Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting?

[JS]

A straw man is simple.

Two points are argued.
Person #1 makes an argument.
Person #2 argues against a DIFFERENT argument than #1. This is the Straw Man (a fake and easier sparring partner).

Conclusion: Even if #2 makes a valid case, it is against the incorrect argument, and thus is logically inconsistent.

I'm not too sure I get the straw man still

So two folk are not discussing the same issue but they think they are is that what you mean? Sorry I'm starting to feel not so bright this morning! I'm sure the penny will drop sooner or later

[soniczip]

A straw man is simple.

Two points are argued.
Person #1 makes an argument.
Person #2 argues against a DIFFERENT argument than #1. This is the Straw Man (a fake and easier sparring partner).

Conclusion: Even if #2 makes a valid case, it is against the incorrect argument, and thus is logically inconsistent.

I'm not too sure I get the straw man still

So two folk are not discussing the same issue but they think they are is that what you mean? Sorry I'm starting to feel not so bright this morning! I'm sure the penny will drop sooner or later

no, the second person is not discussing the original issue, brought by the first. the second person is answering to some problem which is not on the table. example:
1st person: our planet earth goes around the sun!
2nd person: our planet earth is not round!

the issue "going around" the sun is not taken into consideration by the second person. the second person is discussing another issue (is our planet round?) which wasn't brougth into consideration by the first. the second person might be right (the earth is not perfecly round), but this is not the issue debated by the first.

[beforewisdom]

The planet is going to have 7 billion people on it by the end of the year. I can't see a reason outside of selfishness or ignorance why an intelligent person would choose to have more than 2 kids of their own ( or choose not to teach their children about population issues ).

[beforewisdom]

Current Population:
http://tinyurl.com/currentpopulation
6.9 billion people

World fertility rate for population replacement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
2.33 children per woman

From:
http://tinyurl.com/futurepopulation

According to the United Nations, the global population could be as high as 11 billion in 2050 or as low as 8 billion, if the right programs are put in place now.

Population growth stretches natural resources to their limits. Deforestation, food and water shortages, and climate change are all intensified by the addition of nearly 80 million people a year to the world's population.

[beforewisdom]

FYI.......the poll is broken.

[xrodolfox]

For example...

"I'm looking at consumption as opposed to population because consumption of resources is the significant consideration in whether we're going to have enough resources. Population alone is only part of the equation. What counts is the number of people times how much, on the average, each of those people consume. And that means that consumption rates rise — either if population rises which it's doing slowly — or per person consumption rates rise, which they're doing rapidly as a result of China and India catching up and as a result of people from all over the word doing their best to try to move to the U.S., and Europe, and Australia and become first world consumers.

...

Americans and other first worlders -- that's to say Europeans and Japanese and Australians -- consume 32 times more resources. That's to say we consume 32 times more gas, and 32 times more metals, but by the same token we put out 32 times more waste like plastics and greenhouse gases, than do citizens of third world countries, and that means that one American equals 32 Kenyans in his or her impact on the rest of the world"

[xrodolfox]

The reality is that a "consumer" based boycott, such as that of individuals having less children, will do nothing, just as boycotting McDonald's alone does nothing... or heck, boycotting McDonald's in a large group does very little UNLESS that group addresses the core issues.

The core issues of global demise due to carrying capacity is VERY much due to consumption. When folks talk about overpopulation, they talk about places that are poor and brown. Those are, in fact, where most of the population growth is happening, but those places are hardly the problem. The problem is in places like the UK and the US where a person consumes 36 times more than in Africa. That means an African family could have 34 children and have them live each to 76yrs old and each of them have 34 more children and it would equal the UK or the US.

The problem is that the Global North doesn't take responsibility, and instead passes the buck with folks from the North crying "overpopulation". That means something very different in places like India, China, or Latin America than it does in the UK or the US. In the global south, over population means that there is a lack of basic resources for poor people due to wealth distribution, but not that the earth will burst at the seams with over consumption.

In the Global North, overpopulation doesn't refer to the fact that resources aren't equally distributed in Sub-Sahara Africa (which ironically, is one of the only places on earth that actually lives sustainably), but rather the conversation is about global carrying capacity.

