ScoobysM8
quite right, it can be construed as selfish either way. At the end of the day I think we (people, STW forumites and the troll family) forget we are all still just animals living in a eco system. Ok we may be a bit difference in that we have some awareness and understanding of what we are but on the flip side we as a species have basically the rights to exist and thrive as any other plant or animal. It's not right or wrong, just is. Are the grey squirrels being selfish whilst expanding their poplation at the expense of the reds?
"Many people who choose not to have kids are being self-indulgent"
What bollocks. What utter numbskulled bollocks.
For not having children to be "self indulgent", procreation would need to be a duty, a duty neglected by those who have chosen otherwise.
As far as I know, there is no reason anyone should feel obliged to breed. It's not as though the world is suffering from a falling population making a comfortable and sustainable way of life impossible.
Therefore, it's hardly "self indulgent".
Can't be arsed to read all this but can we not just have a 3rd world war and kill huge amounts of people thus freeing up farmland.
procreation would need to be a duty, a duty neglected by those who have chosen otherwise.
not a duty no, but essential for the advancement of the species. It is innate in all of us (sex drive).
The most successful in various species are the ones that effectively procreate. The difference in humans is that we can create reasons such as choosing against or political reasons to justify why we are unsuccessful within society 😉
For not having children to be "self indulgent", procreation would need to be a duty, a duty neglected by those who have chosen otherwise.
Not sure I follow your logic Sodafaris. I don't see that self-indulgence and dereliction of duty are the same thing at all.
We have 1 child and don't wish to have anymore, what does that make us?
As far as I know, there is no reason anyone should feel obliged to breed. It's not as though the world is suffering from a falling population making a comfortable and sustainable way of life impossible.
For comfortable read self-indulgent Western lifestyle.
And if your not having kids, why does it need to be sustainable?
"The most successful in various species are the ones that effectively procreate. The difference in humans is that we can create reasons such as choosing against or political reasons to justify why we are unsuccessful within society"
A difference between humans and other species is that many of us can predict the long term consequences of our actions, and attempt to act accordingly to reduce or negate them.
And there is also a tendency amongst the less evolved of our species to react negatively to suggestions contrary to their belief systems and attempt to utilise what they consider to be insults to avoid engaging in discussion with their evolutionary superiors, especially when it comes to their utterly selfish and shortsighted overbreeding activities.
What bollocks. What utter numbskulled bollocks.
And there is also a tendency amongst the less evolved of our species to react negatively to suggestions contrary to their belief systems and attempt to utilise what they consider to be insults to avoid engaging in discussion with their evolutionary superior
Couldn't agree more 🙄
OOOhh, lots of pent up anger, and resentment there! Touched a nerve?
It will come down to survival of the fittest, whats the matter? Not confident you can hack it?!
And there is also a tendency amongst the less evolved of our species
pardon me, but surely we're all equally evolved for good or ill? One might convincingly argue that the less effective we are as people the more beneficial we are to the ecosystem as a whole, but of course evolution is the outcome of the selfish gene... but it is only in hindsight that the future course of our development, and which of us is closer to that can be known
"And if your not having kids, why does it need to be sustainable?"
Strangely enough, some people care for other people.
Who said I wasn't breeding though? I can't see anything "wrong" with having one child, or two as an ideal. Global overpopulation is the problem. Stabilising and ideally reducing global population by increasing education and "ironically", life expectancy in the third world, would be what any intelligent animal would do if that intelligent animal were human and concerned with the long term continuation of the species.
"but it is only in hindsight that the future course of our development, and which of us is closer to that can be known"
I'm afraid I disagree in this instance. Considering that we are aware of the concept and likely consequence of global overpopulation, surely those that recognise this and act accordingly, including attempts to educate the less aware members of our global mountain biking community as to the probable end result, are exemplars of the species in that they are carrying the impulse that may provide the human species with a chance to be around in a couple of hundred years time.
including attempts to educate the less aware members of our global mountain biking community as to the probable end result, are exemplars of the species
too abstract - evolution is entirely pragmatic - and individuals are mere grist to its wheel - what comes after might be a sea creature (quite likely one feels) or a beast of burden for a hyperevolved rat...
