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

Armchair politics, ethical soapbox and current affairs. Place to discuss vegan ethics and general ethics and politics. Be nice.

Moderators: hardcore iv, bronco, fredrikw, JP, Rochellita

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

Yes
2
33%
No
4
67%
Undecided/It depends
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 6

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby JS » Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:09 am

xrodolfox wrote: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 :)
User avatar
JS
Active Member
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:07 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby soniczip » Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:30 am

JS wrote:
xrodolfox wrote: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.
i'm focusing on some kind of stuff
User avatar
soniczip
Active Member
 
Posts: 4551
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby beforewisdom » Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:03 am

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 ).
Last edited by beforewisdom on Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner)
beforewisdom
Active Member
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:33 am

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby beforewisdom » Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:04 am

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.


"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner)
beforewisdom
Active Member
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:33 am

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby beforewisdom » Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:46 am

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

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner)
beforewisdom
Active Member
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:33 am

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby xrodolfox » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:36 pm

For example...
UCLA professor Jared Diamond and author of Guns, Germs, and Steel wrote:"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"
"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."
-Bakunin
User avatar
xrodolfox
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3579
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby xrodolfox » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:53 pm

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.
"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."
-Bakunin
User avatar
xrodolfox
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3579
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby vCLaW » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:57 pm

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...
User avatar
vCLaW
Active Member
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: in the highlands of Scotland

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby moggy » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:02 pm

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

There's not point in me taking part in something where I've totally lost track of what somebody else is trying to say.
It took just 3 words to make me vegan- Put Calves First
moggy
Active Member
 
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby Johnstuff » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:43 pm

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.
"these songs of guidance never stop the violence, we need strong defiance"
User avatar
Johnstuff
Active Member
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:06 am
Location: Leicester, UK

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby aspara-gus » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:39 pm

xrodolfox wrote: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.
aspara-gus
Active Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Mauritius

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby kallefs » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:29 pm

aspara-gus wrote:
xrodolfox wrote: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.
Dum di dum!
User avatar
kallefs
Active Member
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:23 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby xrodolfox » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:10 pm

^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.
"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."
-Bakunin
User avatar
xrodolfox
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3579
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby aspara-gus » Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:29 am

kallefs wrote:
aspara-gus wrote:
xrodolfox wrote: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
Active Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Mauritius

Re: Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting

Postby aspara-gus » Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:39 am

xrodolfox wrote: 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.
aspara-gus
Active Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Mauritius

PreviousNext

Return to Ethics, Politics and Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests