Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think they were talking about the Planet Earth. Just a guess.
As long as we can produce enough energy to sustain our agricultural system then we really don't have an overpopulation problem globally, rather just a problem of distribution.
Locally, there can be overpopulation, it's called where I live now Long Island, NY!
There is no moral imperative to procreate. And are you meaning to tell me that you regard your children as nothing more than vessels to carry your genes in the future?
The genes of those that don't have the drive to reproduce are being filtered out right now by natural selection. Those that do want children are being favored. This is the result of contraception. In the past those that could care less about having children still reproduced because they had sex and produced offspring. Now with contraception these genes are being eliminated.
Makes total sense to me.
This is something that people that have children understand instinctually and those that are against having children fail to perceive.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,134,166 times
Reputation: 40640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Port North
As long as we can produce enough energy to sustain our agricultural system then we really don't have an overpopulation problem globally, rather just a problem of distribution.
Locally, there can be overpopulation, it's called where I live now Long Island, NY!
I would agree it is largely a distribution problem, but would disagree that we don't have one globally. There are people out there (I am not one of them) that finds the needs of non-human animals and ecosystems to be relatively unimportant and that humans, and what serves humans, is all that is really important.
People who are accusing the OP of reneging on the deal are missing the point.
Sure, at age 23 she thought she knew what she would want for the rest of her life, and so did her husband. Now it turns out that they want different things.
It's nobody's fault. At least one of them is going to wind up not having what they want. The only question from here is what's more important to each of them, and whether they can live with something that is not entirely what they want.
I would agree it is largely a distribution problem, but would disagree that we don't have one globally. There are people out there (I am not one of them) that finds the needs of non-human animals and ecosystems to be relatively unimportant and that humans, and what serves humans, is all that is really important.
I'm not saying everyone needs to go out and have 10 kids. That kind of rapid growth without the death rates to match would cause problems environmentally for sure.
However on an individual level I do feel like there is some sort of natural selection going on in regards to people's attitude toward fertility. To some of us the instinct to reproduce is very strong and I couldn't think of possibly not wanting to have children. To someone like me it is beyond my understanding of why someone would want to remain voluntarily childless/child-free unless they are totally dedicated to something else like a very high level career, the priesthood/some sort of deep religious pursuit. If that was the case I would remain single. You get married to have children, yes there are other good reasons to marry, but having children seems key, even if it is by adoption.
To me it is like eating, drinking or any other biological activity, a key part of being human. Seeing a newborn baby is priceless to me, I shutter at the thought of someone finding that abhorrant.
People who are accusing the OP of reneging on the deal are missing the point.
Sure, at age 23 she thought she knew what she would want for the rest of her life, and so did her husband. Now it turns out that they want different things.
It's nobody's fault. At least one of them is going to wind up not having what they want. The only question from here is what's more important to each of them, and whether they can live with something that is not entirely what they want.
The thing is, men and women in their 20's have no idea how strongly hormonal changes can affect psychology. They have no idea there's a sort of time bomb built into the relationship, if they both agree not to have kids when they marry. And it's a real crap shoot, because the time bomb doesn't happen to all women. I know several who got through the 30's without that happening. But most women do experience that drive to have kids. It's just nature, it's not anyone's fault.
. There are people out there (I am not one of them) that finds the needs of non-human animals and ecosystems to be relatively unimportant and that humans, and what serves humans, is all that is really important.
That's not me, my carbon footprint easily is much smaller than alot of people I know because I try to live as efficently as possible. Drive modest cars short distances to work, live in a small home, live below not above my means. That is why I'm moving away from a place of extravagence to a place where living more simply is valued.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
