From a logical point of view, there is no reason to have children. However, the world population grows exponentially, why?
There are many reasons to have children, for instance to have a family, societal pressure, to create lifelong bonds, someone to take care of and to take care of us, legacy, biology, to pass on values and so on.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 03:38#3462880 likes
Because men love poking women, and women love being poked. :love: (Practice safe poking folks...)
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 03:39#3462890 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to John Pingo People, most people, aren’t very logical in the sense that you mean, but having children addresses deep psychological needs, and very often, practical needs. Not everyone lives in a welfare state, so having children may represent a source of labor and insurance for the future; someone to look after us in our old age, that sort of thing.
Pedantic Point: Yes, global population is growing, but hardly exponentially. Laugh out loud!
creativesoulOctober 28, 2019 at 03:51#3462940 likes
Reply to Swan Contra your conception: lack of contraception...?
HereToDisscussOctober 28, 2019 at 04:16#3463040 likes
Well, it's because we are psychologically predisposed to having children.
Howewer, is there really no logical reason to have children? Because having children ensures that society goes on, which i think is necessary for whatever you think morality should be aiming for.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 04:40#3463110 likes
From a logical point of view, there is no reason to have children.
Life is a system.
In that system it works exactly the other way around as you think.
If you do not want children, and I want them, then your views will not be represented in the next generation, while mine will. Hence, in life-as-a-system your point of view is self-defeating while mine is self-perpetuating.
Either you reason within a system, or else about a system, because in all other cases, you are doing system-less bullshit.
schopenhauer1October 28, 2019 at 04:53#3463170 likes
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 07:03#3463340 likes
Reply to John Pingo Besides the obvious (as noted by Swan) people had lots of kids because most would die. Then they had kids to take care of them in their old age - financial and emotional support.
Give current welfare systems and pensions many couples are opting out. Where poverty decreases and education and health go up (especially directed at young women) numbers of children go down.
Some, if not all, people probably think in terms of leaving a ‘legacy’ and/or see children as something akin to ‘living’ beyond their own grave.
Also, keep in mind that some people enjoy playing music, or painting OR raising children. Children are fascinating and the more time I spend around them the more they help me to connect with the child I used to be. If you observe closely you’ll find memories surface that you’d completely forgotten.
The moral of the story here is if you want a better world (environmentally, economically or whatever) your best bet is to invest in young women in countries where ready access to healthcare and education is limited. It’s the nest way to combat global warming, economic inequalities and environmental concerns. Sadly people are more obsessed with uses most of their resources on the symptoms rather than paying attention to known underlying causes.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 07:18#3463380 likes
If you do not want children, and I want them, then your views will not be represented in the next generation, while mine will. Hence, in life-as-a-system your point of view is self-defeating while mine is self-perpetuating.
Either you reason within a system, or else about a system, because in all other cases, you are doing system-less bullshit.
This is what (bored) - and (boring) people say. Write a book, climb a mountain, cut the ribbon.
There is a reason why poor folks or people with lower IQ's have more kids. What ELSE is there to life other than fucking, having kids, fucking, having kids...
HereToDisscussOctober 28, 2019 at 08:05#3463530 likes
Reply to 180 Proof I would say that this only applies to low-income families in poor countries.
There are generally no such things like that involved in the majority of the cases-i.e. the middle or the upper classes. Saying this applies to most of the cases would be a faulty generalization.
What ELSE is there to life other than fucking, having kids, fucking, having kids...
:point: :ok: über alles, lil creampie! :yum:
Reply to HereToDisscuss No idea what your whinging about. Especially since I didn't even make an inductive argument. Btw, welcome to TPF.
unenlightenedOctober 28, 2019 at 09:54#3463660 likes
Unbelievably, some people like children.
HereToDisscussOctober 28, 2019 at 10:31#3463690 likes
Reply to 180 Proof Well, let me rephrase it then:
"That reason is spesific to low-income families that do not have a good standard of living. What about the other ones?"
There is a reason why poor folks or people with lower IQ's have more kids.
IQ strongly correlates with the number of years of public-school indoctrination camp. It does not necessarily correlate with anything else. It is therefore mostly a measure for how often a local feminazi herded you into the school's lecture hall in order to listen to a transvestite pornstar expounding the virtues of gender fluidity. Next, you grow up to become a soyboy that no girl wants to have kids with, or an aggressive lesbian that no man would want in his house. Total number of kids: zero.
thephilosopherOctober 28, 2019 at 11:46#3463930 likes
Why work hard all your life, work 9-5 (for most people) build/buy assets like houses, cars etc. save money but then only to die and lose it all?
I come from a background of nothing, so I want to build strong foundations for future generations and it can be passed down to my kids, onto theirs etc. I wouldn't want my kids to go through what I did, I'd want them to have a good start in life which I didn't and all of my friends did.
schopenhauer1October 28, 2019 at 11:53#3463980 likes
Reply to Swan
Yes this is very much something I would say and agree with, which is why I ask. That shouldn't be a surprise though.
schopenhauer1October 28, 2019 at 11:57#3464020 likes
Reply to thephilosopher
If we are to debate philosophically, the OP is about whether it is good to bring new people into the world. Why is human life assumed to be good enough to make another person to live through it? What's wrong with no one experiencing anything at all? There are no downsides, or sides at all to never being born.
Procreation is a choice. It's not inevitable. People can choose to discontinue birth.
Andrew4HandelOctober 28, 2019 at 12:03#3464040 likes
I think that if someone is convinced life has a meaning and finds life meaningful they might consider life a gift.
When I was a child and teenager I just expected to get married and have children until I realised that being gay made that impossible (in the 90's).
I think there is a narrative about life that makes certain things seem inevitable. I might have just blindly had children if I was straight without reflecting on it because there was no alternative narrative.
However I was surprised in my teens that two world wars, genocide,crimes against women (misogyny/gendercide) and slavery didn't deter people from having children. I felt the world was mad.
I do think children can create a lot of meaning and love though.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 12:19#3464060 likes
From a logical point of view, there is no reason to have children. However, the world population grows exponentially, why?
Is this sentence different from this one; From a logical point of view, there is no reason to stay alive. However, the world population keeps living, why?
Is there a difference? Is one wrong and the other right? Both right? Both wrong?
thephilosopherOctober 28, 2019 at 12:22#3464070 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Yeah I agree with you. If bringing in a life which is going to give it a poor quality of life (human or animal) then why do it. It's a choice.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 12:40#3464120 likes
poor quality of life (human or animal) then why do it.
