offense74 wrote:Consumption needs to go down and I'm for political, cultural and personal ways to achieve that.
When it comes to population I'm not doing the math wrong, you gave the equation yourself. Do you have like a bottom number on how many people we need to be? Is it because of genetic diversity or what?
I think it is a lot more apt to say, "Get rid of the rich" rather than a market approach like, "don't have children".
JS wrote:I would say yes having your own kids is selfish as the only reason you're doing it is for your own biological needs as if you wanted to not be selfish and have children you'd adopt.
This is perhaps true in well-off and connected areas of the Global North, but that is not how the vast majority of children are born. Most of the time, there is very little birth control available. It is an ASSUMPTION based on class that most people decide
to have their children.
If this statement was qualified to "rich people living in rich countries" then sure, I totally agree. Rich people in rich countries should totally be encouraged not to have children, and instead adopt... that puts a dent in one problem (children growing up without support), but it doesn't address overconsumption at all. For that, you need to get rid of the rich (or have real income equality).
moggy wrote:If you really love children, then adopt, or are you only prepared to love a child who is biologically yours.
^The first part of the sentence is 100% logical... but the second part that is tagged on is a result of a slippery slope argument. There are many families which have adopted and biological children. It is definitely possible to love both, equally.
I think adoption needs more support, for sure. It needs to be made easier and adopting children needs to loose it's detrimental associations. Adopting should be the norm.
...but the rest of your argument is about how it's adopting vs. biological, which is a false dilemma. That isn't a true or logical frame. If you want to create more families/individuals that adopt, one needs to also support all families with children AND change the laws and social mores that restrict adoption.
moggy wrote:Adoption, particularly of older children can be difficult (usually is), but your own biological child may turn out to have special needs.
In 20 years of teaching, adopted children (or those in long term fostercare) have blossomed, whereas kids in care have been passed from pillar to post and their lives are like a train crash. 'In care' kids- well I've had to report them missing to the police myself because nobody else could be bothered, and taken them to the cafe in town when they havent eaten for days. One girl I even left money behind the till for.
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
This is awesome, and true.
moggy wrote:If you are capable of loving a child, surely it doesnt have to be biologically yours.
This is not a logical conclusion or relevant to what you posted earlier.
Of course, people can love children that are not theirs biologically. My wife and her brother were adopted, and my in-laws love them fully. This is awesome. ALL children should be loved.
No one in this thread has made any argument that people should have biological children instead of adopting. That is an argument no one posed and no one agrees to. I have no idea why you are raising those points unless you are really arguing with someone outside of this thread on this topic. That person is not here, and if you present their argument correctly, then they are wrong... and you are right. Kudos to you.
It's just that no one here argued that.
"The worker has the right to leave his boss, but can she do it? And if she does quit him, is it in order to lead a free life; where she will have no master but herself? No, she leaves to sell herself to another employer. She's driven by the same hunger. Thus the worker's liberty is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means of realization; an utter falsehood."