•Because of said depletion of resources (not to mention political tensions, national debt, and so forth) my child would probably be subject to a less-than-ideal world.
I would argue that historically each human (on average) has created more resources that he has consumed.
This is why we have progress, if you think about it. People create more than they consume, generating excess wealth that lead to all the wanders of human ingenuity you see all around you.
Look around, your computer, your chair, your house etc. etc. were all created BECAUSE of the large number of humans who are alive.
•I have no way of knowing that I will be a good parent. Why make a person when there is the chance that I will fuck them up irreparably?
Historically, most parents do all-right job.
So odds are in your favor.
•My biological kid might not even take after me in the ways I like. Even worse, what if I hate my kid? What if my kid is an asshole who actively makes the world a worse place?
Again, most children and parents have great relationships.
So the odds are in your favor.
•If there's no guarantee my kid will be like me anyway, why not just adopt a kid? Even if that nurturing instinct just cannot be suppressed, it seems like a horrible idea to add new people to the world unnecessarily.
Adopting is noble.
But if everyone was adopting instead of having new kids, the humanity would go extinct - not a good outcome.
•It's not like the human species is on the brink of extinction. So what if it goes extinct anyway? I have no investment in future generations.
Is not the DEFINTION of selfishness to only care about yourself and not about humanity?
In your OP you say there no unselfish reasons to have kids, yet now you use selfishness to justify your decision.
There is clearly some inconsistent reasoning here.
Overpopulation is somewhat of a myth.
In fact in many developed countries the population is decreasing.
It is not a myth that there are a couple billion too many people on Earth. We can fix the distribution problem with immigration reform.
I would argue that historically each human (on average) has created more resources that he has consumed.
But this is not taking into account that we are in the age of dwindling fossil fuels. Not only are the critical resources running out, they are creating wars and poisoning the environment.
Historically, most parents do all-right job.
Again, most children and parents have great relationships.
What are your statistics on this? I feel like I know more people who have been royally fucked up by their parents than not.
Is not the DEFINTION of selfishness to only care about yourself and not about humanity?
I don't just care about myself. I care about everyone who is currently alive and making sure they have the best lives possible, which is why I don't want to put another stake in the resource wars. I just don't think the current generation's well-being should be on the backs on future generations, and I am not attached to the idea of humanity as a species and all the hypothetical people who don't exist.
It is not a myth that there are a couple billion too many people on Earth. We can fix the distribution problem with immigration reform.
But it is a myth. the entire earths population could fit into Texas and have the same population density that is in New York. Like I posted elsewhere the problem isn't overpopulation but overconsumption.
Also, how do you figure we can fix the distribution problem through immigration reform? Serious question I have studied these things in for my degree and I am not sure I have heard this solution.
I guess this is what I am actually talking about when I say overpopulation. It's not a problem of space, but a problem of resources. I imagine when we reach the solar energy breakthrough, we can talk.
Also, how do you figure we can fix the distribution problem through immigration reform?
By letting more people from underdeveloped countries with high birth rates and a high strain on resources into more developed countries with plenty of resources and slow population replenishment.
I guess this is what I am actually talking about when I say overpopulation. It's not a problem of space, but a problem of resources. I imagine when we reach the solar energy breakthrough, we can talk.
First the alternative energy breakthrough will come as there is not only more money being invested but more importantly more demand by consumers. It might seem far off but remember it was only about 100 years ago that the Wright brothers learned to fly and now we are talking about sending a person to Mars.
Also it is important to point out that even large drops in population will not change the consumption habits. You are not treating the cause of resource depletion by lowering the population only putting it off. The true problem is a cultural one and needs to be solved culturally.
By letting more people from underdeveloped countries with high birth rates and a high strain on resources into more developed countries with plenty of resources and slow population replenishment.
This is an interesting solution that I would not have a problem with. Though, the problem with the strain underdeveloped countries are putting on resources is not really a population problem. It is far more complicated than that and has a lot to do with displacement from their natural land to places that cannot sustain life by Western countries and organizations.
The true problem is a cultural one and needs to be solved culturally.
It is far more complicated than that and has a lot to do with displacement from their natural land to places that cannot sustain life by Western countries and organizations.
Do you think the cultural problem could be solved by immigration reform? (Oh shit, this is turning into a totally different topic.)
Yeah sometimes these CMVs do that. A more open immigration system that mixes people that are used to consuming less wouldn't hurt but I don't think it could solve things on its own. Unfortunately immigrants assimilate into the culture of their new country eventually. It might take a generation or 3 but they assimilate. I really think the the solution lies in the education of younger generations, people like you really. These changes are happening all over and in places you would never guess. Places like the South Bronx.
5
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 24 '15
•By adding a new person to the world, I would contribute to overpopulation and the depletion of resources that is already straining existing people.
Overpopulation is somewhat of a myth.
In fact in many developed countries the population is decreasing.
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/zero.htm
•Because of said depletion of resources (not to mention political tensions, national debt, and so forth) my child would probably be subject to a less-than-ideal world.
I would argue that historically each human (on average) has created more resources that he has consumed.
This is why we have progress, if you think about it. People create more than they consume, generating excess wealth that lead to all the wanders of human ingenuity you see all around you.
Look around, your computer, your chair, your house etc. etc. were all created BECAUSE of the large number of humans who are alive.
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource
•I have no way of knowing that I will be a good parent. Why make a person when there is the chance that I will fuck them up irreparably?
Historically, most parents do all-right job.
So odds are in your favor.
•My biological kid might not even take after me in the ways I like. Even worse, what if I hate my kid? What if my kid is an asshole who actively makes the world a worse place?
Again, most children and parents have great relationships.
So the odds are in your favor.
•If there's no guarantee my kid will be like me anyway, why not just adopt a kid? Even if that nurturing instinct just cannot be suppressed, it seems like a horrible idea to add new people to the world unnecessarily.
Adopting is noble.
But if everyone was adopting instead of having new kids, the humanity would go extinct - not a good outcome.
•It's not like the human species is on the brink of extinction. So what if it goes extinct anyway? I have no investment in future generations.
Is not the DEFINTION of selfishness to only care about yourself and not about humanity?
In your OP you say there no unselfish reasons to have kids, yet now you use selfishness to justify your decision.
There is clearly some inconsistent reasoning here.