Considering that we are aware of the concept and likely consequence of global overpopulation
Yes, but the species will adapt and evolve to cope with the changing environment. What concerns me is the advocating of 'going against' and repressing natural urges and innate behaviour. The resultant outcome is deviancy.
"What concerns me is the advocating of 'going against' and repressing natural urges and innate behaviour. "
There's nothing "deviant" about having one or two children.
Anyway, I repress plenty of natural urges every day, don't you?
What concerns me is the advocating of 'going against' and repressing natural urges and innate behaviour. The resultant outcome is deviancy.
absolutely. That's why you should mate with as many females as possible, whether they like it or not; fight aggressively with any males of breeding age in your territory and kill any babies that were not sired by you.
After all, that is natural innate behaviour and it would be deviant to do otherwise. 🙄
I'm quite surprised at the fuss this thread has caused: my wife is pregnant with our first and I fully realise that we're being environmentally selfish by opting to have ANY children. Not sure why this is so painfully upsetting to some.
You miss my point. Think Priests etc.
Yes in civilized society, but on an animalistic level it is a natural innate drive to procreate. You can't beat nature!Anyway, I repress plenty of natural urges every day, don't you?
"too abstract - evolution is entirely pragmatic"
Evolution favours that which continues the species possibility of continuation. In our case it's knowledge and the ability to reject communal assumptions. We are a complicated beast and the means of our long term survival will probably not resemble evolution as we have observed it, at least from our perspective.
That's why if you should mate with as many people as possible, whether they like it or not; fight aggressively with any males of breeding age in your territory and kill any babies that were not sired by you.After all, that is natural innate behaviour and it would be deviant to do otherwise
Extremely disingenuous. Deviancy is a direct result of repression.
Yes, but the species will adapt and evolve to cope with the changing environment.
why is our species blessed with this magically quick evolution when so many other species have already been made extinct by changes in their environment?
Extremely disingenuous. Deviancy is a direct result of repression.
how so?
What we call rape and infanticide is very common in other animals. So are they just repressed?
Depends whether you believe that the change in environment will be so quick and catastrophic as to wipe out the entire human race [i]a la [/i]the dinosaurs. If not procreation will enable the continuation of the species even if many don't survive.
and the means of our long term survival will probably not resemble evolution as we have observed it, at least from our perspective.
good point, but in that case calling on evolutionary theory becomes spurious and tends to eugenics 🙁
Society determines deviancy.
It just seems that you are deliberately misinterpreting my posts and taking them to ridiculous extremes.
"You miss my point. Think Priests etc."
Ok, so those of us that repress our natural urges, and only have none, one or maybe two children are PAEDOPHILES!
"Anyway, I repress plenty of natural urges every day, don't you?
Yes in civilized society"
And where do you live then?
"You can't beat nature!"
Yes you can, if not most of us would be dead by 40.
You're wrong mate. Apologise and I'll forget it.
BTW, The reason I can't "quote" properly is that due to my banning a few weeks ago I use a system to circumvent that terrible decision that for some reason limits my means of expression.
I can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread in detail, but Ton/Teagirl: the problem is we've outgrown our niche. Every species has one - or place, if not niche, and there's a balance between them and other species. In the case of mankind we're actually *too* good at exploiting our environment, at the cost to both that environment and its other inhabitants.
>Global overpopulation is the problem
Partly, not completely. Bear in mind the minority of the world's population (ie the developed world) use by far the majority of the worlds resources.
BTW, The reason I can't "quote" properly is that due to my banning a few weeks ago I use a system to circumvent that terrible decision that for some reason limits my means of expression.
ouija board ?? It does however make it very hard to work out which bits are you 🙁
I most certainly will not apologise.
I am basing my arguments on well established theory.
And ability to intellectually engage in debate obviously.limits my means of expression
Ok, so those of us that repress our natural urges, and only have none, one or maybe two children are PAEDOPHILES!
What?
people change when they have offspring and it certainly isn't for the better, they become even more blinkered, self centered and ignorant of the world around them.
they think their children are wonderful but the reality is they are often little shites.
