Other answers to this question:
 |
|
 | |
|
|
Re: Is having children a selfish act?
no definately not having children is a natural process .
i think we need to look at the unnatural processes that have contributed to the destruction of our planet .
our desires certainly have caused the destruction but not the desire to have children. that is why we can only have children during "child bearing years" that is why us females have "milk" in our boosoms. what is selfish is our desire to make ourselves lazy. we must own a car we must have heating air con. we must throw out good quality clothes we must throw out good food we must have the latest furniture we must have the latest technology we must have money we must trick others so we can have more money we must pollute the air. we must fulfil our desires and be promiscious and the list goes on.
there is a natural process in life. yes we are more fortunate to have luxuries than our forefathers that have become a necessity like a roof over our heads instead of living in caves to protect ourselves from the elements of the climate. but we have gone beyond that we walk around in the middle of winter with sleeveless tops because we have the heating going. not just domestic but industrial
notice not once have i mentioned children. because i dont believe they are the cause nor do i believe they largely contribute to the destructon of the earth.
its not babies that are to blame for throw away nappies. we adult humans created and demanded to have these for our convenience
hiv really doesnt have anything to do with having babies. thats more our promiscious lifestyle and our alternative choices
annie
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
| |  |
|
 | |
|
|
Re: Is having children a selfish act?
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
| |  |
|
 | |
|
|
Re: Is having children a selfish act?
Having children is selfish and inconsiderate. Climate change will drastically increase in the next few decades, scientists don't believe that we will survive the next 100 years if we continue to rely on fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil), cause massive deforestation and domesticate ruminants for food and clothing (the methane that these non-human animals produce is responsible for around 18% of all green house gas emissions, not to mention the amount of arable land and water needed to grow crops just to fatten them up). We would need 3 more Earths to sustain us if we did, it would be even worse if everyone in the world lived like people in developed countries do. This is an issue that I've read alot about and I cannot do it justice in only a few paragraphs, the next few decades will be like something out of a science fiction novel, floods, drought, increased disease etc. We have 10 years to make a serious difference and even if we were wiped off the face of the planet today, the gge's that we're already responsible for will negatively impact the eco-system for another 1000 years. Considering that the average American child has a carbon footprint of 9441 tonnes, yes, it's extremely selfish to bring more children into an already overpopulated world..
Therefore, without us, while the planet may eventually be a cleaner place, it will lack meaning
The Earth will always have 'meaning' for other sentient animals. Everything that distinguishes us from other animals (music, art, symbolic communication etc.) is only relevant or impressive to us. All sentient beings value their lives, we all want to avoid suffering and to experience pleasure or happiness and we are all basically the same in this respect. I'm not necessarily for full-blown human extinction but we should definitely avoid reproducing for the next 30-35 years. After that, it should be 'one or none', until we can lower our population to less than one billion. We're morally obligated to improve the quality of life for existing humans, not to create more humans. Why create more children considering how many already existing orphans need good homes? Another thing I'd like to refute is the idea that we are programmed to reproduce or that doing so is morally acceptable just because it's "natural". As material beings, everything we do is "natural", including rape, homicide, war etc., the 'appeal to nature' argument is a fallacy and overly selective, considering that everyone who's posted in this forum most likely lives in an artificially heated or air conditioned home, owns a computer, buys their food instead of hunting-gathering it etc. Secondly, we are 'programmed' to want sex, not to want to procreate, procreation is just a consequence of sex. We learn that we are 'supposed' to have children who will pass on our genes, carry on the family name etc. We have an innate desire to be altruitic and nurturing but we tend to reserve it for ingroup members, we learn that biological offspring are 'in-group' in a way that non-genetic offspring cannot be but you wouldn't instinctually know who was genetically related to you if you didn't acquire that information at some point in your life. I don't expect most people to take my argument seriously but it's a shame because we could tackle both climate change and poverty if people could put their selfish, culturally conditioned desire to reproduce aside and look at the big picture.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|  |