|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Why do you think only the rich can lead fulfilling lives? Or that they necessarily do? according to you, nobody but cuban's can because you're a moron when do you think the first rich fulfilling life was ever lived?
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
self unaware posted:according to you, nobody but cuban's can Whoa there, bud. I wouldn't call anyone a moron when you're going around calling the effects of climate change on the third world a "reversion to the mean". Glass houses and all. Who knows when the first rich, fulfilling life was lived? As far as the last rich, fufilling life starting - well, we're getting closer to a date on that, and it's looking pretty close.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
call to action posted:Whoa there, bud. I wouldn't call anyone a moron when you're going around calling the effects of climate change on the third world a "reversion to the mean". Glass houses and all. who said anything about the third world? I'm talking about humanity as a whole.  call to action posted:Who knows when the first rich, fulfilling life was lived? As far as the last rich, fufilling life starting - well, we're getting closer to a date on that, and it's looking pretty close. what do you think is a requirement for a rich fulfilling life? maybe if you moved away from meaningless buzzwords we could have a conversation
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
self unaware posted:according to you, nobody but cuban's can  If you can't answer the question, "Will my children lead better lives than I have?" in the affirmative you should loving adopt (or abstain entirely, I don't care). It's not a difficult equation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
self unaware posted:who said anything about the third world? I'm talking about humanity as a whole Well, the climate change community has. Literally every single person in this thread is in agreement that the third world will be hit first and hardest by climate change. But Jakarta sinking into the sea is just a rounding error, y'know? Here's my definition of a fulfilling life: one that provides a given individual an honest shot at pursuing what it is that they love.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:If you can't answer the question, "Will my children lead better lives than I have?" in the affirmative you should loving adopt. call to action posted:Here's my definition of a fulfilling life: one that provides a given individual an honest shot at pursuing what it is that they love. Alright well we don't need modern medicine, weapons, technology or any of that to do that. I don't think ya'll really appreciate how well humans adapt. Your great great great great grandkids aren't going to give a gently caress about not having smartphones. Your kid's lives will not end if they can't travel half way across the world for a month's wages. Things could get worse tens of times over and it still wouldn't begin to compare to pre-industrial life. Overpopulation is a non-problem. I mean, OOCC is a loving moron of the highest caliber and even he can figure out that all you need to do is educate women and provide birth control if you want fertility rates to fall below 2. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Yeah I'm more worried about access to food, water, and suitable shelter than whether they can play Far Cry 5. The thing is it's not a zero sum now we're back in pre-Industrial life as you frame it - you can't organize a system, destroy it, and then you're back to where you were before that system. Like, land that can be farmed, access to that land, biospheres that can be harvested, fishable rivers and oceans, access to clean air and water, has changed tremendously for the worse. Not to mention knowledge of utilizing those resources in the first place.
Perry Mason Jar fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Yeah I'm more worried about access to food, water, and suitable shelter than whether they can play Far Cry 5. Again, you're underestimating how well human's adapt. People have lived through conditions of famine, drought, not having shelters, etc. Plenty of them would tell you "yes, life was worth it even though we suffered". Why you have to project your "a life without a plate of dinner each night isn't worth living" privilege into the thread is beyond me. Perry Mason Jar posted:The thing is it's not a zero sum now we're back in pre-Industrial life as you frame it - you can't organize a system, destroy it, and then you're back to where you were before that system. I'm not saying we're returning back to where we are. I'm saying that regardless of how bad the material conditions are individual humans will adapt and live, laugh, love, cry.... at least in the aggregate. Existence is suffering, the material conditions of your existence are not as important as having people to share them with. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
I don't want to bet the future of the planet on 'we'll figure it out, trust me!'
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Again, you're underestimating how well human's adapt. People have lived through conditions of famine, drought, not having shelters, etc. Plenty of them would tell you "yes, life was worth it even though we suffered". Why you have to project your "a life without a plate of dinner each night isn't worth living" privilege into the thread is beyond me. Because it's extremely selfish to roll the dice on a person's suffering or lack thereof when I could just not create a person and try to alleviate the suffering of a life that already exists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I don't want to bet the future of the planet on 'we'll figure it out, trust me!' How does this relate to the current conversation about the morality of having children?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Because it's extremely selfish to roll the dice on a person's suffering or lack thereof when I could just not create a person and try to alleviate the suffering of a life that already exists. Nobody's rolling a dice on suffering. People who think all children will suffer in the future don't have kids, they whine about it endlessly on internet forums in an attempt to feel better about their crippling depression. Suffering is not some kind of great evil that nobody can overcome. Stop being such a gigantic first world baby. Take your meds, project your depression to your therapist, not this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Again, you're underestimating how well human's adapt. People have lived through conditions of famine, drought, not having shelters, etc. Plenty of them would tell you "yes, life was worth it even though we suffered". Why you have to project your "a life without a plate of dinner each night isn't worth living" privilege into the thread is beyond me. A life without a plate of dinner each night loving sucks and you should not subject children to it if you can help it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Wah waahh I want access to potable water and edible food and I want that for other people too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:A life without a plate of dinner each night loving sucks and you should not subject children to it if you can help it. And what if you can't? What if we all can't? Then it's just normal, and yeah, life sucks some times. It doesn't mean it's not worth living or that we should just commit species suicide. Perry Mason Jar posted:Wah waahh I want access to potable water and edible food and I want that for other people too. Then spend time working on the distribution of said resources because that's the reason we have suffering today, not because "we can't make enough" or even because of "climate change".
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Because it's extremely selfish to roll the dice on a person's suffering or lack thereof when I could just not create a person and try to alleviate the suffering of a life that already exists. Adoption is definitely a good thing, I agree. What I don't agree with is casting having children as morally bad because they might grow up in conditions that plenty of others have gone through and are going through right now. It's not like you're personally responsible for their hypothetical suffering in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
reminder to all that self unaware makes six figures and lives in opulent luxury as far away from poor people as he can get
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Then spend time working on the distribution of said resources because that's the reason we have suffering today, not because "we can't make enough". Are you pretending that the oceans aren't dying, droughts aren't happening, crops aren't failing, and animals/plants aren't going rapidly extinct for the sake of this argument or do you genuinely believe that those trends, which about nothing is being done to mitigate, will not reasonably beginning precluding access to food and water for vast, vast swaths of the world population, if not all the world's population? AFancyQuestionMark posted:Adoption is definitely a good thing, I agree. What I don't agree with is casting having children as morally bad because they might grow up in conditions that plenty of others have gone through and are going through right now. It's not like you're personally responsible for their hypothetical suffering in the future. I have enough evidence to suggest that I should expect an undue and unreasonable amount of suffering for future generations so I'd say I definitely am personally responsible for their suffering. It's not the same as having a kid and unexpectedly dying and now they're in the foster system or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:I have enough evidence to suggest that I should expect an undue and unreasonable amount of suffering for future generations so I'd say I definitely am personally responsible for their suffering. It's not the same as having a kid and unexpectedly dying and now they're in the foster system or something like that. What is an undue and unreasonable amount of suffering? More importantly, what is a due and reasonable amount of suffering?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Are you pretending that the oceans aren't dying, droughts aren't happening, crops aren't failing, and animals/plants aren't going rapidly extinct for the sake of this argument or do you genuinely believe that those trends, which about nothing is being done to mitigate, will not reasonably beginning precluding access to food and water for vast, vast swaths of the world population, if not all the world's population? I think access to food and water for vast swathes of the world population has not been guaranteed historically and pretending like you shouldn't have kids if you don't have guaranteed access to <collection of things I feel are required to have a 'fulfilling life'> is first-worlder bullshit. Because plenty of people don't. And telling them they shouldn't have kids because the first world can't stop emitting carbon is heartless, counterproductive and ultimately evil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
self unaware posted:And what if you can't? What if we all can't? Then it's just normal, and yeah, life sucks some times. It doesn't mean it's not worth living or that we should just commit species suicide. Nice strawman, but we're never going to be on a pathway to species suicide as a result of not breeding enough. If you can get to the point where the majority have committed themselves to responsible child rearing looking towards sustainable populations in accordance to the carrying capacity of their environment, then they can also agree to have children when population gets uncomfortably low.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
self unaware posted:I think access to food and water for vast swathes of the world population has not been guaranteed historically and pretending like you shouldn't have kids if you don't have guaranteed access to <collection of things I feel are required to have a 'fulfilling life'> is first-worlder bullshit. Because plenty of people don't. And telling them they shouldn't have kids because the first world can't stop emitting carbon is heartless, counterproductive and ultimately evil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:What is an undue and unreasonable amount of suffering? More importantly, what is a due and reasonable amount of suffering? No or heavily restricted access to food, water, and shelter for the former. Getting sick, not being able to eat every once in a while, having to labor, and stuff like that for the latter. self unaware posted:I think access to food and water for vast swathes of the world population has not been guaranteed historically and pretending like you shouldn't have kids if you don't have guaranteed access to <collection of things I feel are required to have a 'fulfilling life'> is first-worlder bullshit. Because plenty of people don't. And telling them they shouldn't have kids because the first world can't stop emitting carbon is heartless, counterproductive and ultimately evil. I'm not pretending. You shouldn't have kids if you cannot give them a good life. That the definition of a good life is relative should not be mindboggling to you. How is telling someone they shouldn't have kids equal in weight to subjecting an entire life to suffering while simultaneously depriving a different life of whatever suffering you might preclude for that life?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:Saying the string of words "You shouldn't have kids" is evil? Like I can imagine an argument that it is not productive (counterproductive seems out the window, because I doubt anyone hears "You shouldn't have kids" and starts making kids), but how in 2018 are you going to call it evil? Saying "nobody should have kids" isn't evil, it's just stupid. Targeting that statement to the underprivileged or those who can't afford the modernities of life we've come to expect is what I'm talking about. Perry Mason Jar posted:You shouldn't have kids if you cannot give them a good life. That the definition of a good life is relative should not be mindboggling to you. Ok so now we're back to "you shouldn't have kids unless you think they are going to have a good life" which, spoiler alert, nobody does. I'm sorry, but educating women and ensuring access to birth control are the solutions you're looking for. Raking people over the coals for having children is just dumb. It's fundamental to the human experience. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Targeting that statement to the underprivileged or those who can't afford the modernities of life we've come to expect is what I'm talking about. In no way is anyone doing that nor is that in any way what you have been talking about. Mostly you've said that it's fine to have children, knowing that their life will very likely be poo poo, because life has been bad before and also is still bad in some places now. self unaware posted:Ok so now we're back to "you shouldn't have kids unless you think they are going to have a good life" which, spoiler alert, nobody does. Yes, tons of people have good lives? Mine is good. My parents assumed they'd be able to give me a better life than they lead and they were right. Actually the solution I'm looking for is guaranteed to access food, water, and shelter, with some bits thrown in that don't make the entirety of your life solely about securing access to or keeping those things. Perry Mason Jar fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:In no way is anyone doing that nor is that in any way what you have been talking about. Mostly you've said that it's fine to have children, knowing that their life will very likely be poo poo, because life has been bad before and also is still bad in some places now. Nobody has children "knowing that their life will very likely be poo poo". That's just something your broke brain has latched on to in order to justify your lack of ability to secure a mate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
self unaware posted:I think access to food and water for vast swathes of the world population has not been guaranteed historically and pretending like you shouldn't have kids if you don't have guaranteed access to <collection of things I feel are required to have a 'fulfilling life'> is first-worlder bullshit. Because plenty of people don't. And telling them they shouldn't have kids because the first world can't stop emitting carbon is heartless, counterproductive and ultimately evil. Did you see that chart of world population growth that shows the explosion of people in relatively recent history? What do you think will happen to that chart when things degrade to those pre-population explosion living conditions in terms of scarcity of resources?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Did you see that chart of world population growth that shows the explosion of people in relatively recent history? What do you think will happen to that chart when things degrade to those pre-population explosion living conditions in terms of scarcity of resources? Birth rates and death rates skyrocket, probably a massive disease outbreak. Millions, if not billions, dead. Nuclear war. Famine, drought. None of that makes life not worth living or having kids a problem. More importantly, not having kids won't stop it from happening either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Nobody has children "knowing that their life will very likely be poo poo". That's just something your broke brain has latched on to in order to justify your lack of ability to secure a mate. No I'm talking about you specifically. Your argument has been that even if I can be reasonably assured their life will be poo poo that it's fine. I don't begrudge people for their ignorance or blind optimism but I don't condone it either. I also don't understand why you keep attacking people with mental illness for their mental illness or what it has to do with anything but it's loving lovely. self unaware posted:Birth rates and death rates skyrocket, probably a massive disease outbreak. Millions, if not billions, dead. Nuclear war. Famine, drought. What the gently caress??? self unaware posted:More importantly, not having kids won't stop it from happening either. It will stop it from happening to yet another person you loon. Perry Mason Jar fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:No I'm talking about you specifically. Your argument has been that even if I can be reasonably assured their life will be poo poo that it's fine. It isn't, my argument is that anti-natalism is stupid and dumb. Evil when directed at the third world like you're doing with your "unless you are rich enough to provide don't have kids!" Try quoting me instead of building strawmen
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Mostly you've said that it's fine to have children, knowing that their life will very likely be poo poo, because life has been bad before and also is still bad in some places now. You should only have children if you can afford to raise them and take care of them. If that is the case, then at least part of their life will not be poo poo, or at least no more than yours is right now, and probably better, unless someone is taking care of you now. That quality of life may potentially drastically go down in the future isn't your fault, unless you are purposely working toward that goal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Birth rates and death rates skyrocket, probably a massive disease outbreak. Millions, if not billions, dead. Nuclear war. Famine, drought. Well that's certainly a thing you believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
self unaware posted:"unless you are rich enough to provide don't have kids!" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:It will stop it from happening to yet another person you loon. How can you know that for sure? You can't You're just making a bunch of assumptions about human happiness (like that people would rather be dead than alive and 'suffering') and extrapolating your own personal beliefs (without the next assassins creed game I'd rather be dead) on to anyone considering having children in some vain attempt to take the moral high ground. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:You are woefully naive and optimistic about what how society will weather climate change and we will never be able to offer the rest of the world the high standard of living that you or I currently enjoy barring some sort of miracle breakthrough in energy production. If only there was a source of energy production which emitted no carbon, with fuel that can be extracted from seawater, and which was provably the least lethal way to generate energy we have. Oh poo poo we invented it decades ago Too bad it's scary for the average idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:If only there was a source of energy production which emitted no carbon, with fuel that can be extracted from seawater, and which was provably the least lethal way to generate energy we have. Yes but if we used that how can I leverage environmentalism into my totalitarian plans for everyone to live under permanent crushing austerity and end the concept of children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
self unaware posted:How can you know that for sure? You can't Dude, what? If I don't create a loving human being that is literally one less person who has to deal with any of that. That is... I mean, that's radically simple to understand. AFancyQuestionMark posted:You should only have children if you can afford to raise them and take care of them. If that is the case, then at least part of their life will not be poo poo, or at least no more than yours is right now, and probably better, unless someone is taking care of you now. That quality of life may potentially drastically go down in the future isn't your fault, unless you are purposely working toward that goal. Alternatively I could do the same thing with the same attitude for an already existing orphan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Dude, what? If I don't create a loving human being that is literally one less person who has to deal with any of that. That is... I mean, that's radically simple to understand. What makes you think less people will be more helpful than more people? There's a reason birth rates skyrocket during horrible times. I mean, your entire logic only works if you feel like living itself is work, or a job, or that it has to be "worth it" in order to justify it. It's just a joke. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Alternatively I could do the same thing with the same attitude for an already existing orphan. As I said, adoption is good. In this sense, it's better than having children. What I am saying is that having children isn't morally bad either. It is a morally neutral act and a prominent part of most people's lives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Dude, what? If I don't create a loving human being that is literally one less person who has to deal with any of that. That is... I mean, that's radically simple to understand. If it's just that bingo bongo simple how come birth rates go way up in places with bad living conditions and go way down in places with good living conditions? Why don't they think of the "just dodn't have kids dumbo!" plan like you did? Is it possible your super simple plan isn't actually a good reflection of the actual way actual people act or think or live? Like I'm not gonna have kids, I'm gonna fly around and look at cats, if I lived in crushing poverty on a barely sustenance farm my whole life I would definitely have kids, probably a lot of them. They could work my farm, take care of me when I'm hurt or old, and maybe one or two will survive if I have 8.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:32
|
|