Who gets to decide what is and isn’t a poor quality of life? A financially poor family can find love and happiness together through hardship while a financially wealthy person can be hateful and isolated. Which is the poorer quality of life? If you were to ask someone with Downs Syndrome if they are happy in life they nearly always are and they don’t even much care for people's criticisms of them either. Some can even work and hold good jobs and they can even appear before a court to strongly argue that they are actually capable of a quality of life with a lot of positivity, happiness and love; and that this is why they feel when parents discover they are pregnant with a downs child, they should really think and morally consider the child properly before deciding to abort.
If you’ve ever met or cared for a downs person you’d find it extremely difficult to convince them that life is not worth living. They probably feel more sorry for us than we should feel sorry for them.
schopenhauer1October 28, 2019 at 12:44#3464130 likes
Reply to thephilosopher
Yes, but I'd go further and say procreation is always bad no matter what socioeconomic circumstance. Something is not always or even ever better than nothing. Life being worth it only matters once born because humans need existential direction to cope and be. However, for those who never existed, this of course doesn't matter. It's not an issue. There are no issues in that scenario. Somehow parents feel they are the arbiters of worth. People need to be brought into the world so they can "appreciate" it's worth. But as I just stated, worth is something contrived after the fact to cope with our own beingness. It's a poor man that rides on top of the prior decision made on behalf of the person affected by being born at all.
thephilosopherOctober 28, 2019 at 12:51#3464150 likes
Reply to Mark Dennis It's not for anyone to decide except the being themselves. I do not have everything in life but I am very happy with what I have.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 13:00#3464180 likes
Reply to thephilosopher Okay. So your issue with procreation is that we cannot get the beings permission before we create one, correct?
If we say, that it is wrong to create a life, is there a punishment for that?
thephilosopherOctober 28, 2019 at 13:22#3464260 likes
I guess what I was trying to say was if I was in a really bad situation financially, health etc. I would choose not to bring a being into this life until I am in a better place. I wouldn't want it to suffer or have a bad quality of life. The quality of life and suffering would solely be my view on it as one mans meat is another mans poison. If that makes sense?
schopenhauer1October 28, 2019 at 13:35#3464340 likes
Reply to thephilosopher
Was this for me? Anyways, suffering won't be an issue for the non-born. Also, no person would exist in this scenario to even be deprived. Win/win. Life is about daily dealings. Suffering is suffering. It just climbs the hierarchy of needs to more refined less physical versions of it. Not sure why quiet desperation or more psychological suffering matters less.
schopenhauer1October 28, 2019 at 13:38#3464360 likes
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 13:42#3464380 likes
Reply to thephilosopher Yeah, that makes sense and all sounds pretty reasonable and thought out to me. We should always consider the child we may have before we have it and think about what quality of life we are capable of giving it. That’s responsible parenting.
But you’re not a full on Antinatalist? You believe bringing a child into the world is justified if you give them a good quality of life?
Humans are an animal species, and animals tend to produce young. Since evolution gifted them with consciousness, which proved an effective if dicey evolutionary weapon, they have some doubts about it, but not enough to make a serious difference: there should still be plenty of the species around to pay for the way it has crapped up the world. :)
schopenhauer1October 28, 2019 at 14:28#3464410 likes
Reply to iolo
If we are social creatures, it's about propaganda.
These "anti-natalists" are incredibly short-sighted. When they will be old and retired, the only reason why they would not starve to death, is because there will be a younger generation keeping the boat afloat. That is why I deeply resent state-run pension systems. It allows people like them to claim that they do not need children, because they expect someone else's children to pick up the bill. Fortunately, these state-run retirement systems are slated to go bust anyway. Good riddance!
The moral of the story here is if you want a better world (environmentally, economically or whatever) your best bet is to invest in young women in countries where ready access to healthcare and education is limited. It’s the nest way to combat global warming, economic inequalities and environmental concerns. Sadly people are more obsessed with uses most of their resources on the symptoms rather than paying attention to known underlying causes.
What kind of causal chain are you envisioning here?
IQ strongly correlates with the number of years of public-school indoctrination camp. It does not necessarily correlate with anything else. It is therefore mostly a measure for how often a local feminazi herded you into the school's lecture hall in order to listen to a transvestite pornstar expounding the virtues of gender fluidity. Next, you grow up to become a soyboy that no girl wants to have kids with, or an aggressive lesbian that no man would want in his house. Total number of kids: zero.
Is this an actual post or were you just playing alt-right bingo?
Is this an actual post or were you just playing alt-right bingo?
My bingo is not necessarily "alt-right", but your criticism is certainly classified as "left":
Liberal and left-leaning observers have found themselves doing something they never normally do: criticising Muslims. Specifically Muslim parents in Birmingham who have successfully pressured the local primary school to stop teaching their kids about homosexuality and transgenderism. Apparently it is outrageous for parents to exercise moral authority over their very young children and instead they should trust the state to impart the correct moral wisdom to their offspring. That’s the undertone of the coverage of this controversy: that officialdom knows better than a child’s own parents how that child should be raised and morally instructed. The parents of these pupils have been kicking up a storm over the school’s ‘challenging homophobia’ programme, which involves teaching the kids about gay relationships and the transgender lifestyle. They have protested outside the school with placards saying ‘No to the promotion of homosexuality to our children’ and ‘Education not indoctrination’.
So, according to you these Muslim parents are "alt-right"?
Not so sure about that, really.
As far as I am concerned, the final solution for the problem of public-school indoctrination camps, i.e. die Endlösung der Indoktrinationsfrage, is to shut them down. We simply need a "final solution" for that problem.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 15:18#3464490 likes
Reply to Echarmion The chain is quite simple. In countries where women are educated social inequality falls, family sizes fall, poverty decreases, etc.,. The knock-on effect of this is people in extreme poverty are not chopping down forests in order to grow crops and there is less strain on healthcare and education, less strain on law and order too. Family planning is a key issue. Poor families, as you can see in history, generally had several children because many of them would die young or in infancy. Then think about the cost of having children (education and basic health care - remember in many countries state education isn’t free).
You want to save the whales or lower the average carbon footprint of humans? Educating young women is probably your best choice of attack. Long term it’s cost effective and will drive equality in a better direction - already has in many cases (look to countries outside the ‘western realms’).