Depends whether you believe that the change in environment will be so quick and catastrophic as to wipe out the entire human race a la the dinosaurs.
Not really. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct.
Look around the world and you will species that are on the verge of extinction due to changes in their environments.
Over population is one common cause
It seems somewhat unlikely that the human species will fair better.
Society determines deviancy.
It just seems that you are deliberately misinterpreting my posts and taking them to ridiculous extremes.
well if society determines deviancy and a large part of that society believe in limiting population then how is that deviant?
And are repressed societys, like say the Victorian era Britain (blush at an uncovered ladies ankle), more deviant than less repressed ones, like say the Romans (regularly bugger young boys, kill people for amusement, have sex with animals)??
people change when they have offspring and it certainly isn't for the better, they become even more blinkered, self centered and ignorant of the world around them.
a gross generalisation - it can happen but need not
they think their children are wonderful but the reality is they are often little shites.
the kind of people who dislike their children tend to die out...
well if society determines deviancy and a large part of that society believe in limiting population then how is that deviant?
What large part of society? Are they a majority? Majority rules in a democratic society.
Deviancy is a subjective concept depending on the norms of the time.
Although it wasn't deviance that I was bringing to the debate, I was merely using it as an example of behaviour that results from repression of innate natural needs (in this case procreation).
@jackson pollock
"am basing my arguments on well established theory."
What theory? You did suggest that only having one or two children was repressing your urges, and that would lead to consequences similar to that of "priests"? I can only assume that you meant PEADOPHILIA!
I suppose if you meant something else you will let us know.
the kind of people who dislike their children tend to die out...
and the little shites prosper.
What theory?
You did suggest that only having one or two children was repressing your urges[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism ]Behaviourist Theroy[/url]
Where?
"the kind of people who dislike their children tend to die out... "
?
Everybody, and their children die in the end. And their children's children. It's horrible. It doesn't matter if the parents like the children or not.
What large part of society? Are they a majority? Majority rules in a democratic society.
So if you don't agree with the majority then you are "deviant"??
That's a pretty broad definition of deviancy and democracy!
"You did suggest that only having one or two children was repressing your urges
Where? "
Do you remember your post suggesting that repressing what you call natural urges would lead to priestly behaviour?
That one.
[b]"the kind of people who dislike their children tend to die out... "[/b]
Everybody, and their children die in the end. And their children's children. It's horrible. It doesn't matter if the parents like the children or not.
I mean it's not a genotypic survival trait, so parents are highly selected to favour their children
But why is death horrible beyond its immediate actuality - would you prefer everyone to hang around forever? Were it not for death and aging decrepitude, the accumulation of experience and ruthlessness would give the old unlimited wealth and power over the rest of us. The thought of death doesn't bother me apart from its temporary inconvenience.
This is going way off beam! Deviancy is contrary to social norms. Social norms are decided by the majority. It follows therefore that deviancy is against the norms of the majority. Deviancy is not necessarily 'bad' or crime merely a 'deviation' from social norms.
Not really relevant to the thread though, probably a little abstract on my behalf. 🙂
"But why is death horrible beyond its immediate actuality - would you prefer everyone to hang around forever?"
Sorry Simon, I was being sarcastic. The thought of death doesn't bother me either, apart from the pain felt by the multitudes when I move on.
Do you remember your post suggesting that repressing what you call natural urges would lead to priestly behaviour?
Generally as a species. It is you that has applied it to yourself. I've made no mention of amount of children. My point was reaction to some people on here who say that we shouldn't be allowed to 'breed' in order to save the world, as they see it.
Deviancy is not necessarily 'bad' or crime merely a 'deviation' from social norms
ahh but see you're changing tact now and going for the very broad definition of "deviancy" just being something outside the norm, but you suggested earlier that repressing "the need to procreate" [u]caused[/u] deviancy, which is quite a different statement from simply saying that not procreating means you are in a minority.
Night all, don't think Im gonna be successful in the procreation stakes tonight. Repression won't wash with her neither! 😆
