Saving the Earth from people
 

Mail Article

What we have here is a woman convinced she can save the planet with abortion and sterilization, at least for herself.

[ QUOTE ]
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."


[/ QUOTE ]

Consider for a moment the foundation of her premise. Population is on a Malthusian geometric spike to Pluto (Neptune now?). While population prognostication involves both agenda and forecasting, I'm convinced that total global population will stabilize near to 10 billion and will do so in two or three generations.

Clearly this woman is not the first do-gooder liberal to tilt at windmills. But look at what she endorses. Abortion for herself at least and quite possibly she'd advocate it across-the-board if given the power. Sterilization too, as above. Would she start some forced program if she had the means? Clearly, if sterilization is acceptable perhaps a pogrom is in order, since people are the problem. The limit of action she would consider is unknown but I does scare me knowing she's got company.

Lastly she states "Having children is selfish." and I must insist that as I examine the life choices of so many 20 somethings and 30 somethings, not having children is quite possible the most selfish act they choose. It's contrary to nature in the deepest way and an expression of self interest at its worst.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

No.

Artificially extended lives and abundant resources are unnatural. This is causing the scourge of overpopulation we're seeing around the world.

I hardly think people voluntarily sterilizing themselves are dangerous, especially compared to the threats from overpopulation and increasing technology.

[ QUOTE ]
not having children is quite possible the most selfish act they choose

[/ QUOTE ]
Does it follow that not impregnating every woman I can (within the bounds of consent) is also selfish? If we put our mind to it most of could have impregnated a dozen women by 25.

If not, where do you draw the line, and why is your line valid and not someone else's?

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

[ QUOTE ]
No.

Artificially extended lives and abundant resources are unnatural. This is causing the scourge of overpopulation we're seeing around the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. I'll let others elaborate.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

They're out there.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

This actually makes me happy, her genes will be eliminated from the pool and it will be one less kook we have to worry about.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

[ QUOTE ]
This actually makes me happy, her genes will be eliminated from the pool and it will be one less kook we have to worry about.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Now, if only she'd abort herself so she can stop stealing my trees.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

The people who argue for resource conservation are usually the people who argue for transferring wealth from the rich to the poor. But if we are to conserve resources for a future generation to use, that future generation is going to be richer than us, so we are transferring wealth from the poor to the future rich. Doesn't make much sense to me!

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

[ QUOTE ]
This actually makes me happy, her genes will be eliminated from the pool and it will be one less kook we have to worry about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little miffed that she hasn't simply killed herself. Now I have a rooting interest.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

What is so great about being "natural"? Is it natural to drive cars, take antibiotics, and post on the Internet?

Side question, what has convinced you the population will plateau at 10 billion? My gut says it's going to get more crowded than that...

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

The earth doesn't give two [censored] about us.

Fleas on a dog.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly she states "Having children is selfish." and I must insist that as I examine the life choices of so many 20 somethings and 30 somethings, not having children is quite possible the most selfish act they choose. It's contrary to nature in the deepest way and an expression of self interest at its worst.



[/ QUOTE ]

Quite the contrary. Ask anyone why they want a baby. They’ll say: because I want someone to carry on my name, because I want a beautiful little boy ( girl ) to love, because I want somebody who will love me, because I don’t wish to be alone in my old age. Etc, etc. I hardly ever hear anyone giving an altruistic reason for wanting to have a kid of their own. If you are a true altruist, why not adopt?

On a recent History channel episode regarding things that will end human life on earth, several people were asked - what would you do if you knew you had two years on this planet and there was absolutely, beyond any doubt nothing you or anyone else could do. One person said he would crash the playboy mansion, another said he would travel, but several people said - “ well, I’ve never had kids, so I think I would have a child". My God man, these folks who want to have children of their own are among the most selfish people on earth.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

I have not been elaborated on.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

Scientifically, her view on why people have children is close to correct. It is genes, however, that are 'selfish', not people, as the name of Dawkins classic suggests. Our genes would not have survived if they didn't replicate themselves, "so behavior about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet" is what evolution has brought to us. She is a fine illustration of the truth of Dawkins theory: Her behavior will not lead to her genes being replicated, and, because there is a positive correlation between the values and political views of a parent and child, this means that this viewpoint will not, simply by this aspect genetic replication, come to be the dominant viewpoint amongst humans. It may for other reasons, of course...

Anybody that doesn't favor the extinction of the human race can't favor the institutionalization of what you call 'her program', and if her reasons for her behavior are about improving things for human beings, she doesn't support 'her program' either. If she thinks that the earth is more important than human beings she is, imo, insane, as the earth does not think, or feel pain, or have a sense of justice.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

Their debatable assumption must be that if we don't conserve future generations will be poorer than us.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

Stories like this make me think "You go girl!!" In a generation or two, she and her ilk will no longer be part of the discussion. I've always liked the statistic that at the population density of New York City (27,083 people per sq. mile) you could fit the entire world's population (6 Billion) comfortably in the state of Texas (261,797 square miles). (6B/27,083=221,541 to save you the math) Stats from Wiki.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly she states "Having children is selfish." and I must insist that as I examine the life choices of so many 20 somethings and 30 somethings, not having children is quite possible the most selfish act they choose. It's contrary to nature in the deepest way and an expression of self interest at its worst.



[/ QUOTE ]

Quite the contrary. Ask anyone why they want a baby. They’ll say: because I want someone to carry on my name, because I want a beautiful little boy ( girl ) to love, because I want somebody who will love me, because I don’t wish to be alone in my old age. Etc, etc. I hardly ever hear anyone giving an altruistic reason for wanting to have a kid of their own. If you are a true altruist, why not adopt?

On a recent History channel episode regarding things that will end human life on earth, several people were asked - what would you do if you knew you had two years on this planet and there was absolutely, beyond any doubt nothing you or anyone else could do. One person said he would crash the playboy mansion, another said he would travel, but several people said - “ well, I’ve never had kids, so I think I would have a child". My God man, these folks who want to have children of their own are among the most selfish people on earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

You more or less skipped right over what I wrote and went straight for the talking points. To choose yourself, your interest, your fun, your self-indulgence over family can be considered nothing other than selfish. If you're unable to see this, nothing I write will help you.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

[ QUOTE ]
You more or less skipped right over what I wrote and went straight for the talking points. To choose yourself, your interest, your fun, your self-indulgence over family can be considered nothing other than selfish.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but that's not the same as choosing not to have kids.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

On another level, it is the most civilized and advanced parts of the world that are exercising population control a la Toni Vernelli. Meanwhile in 3rd world countries dominated by Islam in the east and Catholicism's anti birth control in the south, people are reproducing like rabbits. Where does that leave us in 20 years?

Choosing not to have kids is not only selfish, it is hazardous to our way of life.

Re: Saving the Earth from people
 

[ QUOTE ]
On another level, it is the most civilized and advanced parts of the world that are exercising population control a la Toni Vernelli. Meanwhile in 3rd world countries dominated by Islam in the east and Catholicism's anti birth control in the south, people are reproducing like rabbits. Where does that leave us in 20 years?

Choosing not to have kids is not only selfish, it is hazardous to our way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

zoe noes the dark skinned people are coming

Serious question: what should we do, exactly, to make sure this "hazard to our way of life" never comes to fruition? Should Western governments restrict access to birth control? Or perhaps we could enact some kind of "final solution" to this messy demographics problem that "is hazardous to our way of life" by some kind of forced sterilization of these people who reproduce like animals?