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 15:44#3464550 likes
Reply to I like sushi What about the young men from low socioeconomic backgrounds who miss out on an education due to an absence of both a male and female teacher in the classroom? Early education is dominated by women, young boys get given labels that effect them their whole life and female teachers generally seem to be a lot more tolerant and understanding of young women’s issues. I mean, I can’t really say that I even blame the women all that much either as they’ve had and still do have the short end of many sticks. However what I feel all female educators need to keep in mind, you’re not trying to stamp out the emotions that men feel just as men should not stamp out the emotions women feel. People are going to feel emotions, men and women aren’t always going to understand one another. Trying to stamp an emotion out of someone just makes them learn unhealthy coping mechanisms.
I hope you know I’m not saying any of this to be against women or to downplay any of the problems that women specifically face. I’d be lying however if I said my inner child didn’t cry a little reading your comment as I thought “This person hasn’t been through what you did, she doesn’t know about HER.” If you’ve ever been an undiagnosed autistic child being screamed at for not being able to recite his two times tables in front of the whole class (many of whom physically assault you each day) in less than two minutes by a women who swears under her breath and forgets her own schedule you’d feel like I feel right now.
Young people deserve a good education, whoever they are and however they identify. Once you start trying to say some more than others you justify every type of some more than others argument.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 16:19#3464600 likes
Reply to Mark Dennis In Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Africa and the Orient? It’s getting better. You appear to be relating the problem to the west where inequality, poverty, education healthcare and women’s social standing isn’t really an issue (hence population growth).
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 17:00#3464650 likes
Reply to I like sushi Oh no, In other parts of the world you’re right it is much worse. Asia is getting better in some isolated places although I’ll need to go look for the source I remember reading for this.
I still don’t think it is wrong to state in those places that it’s not just the women who need educating, men need re-educating. Sure in some places men are definitely receiving more schooling but it’s evidently not being done well enough or women there would have more rights.
You appear to be relating the problem to the west where inequality, poverty, education healthcare and women’s social standing isn’t really an issue (hence population growth).
However we in the West still shouldn’t be trying to pedestal ourselves over the rest of the world like we’ve got it all right. Poverty isn’t an issue in the West? Do the poor have equal access to healthcare, education, and social standing here in the West? I’m sure if we’d solved those problems here we’d all be reading about whatever geniuses sorted that out. My sister would disagree with you as would my fiancé. Women’s issues are important, but to speak as if it’s the most important issue is a bit misguided. See here’s the thing, if you say priority of access to education should be given to women and succeed, then you aren’t creating equality you’re making more inequality.
If you say priority of access to education should be given to everyone and succeed then everyone(including all women) gets education.
I think you’ve touched upon the real issue here really, which is poverty.
As for those places you mentioned, you realise they have their own women’s rights activists as well right? Amazing women all over the world are fighting for equality yet here in the West we infantilise the rest of the world by ignoring our own problems and fixating on theirs. It’s paternalism and it’s just a form of positive racism. It’s also ignoring the women, men and others dying in our own backyards. We should help them, but be open to them helping us too and neither side should really be infantalising the other because there are no sides. Just Humans and the life they SHARE this planet with.
However, if you’re from those places then fight the good fight and don’t let me stop you. Shouldn’t try to diminish other people’s contributions just because they aren’t entirely agreeing with you but you can at least be aware enough to see where I am agreeing with you.
HereToDisscussOctober 28, 2019 at 17:29#3464680 likes
Reply to I like sushi I generally agree with what you're saying here, but there is one issue:
You're taking a general trend -the inverse relationship between education and having children and the correlation between education and poverty, socially inequality etc.- and then start talking as if it only applies to a smaller group -women- in the general set of causes for the trend. There is no need for an emphasis on women as if they are the general factor compared to men who have a lesser effect in that narrative.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 17:31#3464700 likes
HereToDisscussOctober 28, 2019 at 17:36#3464710 likes
Reply to I like sushi I apologize. I was simply talking about the fact that you focused on women when there was really no need to do so. I want to know why you did that.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 17:40#3464720 likes
However we in the West still shouldn’t be trying to pedestal ourselves over the rest of the world like we’ve got it all right. Poverty isn’t an issue in the West? Do the poor have equal access to healthcare, education, and social standing here in the West?
Relatively speaking, yes. It isn’t a huge issue. Small ups and downs look big if you’re used to stability.
Google what happened in Kerela, India. Look at correlations of GDP and family sizes. Listen to women in Africa who walk for miles to get access to birth control and raise and have educate their children because they cannot afford to send them to school. The simple truth is boys and girls benefit hugely when young women are educated. In the west this is irrelevant. The population boom isn’t happening in the west though.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 17:45#3464740 likes
Reply to HereToDisscuss Because when resources are focused toward the education of young women the outcomes are far greater in many areas of society (as mentioned).
Poorly educated women are more likely (by far) to have more children. Families with too many children mean a new generation comes through perpetuating the problem.
People have mentioned the trope of ‘what else should poor folk do to while away the hours’ which was more a case of if half your kids die before they hit 5 yrs of age you have more kids - because they will look after you in the long run.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 17:51#3464750 likes
Reply to I like sushi This is exactly what I mean about pedestaling. While you’ve been going on and on about the west (like it’s a monolith) that knows very little hardship you are completely ignoring South America, also part of the West! Y’know where the Amazon rainforest is.
What about Greece in Europe with its economic crisis or places like Scotland, Ireland, wales and England due to Tory austerity and the crumbling of the £ with Brexit looming that more and more people are falling into poverty? Children are starving and dying and because you’re from the west and have it better than others you think everyone in the west is doing well as you? Ignorance. I can bring up countless more examples but I’m hoping I’ve made my point.
What is the point in doing philosophy when you bury your head in the sand and don’t go outside your news bubble to really research what is going on around the world from multiple news sources?
If every problem could be so easily fixed by solving just one, we’d have probably figured out what it is by now. Many problems need solving and every problem deserves an allocation of the population who make it their first priority. I don’t have to make it mine though. My priority is Ethics, which ultimately still puts me on women’s side.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 17:57#3464770 likes
Reply to Mark Dennis I only bothered reading the first paragraph. When people talk about the Western World they generally refer to North America, Europe and Australia and New Zealand. You’re confusing ‘western hemisphere’ with ‘western world’. Granted, there are nuanced definitions used but it should’ve been clear enough what I meant.
HereToDisscussOctober 28, 2019 at 18:01#3464780 likes
Because when resources are focused toward the education of young women the outcomes are far greater in many areas of society (as mentioned).
I would only accept this statement if it was rephrased as "When resources are focused towards the education of people in general, the outcomes are far greater in many areas of society." because, so far, you have not provided justification for why we should "focus our resources on young women's education".
Also, what does it mean to "focus resources on young women's education"? Will we be diverting more resources to education of women than to education of men? That would be sexist.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 18:02#3464790 likes
What is the point in doing philosophy when you bury your head in the sand and don’t go outside your news bubble to really research what is going on around the world from multiple news sources?
This is neither a constructive nor an intelligent point. The rest is just a judgement based on assumptions of my condition and location.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 18:06#3464810 likes
Reply to HereToDisscuss Rather than pumping funds pooled internationally for combating global issues into areas that have shown little give. There are such international targets and the payback for funding to help family planning and education for young women is pretty damn good.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 18:12#3464850 likes
Reply to I like sushi “What about Greece in Europe with its economic crisis or places like Scotland, Ireland, wales and England due to Tory austerity and the crumbling of the £ with Brexit looming that more and more people are falling into poverty? Children are starving and dying and because you’re from the west and have it better than others you think everyone in the west is doing well as you? Ignorance. I can bring up countless more examples but I’m hoping I’ve made my point.”
Uhm it is a point if you read what I wrote which you just admitted that you didn’t.
only bothered reading the first paragraph.
- you
The rest is just a judgement based on assumptions of my condition and location.
Nope, psychological evaluation of implied bias and your writing.
I’m assuming now that most of your reasoning is wrong because you claimed you don’t read what people actually say to you. Which also implies something else, that the reason you don’t believe in morality is because if you did, for whatever reason you would have a hard time seeing yourself as a good person.
If you don’t read then how in the world do you intend to try and lecture me on nuance?
HereToDisscussOctober 28, 2019 at 18:19#3464890 likes
Reply to I like sushi Nope. That was not my objection-of course, education of young women should not be neglected and they should be helped. But that's not the issue here.
Please read what i've written more carefully. I was talking about your insistence on "focusing our resources on young women's education", which i think should be elaborated upon and also why we're talking about one gender in particular and neglecting the other.
If we are going to put about the same amount of resources on young women's education compared to young men's education, then why bring gender up?
If we are going to put much more of our resources on young women's education compared to young men's, then i would argue that it's sexist and this particular line of reasoning needs to be justified. "If we educate young women, the rate of poverty etc. falls." doesn't provide enough justification here, as the same applies to young men.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 18:24#3464900 likes
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 18:25#3464910 likes
Rather than pumping funds pooled internationally for combating global issues into areas that have shown little give. There are such international targets and the payback for funding to help family planning and education for young women is pretty damn good.
Oh like climate change and global warming? So girls schools yes? The continuation of our species no?
HereToDisscussOctober 28, 2019 at 18:31#3464920 likes
Reply to I like sushi Empowering girls and women is good and all, but you said we should divert our resources to young women's education and not that we should, while dealing with the education of all people regardless of gender, deal with gender discrimination too. The central part of your solution was educating young women, not education in general. I'm against that as it is sexist and just counter-productive.
Terrapin StationOctober 28, 2019 at 18:33#3464930 likes
I can't be the only person around here with kids (and now grandkids for that matter), right?
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 18:36#3464940 likes
Reply to HereToDisscuss I meant it in the context of global issues. That was why I mentioned it alongside global issues and some typical items like ‘save the whales’.
HereToDisscussOctober 28, 2019 at 18:50#3464980 likes
Reply to I like sushi Well, you said that education of young women was the best line of attack for these sort of problems-it was not "alongside" global issues. Do i need to quote you?
Again, your main claim was that we should focus our resources on the education of young women as a way to combat overpopulation. "Saving whales" and "saving carbon footprint" was mentioned alongside the problems it can adress.
I'm simply asking you why brought gender up spesifically when 1) It was not really relevant. 2) Solving gender discrimination in education isn't the main problem-educating people in general is.
I do not understand how you do not get this.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 18:51#3464990 likes
Reply to Terrapin Station I have a Step-son and me and my partner are trying for our own. You’re not the only parent here for sure. Also Congrats on the Grandkids!
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 19:29#3465010 likes
Reply to HereToDisscuss Feel free to quote my initial post and reply to a question asking for further clarity in full. I’m not saying any more on the matter (unless the person who asked wants to engage). Thanks
Terrapin StationOctober 28, 2019 at 19:33#3465020 likes
My bingo is not necessarily "alt-right", but your criticism is certainly classified as "left":
That's a very weird distraction you're mounting there. Anyways, I don't think anyone outside the alt-right, with the exception of the people mocking them, is using the term "soy-boys", so this is rather a shibboleth.
he chain is quite simple. In countries where women are educated social inequality falls, family sizes fall, poverty decreases, etc.,. The knock-on effect of this is people in extreme poverty are not chopping down forests in order to grow crops and there is less strain on healthcare and education, less strain on law and order too. Family planning is a key issue.
Is this based on some resarch you're familiar with or are you extrapolating?
My main point for asking in this vein is less that I disagree with the idea of focusing on the education and women, and more that I am sceptical that lowering birthrates is something we should worry about, rather than just something that happens as we improve other, more relevant things.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 19:44#3465090 likes
My bingo is not necessarily "alt-right", but your criticism is certainly classified as "left":
— alcontali
That's a very weird distraction you're mounting there. Anyways, I don't think anyone outside the alt-right, with the exception of the people mocking them, is using the term "soy-boys", so this is rather a shibboleth.
Have to agree with you there. It’s a pretty strange way to phrase things. “Not necessarily alt-right” is very strange and to generalise to just “left” as opposed to “alt-left” is suspicious too. I feel like people who are centre left or centre right or centre don’t blankety imply right or left is bad. They tend to imply alt, meaning to the extreme end of either demographic as bad.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 19:55#3465110 likes
Reply to Echarmion I’m not going to pretend I’ve gone over the research in detail. Generally though lots of unseen bonuses appear in areas where young women are given better education. Kerela is a specific study and the link I gave on the other page to the UN foundation points out the knock-on effects albeit without the research presented.
I’m not suggesting lowering birthrates. Birthrates naturally reduce when living standards go up. It’s more a matter of empowering women so they can raise children well rather than being stretched thin and badly educated (if they cannot read or write then they cannot help their children learn) this has been recorded in Africa so that isn’t an extrapolation on my part. It may be a far throw from modern western society, but a serious issue when you look at places like India, Brasil or many African nations.
The estimates are the population will level out at around 11 billion. I’m not against more people I’m against large sections of the population living in poverty and ill health (such would put further strain on the environment as person survival trumps not cutting down a tree).
schopenhauer1October 28, 2019 at 20:03#3465120 likes
Reply to I like sushi
Is physical health the only standard to judge weather to procreate? I know that's the knee jerk response and popular opinion, but 0erhaps there are more subtle reasons and arguments to be made why it is indeed never good.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 20:06#3465160 likes
I think this presents what you’re trying to say without focusing on any one demographic and it will do you much better to understand from a wholistic viewpoint than such a focused one.
I hope you understand you are preaching to the choir here, pretty sure most here are aware and sympathise with the plight of women. They are our mothers, sisters and partners plights after all. Standing up for women’s rights is a good and important thing to do... but it isn’t the only good and important thing that needs done.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 20:11#3465170 likes
Reply to I like sushi Have you thought about trying to write essays and send them into human rights magazines and publications? 1500 words or less could see you in Mother Jones if you apply with the editor. I’d welcome seeing an article focusing on women there but unfortunately here on the philosophy forum we do try to gain a holistic and deep view of everything.
Also, if you started a discussion here to discuss women’s rights across the world I’d speak positively to that.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 20:14#3465190 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 I wasn’t even nearly trying suggest that. Child mortality is not a great thing. I wasn’t thinking much beyond that and women being able to manage their families (family planning).
The main thrust of my initial post was that people may complain about destroying rainforests and such, but they don’t generally think “I know! Let’s educate young women to stop the destruction,” because they don’t equate the symptom to the underlying cause of social unrest. Of course there are other factors but this one is a hefty weight for tipping the scales.
I like sushiOctober 28, 2019 at 20:18#3465210 likes
Reply to Mark Dennis Gapminder is a very useful site for sure. Sad the guy is dead now. Was such a positive force.
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2019 at 20:19#3465220 likes
IQ strongly correlates with the number of years of public-school indoctrination camp. It does not necessarily correlate with anything else. It is therefore mostly a measure for how often a local feminazi herded you into the school's lecture hall in order to listen to a transvestite pornstar expounding the virtues of gender fluidity. Next, you grow up to become a soyboy that no girl wants to have kids with, or an aggressive lesbian that no man would want in his house. Total number of kids: zero.
Lmao. Found the /r/The_Donald Reddit edgelord user. I don't know what university you went to, but.
That's a very weird distraction you're mounting there. Anyways, I don't think anyone outside the alt-right, with the exception of the people mocking them, is using the term "soy-boys", so this is rather a shibboleth.
Lmao. Found the /r/The_Donald Reddit edgelord user. I don't know what university you went to, but.
I reject both alt-right and radical left.
Neither view reflects that I believe in the primacy of religious law.
Furthermore, neither view is a documented system, but rather a hodgepodge of changing, circumstantial opinions. Their very structure is already utterly inferior. There is no need to even look at their content to condemn these things.
"Alt-right" and "radical left" are very western ways of seeing things, that emerged in just the last decades, while I have largely switched to centuries-old, non-western ways of thinking on these matters. I have learned a lot from studying Islamic sources and from living 10+ years in a Buddhist country, to the extent that I consider concoctions such as "alt-right" and "radical left" to be mere bullshit.
During the day, I spend most of my time with people who only speak an Asian language. Few people speak English over here.
Absolutely nobody over here would believe in the "alt-right" and "radical left" bullshit. What's more, these terms reflect the worst of western society, i.e. that what is utterly wrong with it.
You want to save the whales or lower the average carbon footprint of humans? Educating young women is probably your best choice of attack. Long term it’s cost effective and will drive equality in a better direction - already has in many cases (look to countries outside the ‘western realms’).
?HereToDisscuss Because when resources are focused toward the education of young women the outcomes are far greater in many areas of society (as mentioned).
Poorly educated women are more likely (by far) to have more children. Families with too many children mean a new generation comes through perpetuating the problem.
:clap: :clap:
Deleted UserOctober 29, 2019 at 05:32#3466550 likes
I'm guessing you spend most of your time in shady parts of Thailand, as well.
I only transit in Thailand when flying relatively far, and not even always, because Malaysia and Singapore are also large hubs. Talk to people in these places and you will quickly understand that they thoroughly despise your way of thinking, your view on life, your view on how society should work, and so on. After over a decade of living here, I ended up agreeing with them. As far as I am concerned, they are right while you are wrong.
As far as I am concerned, the final solution for the problem of public-school indoctrination camps, i.e. die Endlösung der Indoktrinationsfrage, is to shut them down. We simply need a "final solution" for that problem.
No need to evoke “final solutions” in regards to public education. Families can supplement public education with their own training.
No need to evoke “final solutions” in regards to public education. Families can supplement public education with their own training.
Adding insult to injury, the politicians even collect taxes for that public-school depravity. I don't want to use it and I don't want to pay for it. There is only one solution for the problem of the arrogance of these politicians, because all respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals.
But then again, it is much more than a conflict between politicians and the people who are sick and tired of them. The reason why that kind of politicians exists, is because there is a demographic, a part of the population, that wants them around. Therefore, merely getting rid of these politicians is not enough to solve the problem. If that part of the population "democratically" uses their head count to harass other people, then the problem of their excess head count will need to be addressed.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2019 at 09:39#3469560 likes
IQ strongly correlates with the number of years of public-school indoctrination camp.
Does it? I would guess private schools would be at least as high on IQ. I think homeschooled children do at least as well on IQ as public school students. There are many factors in all of this, but I am wondering where you got your data and if it's true why it is the case.Or maybe you mean negative correlation.Quoting alcontali
It is therefore mostly a measure for how often a local feminazi herded you into the school's lecture hall in order to listen to a transvestite pornstar expounding the virtues of gender fluidity. Next, you grow up to become a soyboy that no girl wants to have kids with, or an aggressive lesbian that no man would want in his house.
I know there is some truth to this, but my decades ago public school education was mostly quite patriotic with terrible pedagogy. I would guess the latter at least is still the same. Of course private schools tend to have terrible pedagogy also, but the parents tend to be better educated, so the kids have more options, grew up in the midst of larger vocabularies and less damaged parents, so this isn't a big surprise.
robbiefrostOctober 31, 2019 at 20:00#3474410 likes
This is an interesting idea. We can see that human population is growing exponentially, so too are our impoverished humans, global warming, mass overpopulation, etc. From that point of view it may seem illogical to have children from this point until we have found permanent measure to plateau population rates, as well as care for the human beings who have already been brought into this world.
However, in defense of having children I have two propositions:
1. The first being that evolutionary traits enable humans to desire a family. For means of sustaining their bloodline, populating their community, and sustaining humankind. Without this evolutionary drive humans would simply go extinct. This seems to evidently be against the nature of humans.
2. Which is simply an extension of #1 is the society has the status quo of procreation. As societies evolved, our evolutionary instincts have evolved into the idea of the nuclear family, and (in some cases) aversion or distaste for those who wish to remain childless. Humans are majorly expected to have children and continue their bloodline. This perpetuates the society and is thus a good thing.
So, given the two reasons above, it would seem that it is logical to have children. This does not seem to be fallacious in the problem of over-population, for example. Rather, we can see it logical to have children if there is an intelligent design behind the procreation.
Let me know what you think, these are just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Reply to John Pingo
Is it because of overpopulation? Forgoing children to quell problems of overpopulation is a task for the self-appointed caretakers of the world, the logic of obeying this moral imperative is questionable at best - the claim it's illogical to not obey is humorous. You can deceive yourself into thinking you're part of the solution but you're ignoring the obvious truth that you know there aren't going to be enough people who think like you to make a difference.
I don't know why you think it's illogical to have children but since I don't think it's obvious that it's illogical, I have to just point to all the obvious reasons that don't really need listing.
Comments (89)
There are many reasons to have children, for instance to have a family, societal pressure, to create lifelong bonds, someone to take care of and to take care of us, legacy, biology, to pass on values and so on.
Pedantic Point: Yes, global population is growing, but hardly exponentially. Laugh out loud!
Swan beat me to it...
Howewer, is there really no logical reason to have children? Because having children ensures that society goes on, which i think is necessary for whatever you think morality should be aiming for.
Something like that. :eyes:
Life is a system.
In that system it works exactly the other way around as you think.
If you do not want children, and I want them, then your views will not be represented in the next generation, while mine will. Hence, in life-as-a-system your point of view is self-defeating while mine is self-perpetuating.
Either you reason within a system, or else about a system, because in all other cases, you are doing system-less bullshit.
Please explain..
Give current welfare systems and pensions many couples are opting out. Where poverty decreases and education and health go up (especially directed at young women) numbers of children go down.
Some, if not all, people probably think in terms of leaving a ‘legacy’ and/or see children as something akin to ‘living’ beyond their own grave.
Also, keep in mind that some people enjoy playing music, or painting OR raising children. Children are fascinating and the more time I spend around them the more they help me to connect with the child I used to be. If you observe closely you’ll find memories surface that you’d completely forgotten.
The moral of the story here is if you want a better world (environmentally, economically or whatever) your best bet is to invest in young women in countries where ready access to healthcare and education is limited. It’s the nest way to combat global warming, economic inequalities and environmental concerns. Sadly people are more obsessed with uses most of their resources on the symptoms rather than paying attention to known underlying causes.
Busting out babies is just false hope for a better future; but there is no better future. It also does your figure no favors.
This is what (bored) - and (boring) people say. Write a book, climb a mountain, cut the ribbon.
There is a reason why poor folks or people with lower IQ's have more kids. What ELSE is there to life other than fucking, having kids, fucking, having kids...
There are generally no such things like that involved in the majority of the cases-i.e. the middle or the upper classes. Saying this applies to most of the cases would be a faulty generalization.
No idea what your whinging about. Especially since I didn't even make an inductive argument. Btw, welcome to TPF.
"That reason is spesific to low-income families that do not have a good standard of living. What about the other ones?"
By the way, i appreciate your welcome.
If you're about making new experiences, having children is a pretty good example of an experience you can not get any other way.
IQ strongly correlates with the number of years of public-school indoctrination camp. It does not necessarily correlate with anything else. It is therefore mostly a measure for how often a local feminazi herded you into the school's lecture hall in order to listen to a transvestite pornstar expounding the virtues of gender fluidity. Next, you grow up to become a soyboy that no girl wants to have kids with, or an aggressive lesbian that no man would want in his house. Total number of kids: zero.
I come from a background of nothing, so I want to build strong foundations for future generations and it can be passed down to my kids, onto theirs etc. I wouldn't want my kids to go through what I did, I'd want them to have a good start in life which I didn't and all of my friends did.
Yes this is very much something I would say and agree with, which is why I ask. That shouldn't be a surprise though.
If we are to debate philosophically, the OP is about whether it is good to bring new people into the world. Why is human life assumed to be good enough to make another person to live through it? What's wrong with no one experiencing anything at all? There are no downsides, or sides at all to never being born.
Procreation is a choice. It's not inevitable. People can choose to discontinue birth.
When I was a child and teenager I just expected to get married and have children until I realised that being gay made that impossible (in the 90's).
I think there is a narrative about life that makes certain things seem inevitable. I might have just blindly had children if I was straight without reflecting on it because there was no alternative narrative.
However I was surprised in my teens that two world wars, genocide,crimes against women (misogyny/gendercide) and slavery didn't deter people from having children. I felt the world was mad.
I do think children can create a lot of meaning and love though.
Is this sentence different from this one; From a logical point of view, there is no reason to stay alive. However, the world population keeps living, why?
Is there a difference? Is one wrong and the other right? Both right? Both wrong?
Who gets to decide what is and isn’t a poor quality of life? A financially poor family can find love and happiness together through hardship while a financially wealthy person can be hateful and isolated. Which is the poorer quality of life? If you were to ask someone with Downs Syndrome if they are happy in life they nearly always are and they don’t even much care for people's criticisms of them either. Some can even work and hold good jobs and they can even appear before a court to strongly argue that they are actually capable of a quality of life with a lot of positivity, happiness and love; and that this is why they feel when parents discover they are pregnant with a downs child, they should really think and morally consider the child properly before deciding to abort.
If you’ve ever met or cared for a downs person you’d find it extremely difficult to convince them that life is not worth living. They probably feel more sorry for us than we should feel sorry for them.
Yes, but I'd go further and say procreation is always bad no matter what socioeconomic circumstance. Something is not always or even ever better than nothing. Life being worth it only matters once born because humans need existential direction to cope and be. However, for those who never existed, this of course doesn't matter. It's not an issue. There are no issues in that scenario. Somehow parents feel they are the arbiters of worth. People need to be brought into the world so they can "appreciate" it's worth. But as I just stated, worth is something contrived after the fact to cope with our own beingness. It's a poor man that rides on top of the prior decision made on behalf of the person affected by being born at all.
If we say, that it is wrong to create a life, is there a punishment for that?
Why on Earth even the whole discussion?
Was this for me? Anyways, suffering won't be an issue for the non-born. Also, no person would exist in this scenario to even be deprived. Win/win. Life is about daily dealings. Suffering is suffering. It just climbs the hierarchy of needs to more refined less physical versions of it. Not sure why quiet desperation or more psychological suffering matters less.
Is this question for me?
But you’re not a full on Antinatalist? You believe bringing a child into the world is justified if you give them a good quality of life?
If we are social creatures, it's about propaganda.
These "anti-natalists" are incredibly short-sighted. When they will be old and retired, the only reason why they would not starve to death, is because there will be a younger generation keeping the boat afloat. That is why I deeply resent state-run pension systems. It allows people like them to claim that they do not need children, because they expect someone else's children to pick up the bill. Fortunately, these state-run retirement systems are slated to go bust anyway. Good riddance!
What kind of causal chain are you envisioning here?
Quoting alcontali
Is this an actual post or were you just playing alt-right bingo?
My bingo is not necessarily "alt-right", but your criticism is certainly classified as "left":
Liberal and left-leaning observers have found themselves doing something they never normally do: criticising Muslims. Specifically Muslim parents in Birmingham who have successfully pressured the local primary school to stop teaching their kids about homosexuality and transgenderism. Apparently it is outrageous for parents to exercise moral authority over their very young children and instead they should trust the state to impart the correct moral wisdom to their offspring. That’s the undertone of the coverage of this controversy: that officialdom knows better than a child’s own parents how that child should be raised and morally instructed. The parents of these pupils have been kicking up a storm over the school’s ‘challenging homophobia’ programme, which involves teaching the kids about gay relationships and the transgender lifestyle. They have protested outside the school with placards saying ‘No to the promotion of homosexuality to our children’ and ‘Education not indoctrination’.
So, according to you these Muslim parents are "alt-right"?
Not so sure about that, really.
As far as I am concerned, the final solution for the problem of public-school indoctrination camps, i.e. die Endlösung der Indoktrinationsfrage, is to shut them down. We simply need a "final solution" for that problem.
You want to save the whales or lower the average carbon footprint of humans? Educating young women is probably your best choice of attack. Long term it’s cost effective and will drive equality in a better direction - already has in many cases (look to countries outside the ‘western realms’).
I hope you know I’m not saying any of this to be against women or to downplay any of the problems that women specifically face. I’d be lying however if I said my inner child didn’t cry a little reading your comment as I thought “This person hasn’t been through what you did, she doesn’t know about HER.” If you’ve ever been an undiagnosed autistic child being screamed at for not being able to recite his two times tables in front of the whole class (many of whom physically assault you each day) in less than two minutes by a women who swears under her breath and forgets her own schedule you’d feel like I feel right now.
Young people deserve a good education, whoever they are and however they identify. Once you start trying to say some more than others you justify every type of some more than others argument.
I still don’t think it is wrong to state in those places that it’s not just the women who need educating, men need re-educating. Sure in some places men are definitely receiving more schooling but it’s evidently not being done well enough or women there would have more rights.
However we in the West still shouldn’t be trying to pedestal ourselves over the rest of the world like we’ve got it all right. Poverty isn’t an issue in the West? Do the poor have equal access to healthcare, education, and social standing here in the West? I’m sure if we’d solved those problems here we’d all be reading about whatever geniuses sorted that out. My sister would disagree with you as would my fiancé. Women’s issues are important, but to speak as if it’s the most important issue is a bit misguided. See here’s the thing, if you say priority of access to education should be given to women and succeed, then you aren’t creating equality you’re making more inequality.
If you say priority of access to education should be given to everyone and succeed then everyone(including all women) gets education.
I think you’ve touched upon the real issue here really, which is poverty.
As for those places you mentioned, you realise they have their own women’s rights activists as well right? Amazing women all over the world are fighting for equality yet here in the West we infantilise the rest of the world by ignoring our own problems and fixating on theirs. It’s paternalism and it’s just a form of positive racism. It’s also ignoring the women, men and others dying in our own backyards. We should help them, but be open to them helping us too and neither side should really be infantalising the other because there are no sides. Just Humans and the life they SHARE this planet with.
However, if you’re from those places then fight the good fight and don’t let me stop you. Shouldn’t try to diminish other people’s contributions just because they aren’t entirely agreeing with you but you can at least be aware enough to see where I am agreeing with you.
You're taking a general trend -the inverse relationship between education and having children and the correlation between education and poverty, socially inequality etc.- and then start talking as if it only applies to a smaller group -women- in the general set of causes for the trend. There is no need for an emphasis on women as if they are the general factor compared to men who have a lesser effect in that narrative.
Relatively speaking, yes. It isn’t a huge issue. Small ups and downs look big if you’re used to stability.
Google what happened in Kerela, India. Look at correlations of GDP and family sizes. Listen to women in Africa who walk for miles to get access to birth control and raise and have educate their children because they cannot afford to send them to school. The simple truth is boys and girls benefit hugely when young women are educated. In the west this is irrelevant. The population boom isn’t happening in the west though.
Poorly educated women are more likely (by far) to have more children. Families with too many children mean a new generation comes through perpetuating the problem.
People have mentioned the trope of ‘what else should poor folk do to while away the hours’ which was more a case of if half your kids die before they hit 5 yrs of age you have more kids - because they will look after you in the long run.
What about Greece in Europe with its economic crisis or places like Scotland, Ireland, wales and England due to Tory austerity and the crumbling of the £ with Brexit looming that more and more people are falling into poverty? Children are starving and dying and because you’re from the west and have it better than others you think everyone in the west is doing well as you? Ignorance. I can bring up countless more examples but I’m hoping I’ve made my point.
What is the point in doing philosophy when you bury your head in the sand and don’t go outside your news bubble to really research what is going on around the world from multiple news sources?
If every problem could be so easily fixed by solving just one, we’d have probably figured out what it is by now. Many problems need solving and every problem deserves an allocation of the population who make it their first priority. I don’t have to make it mine though. My priority is Ethics, which ultimately still puts me on women’s side.
Quoting I like sushi
I would only accept this statement if it was rephrased as "When resources are focused towards the education of people in general, the outcomes are far greater in many areas of society." because, so far, you have not provided justification for why we should "focus our resources on young women's education".
Also, what does it mean to "focus resources on young women's education"? Will we be diverting more resources to education of women than to education of men? That would be sexist.
This is neither a constructive nor an intelligent point. The rest is just a judgement based on assumptions of my condition and location.
Uhm it is a point if you read what I wrote which you just admitted that you didn’t.
- you
Nope, psychological evaluation of implied bias and your writing.
I’m assuming now that most of your reasoning is wrong because you claimed you don’t read what people actually say to you. Which also implies something else, that the reason you don’t believe in morality is because if you did, for whatever reason you would have a hard time seeing yourself as a good person.
If you don’t read then how in the world do you intend to try and lecture me on nuance?
