Childfree club

[Ex-User (9086)]

The topic is intentionality about child bearing, not whether decisions made in the present will be remain the same in the future. We can only make our current intentions/thoughts/feeling known. Obviously thoughts/feeling/intentions change, but that can apply to any topic, it has no extra significance in this one.

Creating new children forces the solution, if there was no overpopulation there would be no movements to work for a solution and to work towards solving it.

If I make 100 kids I might cause 1000 deaths because I didn't help the poor and mistreated children, resource distribution and attrition.

Also by reaching the critical situation the extinction will be the automatic solution that will reduce the population anyway.

So by reproducing and having my own children I increase the chance of creating the individuals that will seek for the solution, while also, by not seeking the solution and simply bringing the crisis closer, there is a natural outcome where the mass starvation and war/competition will create the new balance.

 

[Turniphead]

Oh k since you're such an expert I should take this opportunity to drag your stupid website through the mud as well. Funny how what you proclaim is "on-topic" is the biggest piece of shit introduced so far and that you claim my reasoning is "off-topic" because it's offensive to some. GTFO feeler.

All throughout, the implication is that it is illogical to procreate due to the author's perceptions of how the world is, right now, and how it has been, in the past and a guess at how it will be. Full of rampant spin, I almost can't take it seriously as satire. It's total fucking crap.

^Totally overlooks the certainty of extinction of our species with its suggested course of action.

Haha, it's clearly a topic based around FEELINGs around children. Obviously I'm going to have feelings about it. I'm arguing with my feelings and I'm totally okay with that. As if being a feeler would be a bad thing. Silly person you are.

Yah, that website has a lot of problems and could be picked apart, but I like the general intentions behind it.

I'm not quite understanding what you mean by the last line.

 

[Base groove]

We can only make our current intentions/thoughts/feeling known. Obviously thoughts/feeling/intentions change, but that can apply to any topic, it has no extra significance in this one.

Yes it does have extra significance. People who are so confident they don't want to have children are able to take it one extra level to ensure they will never have children.

Anybody else, is half-assing it and keeping their options open. NOTE HOW I never said this is "bad" so in anticipation of any kind of "so this is bad how" crap ... fuck that. However, they waive the right to declare their absolute intentions..

Anticipated counter point:

Q: I don't have the money/take an ethical stance against surgeries of that sort but I don't want children ever. Which category am I in?

A: The one which deals in probabilities.

 

[Turniphead]

You're quite the mind-reader

Okay, so what part didn't you understand about my post?

 

[Base groove]

Haha, it's clearly a topic based around FEELINGs around children. Obviously I'm going to have feelings about it. I'm arguing with my feelings and I'm totally okay with that. As if being a feeler would be a bad thing. Silly person you are.

Yah, that website has a lot of problems and could be picked apart, but I like the general intentions behind it.

I'm not quite understanding what you mean by the last line.

Yes well, I am making a logical point and your feelings have no say on whether it's relevant or not just because it's disruptive so screw your damn head on. (and cut it with the ad-homs, perpetrator.)

The 'last line' which you refer to is my final assessment of your "relevant, on-topic, [bullshit]" website.... the logic employed would make the extinction of humanity an absolute certainty.

 

[bemused]

So adoption is bad? How? You don't create any new life, this is ridiculous and you were the one accusing people having children of sociopathy.

yeah something got lost in translation there. the dude that apparently wants to populate an entire county on his own with his manly sperm, got all sniffy college professor on me because i don't speak like a robot.

i was merely pointing out to him that sterilized men and women can still theoretically have children through the aforementioned examples. he cited sterilization as definitive proof of "i'm never having children" and not being "full of shit"

i disagreed because i too am a petty child.

 

[Turniphead]

Yes well, I am making a logical point and your feelings have no say on whether it's relevant or not just because it's disruptive so screw your damn head on. (and cut it with the ad-homs, perpetrator.)

No thanks. Also, your logical point is stupid and irrelevant.

The 'last line' which you refer to is my final assessment of your "relevant, on-topic, [bullshit]" website.... the logic employed would make the extinction of humanity an absolute certainty.

Yah, that's the point. Did you actually read the whole site?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

yeah something got lost in translation there. the dude that apparently wants to populate an entire county on his own with his manly sperm, got all sniffy college professor on me because i don't speak like a robot.

i was merely pointing out to him that sterilized men and women can still theoretically have children through the aforementioned examples. He cited sterilization has definitive proof of "i'm never having children" and not being "full of shit"

i disagreed because i too am a petty child.

Aside from that it's not the intention he has, most likely, what is wrong in populating the whole country?

It is a proof of not producing children, having children the other way does not contribute to the problem.

 

[Base groove]

what is wrong in populating the whole country?

Well reduction in genetic diversity of course.

That is why we are equipped to compete with each other.

Those who drop out of the competition for any reason: logic or ethical, and make the decision on their own accord/independently, they have my respect, but that's not what I was getting at either as you have probably correctly interpreted.

My point is that we are passive participants in this global competition to reproduce and that dropping out is always tentative and re-entry is free until you cross a certain absolute threshold.

If you claim to drop out without crossing the threshold then you might have priorities and intentions but you still have no real control.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Well reduction in genetic diversity of course.

That is why we are equipped to compete with each other.

Those who drop out of the competition for any reason: logic or ethical, and make the decision on their own accord/independently, they have my respect, but that's not what I was getting at either as you have probably correctly interpreted.

Yes, right. Sharing women and checking the genetic diversity would be good, to improve the reproduction.

 

[Turniphead]

My point is that we are passive participants in this global competition to reproduce and that dropping out is always tentative and re-entry is free until you cross a certain absolute threshold.

Obvious.

If you claim to drop out without crossing the threshold then you might have priorities and intentions but you still have no real control.

Real control? What is abstinence?

If I have the capability to murder someone, is that choice not really controllable unless I take away that capability?

 

[Base groove]

Real control? What is abstinence?

Self-control. It has no objective meaning whatsoever. Anybody can be raped.

If I have the capability to murder someone, is that choice not really controllable unless I take away that capability?

Exactly.

~ As an aside, although I said your example of murder was 'exactly' right doesn't mean I acknowledge it was relevant. Murder specifically indicates you intended to harm somebody against their will. Were they to consent, it would be "assisted suicide". So it is with rape, as well.

It would be more accurate from your standpoint to claim that one would not die at the hands of another because they have chosen to be a certain way. To them I would say, perhaps it is probable, but the only way to absolutely determine you don't die at the hands of another is to die by your own accord....

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

If I have the capability to murder someone, is that choice not really controllable unless I take away that capability?

That is what the society of control focuses on, taking away your capabilities and possible bad choices.

 

[bemused]

what is wrong in populating the whole country?

i said county.

and you if seriously need to ask a silly question like that you don't even need a science book. just watch the movie 'deliverance'.

 

[Turniphead]

Self-control. It has no objective meaning whatsoever. Anybody can be raped.

What is this "objective meaning" you speak of?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

i said county.

and you if seriously need to ask a silly question like that you don't even need a science book. just watch the movie 'deliverance'.

no, this is not a silly question, give me a logical argument.

There are no silly questions, there might be ones asking for obvious answers and this one isn't decided or obvious.

some counties are larger than countries, anyway, you got the idea.

 

[Base groove]

What is this "objective meaning" you speak of?

The state of being abstinent is objective, however it is a subjective frame of mind that you're referring to... in other words, a choice made by the abstinent. *I suppose I would specifically exclude those who are involuntarily abstinent as they could potentially still fall under the category of pro-child.

Either way, my point was that just because one person is abstinent does not put any objective restrictions (that weren't already in place) on another person who is a potential rapist.

The state of being abstinent (both voluntary and involuntary) is insufficient to declare oneself absolutely child-free.

 

[Turniphead]

The state of being abstinent (both voluntary and involuntary) is insufficient to declare oneself absolutely child-free.

Ok, well, I'll just declare myself absolutely* child-free then.


*does not take into account the possibility of children being forced upon me, pets, rape, adoption, future technologies and organ transplants.

 

[Base groove]

Ok, well, I'll just declare myself absolutely* child-free then.


*does not take into account the possibility of children being forced upon me, pets, rape, adoption, future technologies and organ transplants.

*Not absolute ...


Now I will ask you "why"? Why are we still arguing over this?

Obviously you have your own definition of absolute which differs from mine. You're through with making points, you haven't explained why mine was stupid ... so, why? Are you any less full of shit after all of this? No.

 

[Turniphead]

what is wrong in populating the whole country?

From an anthropocentric perspective, or from a broader perspective?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

From an anthropocentric perspective, or from a broader perspective?

Any, so far we have been discussing personal positions, which are fine because they are subjective.

 

[Base groove]

Any, so far we have been discussing personal positions, which are fine because they are subjective.

Not quite: my perspective is absolute, which is not on topic because it is absolute.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Not quite: my perspective is absolute, which is not on topic because it is absolute.

Provide it again so that I can assess it, I don't want to guess which post was it.
Soon we will get to how almost nothing is absolute, but not yet.

 

[Base groove]

Provide it again so that I can assess it, I don't want to guess which post was it.
Soon we will get to how almost nothing is absolute, but not yet.

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=423350&postcount=40

 

[Turniphead]

*Not absolute ...


Now I will ask you "why"? Why are we still arguing over this?

Obviously you have your own definition of absolute which differs from mine. You're through with making points, you haven't explained why mine was stupid ... so, why? Are you any less full of shit after all of this? No.

I just don't think anything is absolutely knowable, so yah, while you are vaguely correct in your point, It just has no bearing on my feelings towards children.

But apparently I am "full of shit" because I'm not currently being pedantic enough.

Probably why I keep responding is because of how I perceive you to be rather judgmental when it's unnecessary.

 

[bemused]

no, this is not a silly question, give me a logical argument.

There are no silly questions, there might be ones asking for obvious answers and this one isn't decided or obvious.

some counties are larger than countries, anyway, you got the idea.

"so uncle jed, whatacha thinkin about?"

"nutin much son, nutin much."

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=423350&postcount=40

Yes but this is not the argument on the case, but on another argument on the case, so okay, it was irrelevant of me to ask for it.

 

[Base groove]

But apparently I am "full of shit" because I'm not currently being pedantic enough.

Wrong.... but close.

I declared you full of shit because you declared yourself absolutely child-free after 35 posts of arguing about whether it's even a possibility (when I believe the settled outcome is that it's only possible when a certain threshold has been crossed - one which you apparently have not crossed).

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

"so uncle jed, whatacha thinkin about?"
"nutin much son, nutin much."

I have agreed that the genetic diversity is important in:
this post:

Yes, right. Sharing women and checking the genetic diversity would be good, to improve the reproduction.

So I agree, this shows how the reproduction should be thought out and responsible.

Still there is nothing wrong in humans dying out because of lack of diversity and poor reproductive strategies, this would show that there were no fit individuals to change that trend.

 

[Base groove]

Still there is nothing wrong in humans dying out because of lack of diversity and poor reproductive strategies, this would show that there were no fit individuals to change that trend.

Likewise, as originally intended I'm sure, there is nothing wrong with having the desire to father 150+ children, IMO.

 

[Turniphead]

Any, so far we have been discussing personal positions, which are fine because they are subjective.

Well, if my goal was human survival, unchecked population growth is negative because it greatly increases the risk overpopulation(carrying capacity of food chains), and then collapse. If technologies for energy capture and transformation into food sources are vastly improved this might be a non issue.

From a personal perspective I just don't really like the idea of a world filled to the brim with humans. There are many wonderful non human things I'd like to leave room for.

I have many perspectives on this issue, and many of them are contradictory.

 

[Turniphead]

Wrong.... but close.

I declared you full of shit because you declared yourself absolutely child-free after 35 posts of arguing about whether it's even a possibility (when I believe the settled outcome is that it's only possible when a certain threshold has been crossed - one which you apparently have not crossed).

I was using it as an example, not a literal statement.

I personally would never declare myself absolutely anything.


I guess sometimes Im more interested in exploring ideas than getting caught up in pointless semantics. Weird, what is happening to me.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Well, if my goal was human survival, unchecked population growth is negative because it greatly increases the risk overpopulation(carrying capacity of food chains), and then collapse. If technologies for energy capture and transformation into food sources are vastly improved this might be a non issue.

From a personal perspective I just don't really like the idea of a world filled to the brim with humans. There are many wonderful non human things I'd like to leave room for.

I have many perspectives on this issue, and many of them are contradictory.

Okay, so what is the stable population? 3 Milion? 2 People?

It doesn't increase the risk of overpopulation, it directly influences and brings about the overpopulation.

Collapse out of overpopulation and mass deaths, solve the problem of overpopulation too, as much as I would prefer to control the population at a good level or to send the excess on mars or elsewhere.

The best solution to this might be the virtual realities that may allow every single individual to live ones own solitary earth if one chooses to.

I pretty much agree with this view on survival of every existing human and not for survival of the humanity, however the overpopulation and its dangers are what directly prompts and influences the development of the preventive measures, the preventive measures I see so far either disregard the human choice to reproduce or disregard other humans will to live in the preserved enviroment.

The majority vs the individual problem here is pretty unresolved and relevant.

 

[Base groove]

I guess sometimes Im more interested in exploring ideas than getting caught up in pointless semantics. Weird, what is happening to me.

But, they weren't pointless. We both had a point. Mine was ... clearly stated, and yours was that I'm being petty. Apparently you're still trying to make the same point only now you're not being assertive you are being passive aggressive.

 

[Turniphead]

But, they weren't pointless. We both had a point. Mine was ... clearly stated, and yours was that I'm being petty. Apparently you're still trying to make the same point only now you're not being assertive you are being passive aggressive.

I was attempting to make a genuine self observation, and trying to figure out my motivations for abnormal posting behaviour. Hmmm...

 

[Amagi82]

I agree. Not only should you choose not to have kids, but you should kill other children, on mass killing sprees. I suggest going to schools with a machine gun. Who'd have thought going back to school wouldn't be such a bore?

Similar thoughts have crossed my mind, but studies I've read seem to indicate that people breed faster when surrounded by death, nullifying the advantage while introducing harmful social behaviors and ideology.

 

[bemused]

uh i don't know for sure, but i think they were being facetious. (at least i hope so)

but studies I've read seem to indicate that people breed faster when surrounded by death

so that's why the third world population keeps expanding?

 

[Minuend]

I'm neither for nor against humans, I just don't see a reason to keep the species going.

edit; I was reading this again http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14955, seems quite a few are against sterilization. Surprising.

 

[Polaris]

I don't think the problem is over-population as much as how we manage it. Everyone can breed as much as they want and who are we to judge them for it.

Over-population will regulate itself like any other system. The ecological ramifications in the meantime will be significant, but that is how all systems work, whether they are micro or macro. Study geology and get some perspective. The cycle goes on. And don't get too attached to the Status Quo.

I'm a conservationist at heart but I also understand the reality of the current status of systems. Some things will have to go no matter how much we try to conserve. Hanging on to a species for the sake of sentimentality will only hurt the species in the long run if there aren't enough genes in the pool. These species will suffer inbreeding in the long run. The programs are also costly and thus often rely on volunteers. One has to look at the bigger picture and assess what is beneficial overall for the larger system. Of course, we do lose a potentially significant link in the system when a species is lost. The ramifications are difficult to predict as the effects are often impossible to observe until many years later, and the process of monitoring is also another cost. But it is nevertheless a decision we have to make, and in any case, nature will sooner or later make the decision for us.

The human species is one of these weird ones that are both long-lived and has enormous breeding potential. Combined with the ability to multi-exploit and a highly developed intelligence, our impact potential is enormous - and is already showing.

It is up to us to use this intelligence in a way that will be the most beneficial to us as well as the surrounding systems that we rely on. We have not yet understood how small changes affect us in a big way in the future. Because money stands in the way of effective and comprehensive research; research isn't profitable, and governments cannot win elections with these incentives as jobs and our excessive lifestyles are at stake.

So it comes back to how we live, not how many live. That will take care of itself.

So it goes the way it must...whatever way that is. It is up to the individual to make that decision.

 

[Amagi82]

so that's why the third world population keeps expanding?

It's part of it. It's a mistake to oversimplify, but high mortality and low education seem to be a recipe for rapid breeding.

 

[BigApplePi]

This is just my opinion but if you get a group of people together, you have a crowd but leave empty spaces somewhere. Children are necessary

Spoiler

for overcrowding.

BTW if I kill my kids do I qualify for this club?

Spoiler

or do fond memories exclude me?

 

[BigApplePi]

Over-population will regulate itself like any other system.

I live on an island of 1.6 million people with a couple dozen odd bridges. Remove those bridges and ~1.6 million people starve. We depend on regulation.

It is up to the individual to make that decision.

If the problem is an individual one, the solution is an individual one. If the problem is a group problem, then would not the decision have to be a group cooperative decision?

 

[Solitaire U.]

A childfree person is a person that doesn't have children and doesn't want to be a parent EVER.

Yeah, it's a heavy responsibility. Best for the less...mature, to abstain from fucking altogether.

 

[Base groove]

I live on an island of 1.6 million people with a couple dozen odd bridges. Remove those bridges and ~1.6 million people starve. We depend on regulation.
If the problem is an individual one, the solution is an individual one. If the problem is a group problem, then would not the decision have to be a group cooperative decision?

Yeah about that ...

If I was gonna attack New York, I wouldn't have aimed so high, if you know what I mean ...

 

[Variform]

Childfree by choice. The desire to breed has ebbed and flowed over time, but my wife and I made the decision years ago that the environment is more important than our desire to breed. There are waaaaay too many humans on this blue marble already. It is irresponsible and borderline sociopathic to add to our numbers until we learn to live sustainably.

Awesome! I am not alone then.

I won't ever have children. For above reasons. But also because I have no reached an age where my sperm is too faulty to have any.

I hated kids when I was a child. I actually self-loathed so badly that I hated kids because I hated myself. As a teen I hated kids. Couldn't stand to be near babies. When I got older the whole idea about having rugrats was alien to me.
I never had a girlfriend either so it never had to come up.

My girlfriend didn't want kids either, when we met. So that was great. By that time I was so fuct up in the head I would not have been able to raise a child without screwing with its mind.

And yet still... I wished I had another life, met a girl at a decent age, not so, late in life. And maybe with a woman you really loved, I would have had kids. Because they can be a joy. Seeing them grow into mature adults, or so you hope. It must be gratifying and rewarding.

Yet my bitch-mother took all that away when I was a child.

 

[BigApplePi]

Speaking of attack, you aren't hiding

Spoiler

Spoiler

Goku

anywhere are you? I thought he was full of umm ... challenges. Never mind. I'm not supposed to talk about Fight Club and have been warned.

 

[Polaris]

BAP, by self-regulation, I mean natural events such as disease, starvation, in-fighting and other such anarchistic joys. We cannot impose a policy like China's but we have an individual choice as far as breeding is concerned - and how fortunate are we to have that choice. I chose not to. Now, I sometimes think differently.

 

[Nebula]

Ahh, what a sweet mess my thread has become

Welcome, the childfree. Shall your reproductive organs never create a copy of yours, amen.

I'm neither for nor against humans, I just don't see a reason to keep the species going.

I like your approach.

BTW if I kill my kids do I qualify for this club?

Spoiler

or do fond memories exclude me?

Only if I can choose the method

 

[BigApplePi]

we have an individual choice as far as breeding is concerned - and how fortunate are we to have that choice. I chose not to. Now, I sometimes think differently.

If you changed your choice, you have contributed to individual change.

I actually have no children (not counting pets as I'm not biased against other species). I would have gone with the human sort but my wife waited until too late and I didn't feel like pushing it.

Only if I can choose the method

If you have a choice in my behavior, now it becomes a group decision.

 

[crippli]

I brought the question up to someone. And this was the reply I got today. I don't see it as much different then growing a plant. It's a way to pass the time, as there is no need. More a narcissistic luxury. There is a curiosity drive that makes one want to start up production. But realistically. Small chance of mutations or something extraordinary, unless a proper lab present itself. My main lack of motivation is that it's the same stuff recreated again, only in slightly differing configurations. I have the feeling that it is a never ending game of playing Lego. Still, if the proper pieces are presented, I'll put them together. But probably not invest too much effort, Other then the random question here and there.

Spoiler