At the Seattle-based environmental webzine Grist, writer John Kurmann worries that if he fathers a child, the earth will suffer.
...here's the rub: I'm...striving to progressively reduce my destructive impact on the world, walking a path to reach sustainability. Yet I live in a world of almost 6.5 billion people, up from 3.3 billion when I was born and projected to be a smidge over 9 billion when I'm 80....I can't imagine how anyone looking at numbers like those could conceive with no qualms. Growth -- in both population and consumption -- is tearing the web of life apart, and I'm convinced we need to not only stop growing but start scaling back. Given that, how in heck could I possibly justify having a baby?....I resent being born into a culture that's so destructive to the living community that I can see no better alternative, and I'm angry at all those who came before me and let it get to this point. And I'm not going to pretend that forgoing daddyhood doesn't leave a ragged gash in my heart, because it damn sure does.
I feel your angst, John. But I think you need to take it all a step further. Cease consumption of any products that are produced or delivered using fossil fuels (you don't really know how your seitan gets to market, do you?) Then, join The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement to spread the good word.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at December 21, 2005 03:18 PM | Email ThisMaybe we should encourage these guys not to reproduce to ensure a brighter future. Any future without them is certainly bright for me and my 4 children!
All you people who believe in humanity, that this green earth is meant to be enjoyed and used for the benefit of man, and that any economic problem can be solved by the people alive at that time, go ahead and freely reproduce. You probably believe in God's commandmant to man to "be fruitful and multiply" and can't seem to find the passage of scripture that says, "okay, cut it out now. There's just too many of you now."
Some fallacies need to be corrected. We are NOT running out of space. While it might be easy to think that stuck in the middle of a dense urban area like Seattle, get on a plane and look at "flyover" country. If I remember correctly, I think about 5% of the US land mass is inhabited with more than a few people per square mile. Next, the earth's environment is NOT "fragile". Man's impact on the environment is almost negligible, and the earth's natural buffer systems are more than adequate to maintain a stable environment.
Posted by: PaleoCon on December 21, 2005 03:47 PMThen along came Cyrus McCormick and his reaper and all of a sudden a farmer could handle more then a few acres of crop. Problem solved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaper
Yes, by ridding itself of the disruption. Don't think that earth's systems for sustainability of life means that it will sustain us.
2) And PaleoCon said, "Man's impact on the environment is almost negligible", and it was, and it was good. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Give us some evidence.
3) "We are NOT running out of space."
Again, how do you figure? Our population is increasing at an increasing rate and the earth's surface area is relatively constant. Last time I checked that fits the definition of running out of space. The appropriate question to be asked is when will it become an problem (likely not before we run out of food/water/shelter to sustain our population. (See #1)
Finally, think about quality of life and sustainability. Ideally the death rate would be identical to the birth rate. Most agree that we should not be attempting to increase the death rate, therefore we should decrease the birth rate. Also to improve the quality of life of your children, please do not procreate beyond your means. I do not wish to support your failure to be responsible.
If you have a police report saying you were raped, I'm not referring to you. If you were and don't have a police report filed, you're still irresponsible.
Most of those putting their children up for adoption are irresponsible, though more responsible than keeping them by finding a way to give the child a chance at a quality life.
Posted by: Grog on December 21, 2005 05:22 PMAdopting takes yourself out of the gene pool and leaves irresponsible rubbish in it. I know it sounds bad, but it's true.
You couldn't have uttered a more inane and ignorant statement than if you read a John Kerry speech.
Stupid is not genetic. Environment has more to do with it. Idiots aren't born, they are made. My apologies to your parents if I have offended them.
Children born from the "mistakes" of their parents are not "mistakes" themselves nor do they have a predestined future of making mistakes. Being adopted into a family that loves and desires them will result in person as well adjusted as any that were born into that family.
Posted by: Eyago on December 21, 2005 06:51 PMLook at their tax structure and you will find out.
"You couldn't have uttered a more inane and ignorant statement than if you read a John Kerry speech."
lol You are so caught up in partisan bickering that you compare me to Kerry. :) I enjoyed the laugh.
"Stupid is not genetic. Environment has more to do with it. Idiots aren't born, they are made. My apologies to your parents if I have offended them."
Ah, the nature vs. nurture arguement. Sorry to say, but both nature and nurture are relevant. Yes stupid is genetic, they have isolated several genes that have various effects on cognitive ability.
"Children born from the "mistakes" of their parents are not "mistakes" themselves nor do they have a predestined future of making mistakes."
More nature vs. nurture, a child raised by a parent who made a mistake is likely to make the same mistake as they retain much of the same from being nurtured by them. There is also arguement that there is may be a genetic predisposition to making the same said mistake, not to say that they will, but that they are susceptible to it. (And for the ecology folks out there, they are likely to be placed into a similar environment, thus leading to similar mistakes.)
"Being adopted into a family that loves and desires them will result in person as well adjusted as any that were born into that family."
Close, however they will also be affected by their genetic predispositions. Which could change how well adjusted they are either way.
Posted by: Grog on December 21, 2005 09:17 PMHe can always adopt a child!
Gosh, with all the 'pro-lifers' I would of though this would be one of the first comments. Instead you all rant about hoping liberals would all take the idea and Europe?
How pathetic.
Posted by: LEFT is RIGHT on December 22, 2005 07:45 AMLibs already kill their kids by the millions, the deep thinkers now begin to look inward?
The next logical step in this progression is liberal suicide squad’s ala Monte Python taking themselves out for the good of their “Mother”...earth....
God what a confused, unhappy, sounding fellow.
Yet, there is no huge liberal outcry about their reproduction rate. As someone else also pointed out, our population is aging and not reproducing at as fast a pace. We are in for trouble down the road if we continue on this path. We will have other problems than the environment to worry about!
Has John ever studied China? How's that population control policy working out for them?
Posted by: Peggy U on December 22, 2005 10:06 AMlol You are so caught up in partisan bickering that you compare me to Kerry. :) I enjoyed the laugh.
I didn't know I was being partisan. I used the Kerry analogy simply becuase he is well recognized for his inaneness. Had you been more like Limbaugh, I'd have used him as an example. I'm gald you found humor, it was supposed to be funny.
Ah, the nature vs. nurture arguement. Sorry to say, but both nature and nurture are relevant. Yes stupid is genetic, they have isolated several genes that have various effects on cognitive ability.
I think you mistake intelligence, which has a high degree of inheritability, with the "social experience" which one might construe as "wisdom", though neither term captures the true concept of how one's learned patterns of conflict resultion, inter-personal relationships, life problem-solving, attitudes and other such factors impact the decisions they make when confronted with challenges in life. The idea that dysfucntion in families is generational it is largely due to the patterns that are reinforced from the previous generations.
People who make "mistakes" are not necessarily low on the IQ scale, and people low on the IQ scale are not prone to "mistakes", though lack of cognitive abilty does limit one's options and thus might be a factor in how many chances they have to make choices.
Eyago
(Adoptive father of 3 and working toward more.)