Please read what i've written more carefully. I was talking about your insistence on "focusing our resources on young women's education", which i think should be elaborated upon and also why we're talking about one gender in particular and neglecting the other.
If we are going to put about the same amount of resources on young women's education compared to young men's education, then why bring gender up?
If we are going to put much more of our resources on young women's education compared to young men's, then i would argue that it's sexist and this particular line of reasoning needs to be justified. "If we educate young women, the rate of poverty etc. falls." doesn't provide enough justification here, as the same applies to young men.
https://unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/
Oh like climate change and global warming? So girls schools yes? The continuation of our species no?
Again, your main claim was that we should focus our resources on the education of young women as a way to combat overpopulation. "Saving whales" and "saving carbon footprint" was mentioned alongside the problems it can adress.
I'm simply asking you why brought gender up spesifically when 1) It was not really relevant. 2) Solving gender discrimination in education isn't the main problem-educating people in general is.
I do not understand how you do not get this.
Now THAT is a very good oxymoron.
:up:
That's a very weird distraction you're mounting there. Anyways, I don't think anyone outside the alt-right, with the exception of the people mocking them, is using the term "soy-boys", so this is rather a shibboleth.
Is this based on some resarch you're familiar with or are you extrapolating?
My main point for asking in this vein is less that I disagree with the idea of focusing on the education and women, and more that I am sceptical that lowering birthrates is something we should worry about, rather than just something that happens as we improve other, more relevant things.
— alcontali
Have to agree with you there. It’s a pretty strange way to phrase things. “Not necessarily alt-right” is very strange and to generalise to just “left” as opposed to “alt-left” is suspicious too. I feel like people who are centre left or centre right or centre don’t blankety imply right or left is bad. They tend to imply alt, meaning to the extreme end of either demographic as bad.
I’m not suggesting lowering birthrates. Birthrates naturally reduce when living standards go up. It’s more a matter of empowering women so they can raise children well rather than being stretched thin and badly educated (if they cannot read or write then they cannot help their children learn) this has been recorded in Africa so that isn’t an extrapolation on my part. It may be a far throw from modern western society, but a serious issue when you look at places like India, Brasil or many African nations.
The estimates are the population will level out at around 11 billion. I’m not against more people I’m against large sections of the population living in poverty and ill health (such would put further strain on the environment as person survival trumps not cutting down a tree).
Is physical health the only standard to judge weather to procreate? I know that's the knee jerk response and popular opinion, but 0erhaps there are more subtle reasons and arguments to be made why it is indeed never good.
This here is true, however let me show you something:
I think this presents what you’re trying to say without focusing on any one demographic and it will do you much better to understand from a wholistic viewpoint than such a focused one.
I hope you understand you are preaching to the choir here, pretty sure most here are aware and sympathise with the plight of women. They are our mothers, sisters and partners plights after all. Standing up for women’s rights is a good and important thing to do... but it isn’t the only good and important thing that needs done.
Also, if you started a discussion here to discuss women’s rights across the world I’d speak positively to that.
The main thrust of my initial post was that people may complain about destroying rainforests and such, but they don’t generally think “I know! Let’s educate young women to stop the destruction,” because they don’t equate the symptom to the underlying cause of social unrest. Of course there are other factors but this one is a hefty weight for tipping the scales.
Lmao. Found the /r/The_Donald Reddit edgelord user. I don't know what university you went to, but.
Quoting Swan
I reject both alt-right and radical left.
Neither view reflects that I believe in the primacy of religious law.
Furthermore, neither view is a documented system, but rather a hodgepodge of changing, circumstantial opinions. Their very structure is already utterly inferior. There is no need to even look at their content to condemn these things.
"Alt-right" and "radical left" are very western ways of seeing things, that emerged in just the last decades, while I have largely switched to centuries-old, non-western ways of thinking on these matters. I have learned a lot from studying Islamic sources and from living 10+ years in a Buddhist country, to the extent that I consider concoctions such as "alt-right" and "radical left" to be mere bullshit.
During the day, I spend most of my time with people who only speak an Asian language. Few people speak English over here.
Absolutely nobody over here would believe in the "alt-right" and "radical left" bullshit. What's more, these terms reflect the worst of western society, i.e. that what is utterly wrong with it.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
:clap: :clap:
??????????????
I'm guessing you spend most of your time in shady parts of Thailand, as well.
I only transit in Thailand when flying relatively far, and not even always, because Malaysia and Singapore are also large hubs. Talk to people in these places and you will quickly understand that they thoroughly despise your way of thinking, your view on life, your view on how society should work, and so on. After over a decade of living here, I ended up agreeing with them. As far as I am concerned, they are right while you are wrong.
Most things are, I suppose!
No need to evoke “final solutions” in regards to public education. Families can supplement public education with their own training.
Adding insult to injury, the politicians even collect taxes for that public-school depravity. I don't want to use it and I don't want to pay for it. There is only one solution for the problem of the arrogance of these politicians, because all respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals.
But then again, it is much more than a conflict between politicians and the people who are sick and tired of them. The reason why that kind of politicians exists, is because there is a demographic, a part of the population, that wants them around. Therefore, merely getting rid of these politicians is not enough to solve the problem. If that part of the population "democratically" uses their head count to harass other people, then the problem of their excess head count will need to be addressed.
However, in defense of having children I have two propositions:
1. The first being that evolutionary traits enable humans to desire a family. For means of sustaining their bloodline, populating their community, and sustaining humankind. Without this evolutionary drive humans would simply go extinct. This seems to evidently be against the nature of humans.
2. Which is simply an extension of #1 is the society has the status quo of procreation. As societies evolved, our evolutionary instincts have evolved into the idea of the nuclear family, and (in some cases) aversion or distaste for those who wish to remain childless. Humans are majorly expected to have children and continue their bloodline. This perpetuates the society and is thus a good thing.
So, given the two reasons above, it would seem that it is logical to have children. This does not seem to be fallacious in the problem of over-population, for example. Rather, we can see it logical to have children if there is an intelligent design behind the procreation.
Let me know what you think, these are just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Is it because of overpopulation? Forgoing children to quell problems of overpopulation is a task for the self-appointed caretakers of the world, the logic of obeying this moral imperative is questionable at best - the claim it's illogical to not obey is humorous. You can deceive yourself into thinking you're part of the solution but you're ignoring the obvious truth that you know there aren't going to be enough people who think like you to make a difference.
I don't know why you think it's illogical to have children but since I don't think it's obvious that it's illogical, I have to just point to all the obvious reasons that don't really need listing.