If that is the case, then the UK would have to cut it's population in half. That would mean more people would have to die (probably the old?) to make up the numbers so that the richest can keep up their lifestyles.

IMO, folks that talk about the crisis of overpopulation and how the earth will fall apart due to the large number of people are bamboozled to try to have others take responsibility for the problems of global and local environmental carrying capacity.

[vCLaW]

What's that got to do with the original question, or is it just a straw man?
It also seems to be very dubious numbers for 'consumption'. it is only counting 'gas' and 'metals', and not including any things that actually matter, like food or water...

[moggy]

I confess that I've given up on this thread, I am obviously too thick to understand rodolfo's very theoretical answers.

There's not point in me taking part in something where I've totally lost track of what somebody else is trying to say.

[Johnstuff]

I've not really been following this thread but it's a funny question.

Of course having kids is selfish. Drinking this cup of coffee I have is selfish. Virtually everything humans do is motivated by self interest even if they would like to believe otherwise.

I could be wrong. I'd really like to be wrong. Do humans ever do anything non selfish? Surely even seemingly altruistic actions can be explained as selfish. The topic question seems to assume humans are capable of altruism. I wish we were. Please someone explian to me that we are. I'd like it to be true.

I'm not saying it's wrong to have kids BTW. There's a huge difference between selfish and 'wrong' IMO.

[aspara-gus]

The core issues of global demise due to carrying capacity is VERY much due to consumption. When folks talk about overpopulation, they talk about places that are poor and brown. Those are, in fact, where most of the population growth is happening, but those places are hardly the problem. The problem is in places like the UK and the US where a person consumes 36 times more than in Africa. That means an African family could have 34 children and have them live each to 76yrs old and each of them have 34 more children and it would equal the UK or the US.

.

This argument is a bit short sighted. Times change and those who are low consumers today could be high consumers in a generation or two. The Chinese were very low energy consumers during their population growth a couple of generations ago. Today, they are all out buying air conditioners.

[kallefs]

The core issues of global demise due to carrying capacity is VERY much due to consumption. When folks talk about overpopulation, they talk about places that are poor and brown. Those are, in fact, where most of the population growth is happening, but those places are hardly the problem. The problem is in places like the UK and the US where a person consumes 36 times more than in Africa. That means an African family could have 34 children and have them live each to 76yrs old and each of them have 34 more children and it would equal the UK or the US.

.

This argument is a bit short sighted. Times change and those who are low consumers today could be high consumers in a generation or two. The Chinese were very low energy consumers during their population growth a couple of generations ago. Today, they are all out buying air conditioners.

Doesn't that make the argument even more valid? It's not the amount of people, it is what they consume.

[xrodolfox]

^yes!

On altruism and selfishness.
I am a union organizer, so I talk all day to people about their self interest, as well as about things that may not benefit them at all but would benefit members whom the've never met at all.

Simply put what I see is people being BOTH selfish and altruistic pretty equally, often at the same time, EVEN THOUGH selfishness is economically enshrined and supported and altruism is often relegated *only* and rarely to family affairs. This is another discussion, but what I find important is less what individuals choose, but rather what institutions makes the "norm" and the default.

[aspara-gus]

The core issues of global demise due to carrying capacity is VERY much due to consumption. When folks talk about overpopulation, they talk about places that are poor and brown. Those are, in fact, where most of the population growth is happening, but those places are hardly the problem. The problem is in places like the UK and the US where a person consumes 36 times more than in Africa. That means an African family could have 34 children and have them live each to 76yrs old and each of them have 34 more children and it would equal the UK or the US.

.

This argument is a bit short sighted. Times change and those who are low consumers today could be high consumers in a generation or two. The Chinese were very low energy consumers during their population growth a couple of generations ago. Today, they are all out buying air conditioners.

Doesn't that make the argument even more valid? It's not the amount of people, it is what they consume.

It is obviously both the amount of people and the amount they consume

[aspara-gus]

Adding more children to people who consume very little and put little strain on the world due to consumption really isn't a problem. .

Adding children to poor overpopulated areas is a small problem concerning consumption, but a huge problem concerning waste management, spread of diseases, civil unrest, and not to mention animal abuse.