Also, at least 2 of their estimates are in favor of lowered overall population, particularly since average life expectancy has begun to level out (In modernized countries).
I also just checked the actual study done by the UN. The medium is them actually doing a realistic prediction. The high and low are them just adding or subtracting .5 kids.
It also states, like I did originally, that the population of developed countries (1st world in the non-PC), will remain mostly unchanged after the next 100 years, while undeveloped countries will experience massive increases in population that will account for almost all the growth.
The only relevant aspect of that chart is the black/blue line. The rest is speculation and irrelevant. That black/blue line has shown no indication of supporting any of your claims. It doesn't matter if populations are dropping here or there. Its a worldwide problem. What good comes from adding more people that could possibly justify the problems that more people bring?
I have often wondered about this sort of thing. If you and your partner both have extreme genetic conditions, or severe issues that would almost certainly be passed on to your children... Is it fair to have children, knowing they will suffer so?
My opinions shift one way or the other quite a bit, but right now, I can't quiet understand a justification for knowingly giving a child severe problems that will hinder them for the rest of their life. To me, it does seem selfish. I know there's attachment to the idea of offspring derived directly from your bloodline; actually experiencing pregnancy, the birth.. But there are so many children out there already in need of love.
I guess that's part of where I stand on it... To me it seems extremely selfish to knowingly give a child a life of extreme suffering. Is it morally wrong to have the child? It's your conscience. If the idea of having a child come from your own sweat and blood is of higher priority than the quality of life you and the child will have, then I'd say it definitely has a morally foul taste. This of course is not even going into how difficult raising a child in that state would be. 24 hour care for someone living with a mental state of an infant or young child for 40 years... There are far better people than me out there, but I can't imagine the grief and struggle it would be to maintain your sanity - your happiness - when you're caring for someone who strains you day in and day out with no light at the end of the tunnel. (This of course is all assuming a very, very extreme case.)
Honestly? I'd have to say hell no. No need to bring a new person into the world just for a nearly guaranteed life of suffering. If I was in that situation, I'd adopt kids.
I wouldnt have a child in that case, and I also think that it is unfair for coiety to have to provide families like that with funds and medical care and such.
If you know that that is a possibility and you choose to go ahead with having a child, the all the monetary responsibility should lie in the parent, not the government.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
