Freethought & Rationalism Archive

echidna · 03-18-2002, 01:56 PM

Cheers PB, unfortunately your link won�t work for me.

The problem complicates horribly when one brings it down to personal aesthetic lifestyle preferences. On Sunday I purposely refused to sign a petition opposing some highrise apartment buildings overlooking a local bicycle track.

Yes the treeline is more attractive, but if one doesn�t build upwards one builds outwards & last weekend while camping, all I could hear was the sound of chainsaws and falling trees while people cleared their properties so they could enjoy their country lifestyle.

In many ways I think a high density urbanite is more environmentally friendly than an outback hippie. They are less likely to own a car, they are more likely to use public transport, they will use less water, their house is likely to be smaller & their apartments are more energy friendly than free-standing dwellings, etc etc etc.

Everything becomes a double-edged sword, and the consumerism of others is much easier to criticise than our own consumerism. Off topic I know, but it just bugged me on Sunday, how people see such problems so simplistically, without appreciating that every decision we make comes at a price.

These macro problems seem generally traceable in our own personal attitudes.

We desire the freedom of an automobile.
We desire personal space, the more the better.
We desire the enjoyment of consumerism.
We desire the company and happiness of our family and friends.

Can we all deny these things to ourselves before we deny them to others ? I�ve always liked the slogan "Think global, act local".

MadMordigan · 03-19-2002, 12:33 PM

This really is one of the issues that pisses me off.

In my opinion, having kids is not in itself immoral. It is a perfectly legitimate pursuit of happiness by the parents. If kids turn your crank, enjoy.

What is immoral is the expectation by those who wish to be parents that everyone else in society should be imposed with the responsibility to support and protect those children's lifestyles. It is no different than a person building a sports car then demanding that everyone else get out of the fast lane so they can drive 200km/h. Or a person demanding that a marina be built so they have somewhere to store the yacht they will buy in a couple of years. Or to build a private golf course with public funds.

I'm the guy who has to die when its my turn to die. The short time I have in my life is all I'll ever have to enjoy. Someone else monopolizing the roads with their sports car, or taxing my resources to provide them with mooring directly reduces the quality of my life. It would be unfair to justify such a policy by saying 'everyone loves boats/golf/fast cars'.

It strikes me as fundamental principle of social fairness that no one should be loaded with a responsibility without their consent. I don't have any input, consultation or even consideration when someone else decides to pinch off a flesh loaf. How can it possibly be considered fair that two people should be able to unilaterally decide to increase the demands on everyone else in the community?

If a person gains a viceral thrill by pushing a steel mechanism down an ashphalt surface at 1/4 the speed of sound, good on them, but THEY should be resonponsible for the care, upkeep and maintenance of the machine and the environment needed to enjoy that hobby. If a person enjoys the viceral thrill of brainwashing an ignorant snot covered barbarian who knows no better than to squak out "I lub you daddy", they they should be likewise responsible.

All of the benifits of having a child, from the aestestic 'It's got uncle Joe's ears' to the pathetic attempt at a vicarious immortality accrue to the parents of that child. More power too them, I have strange hobbies as well. But I DO NOT STICK OTHERS WITH THE BILL!

Conflicts like this are best resolved by negotiation. In this spirit I propose the following bargain. I'll voluntairily take on the responsibility of the care of everyone else's children, in return for the privilige of fucking everyone else's wife.

WWSD · 03-19-2002, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:
Haven?t we just done this one ?

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000050&p=" target="_blank">Overpopulation and environmental problems</a>

Without anyone yet being able to demonstrate any upcoming lack of resources threatening our existence, or the existence of future generations, sadly any environmental concerns remain purely aesthetic preferences, not practical ones.

If pollutants of one kind or another turn up as culprits behind certain diseases, they become practical. If xenoestrogens from plastics are leeching into groundwater that I drink and I am suffering as a result, I feel its much more than just an aesthetic problem. While I like breasts, I don't want to have a pair of my own.

A consideration that is more on topic would be, if the pop increases in the same fashion as it has, consumerism will increase as well, companies will manufacture more plastics, and more xenoestrogens will be released into the environment. Xenoestrogens and other things like benzopyrenes which seem to have an affinity for mutating the p53 tumor supressor gene in humans.

So, is it responsible for us to continue increasing our numbers knowing that the result may be detrimental to our actual lives in terms of more production of waste materials?

Maybe our resources won't dry up anytime soon, but use of those resources creates waste products that concern me.

Also, no one seems to want to touch the idea of responsibility when bringing a new being into a crappy world. Crappy being violent and stressful, not dirty.

And here I thought that would be the opic to spawn much discussion. Shows how much I know...

ju'iblex · 03-19-2002, 04:51 PM

MadMordigan: I agree with you, but im unsure to what extent you are saying that we shouldnt be taking care of other peoples children. Out of curiosity, do you believe that we should maintain (and or improve) the current support and welfare system, or restrict it?

echidna · 03-19-2002, 05:05 PM

Personally I'm quite comfortable that I have moral obligations to my community as well as my own personal obligations.

The same as I think the community has moral obligations to myself. Seems fair in a Contractarian kinda way.

MadMordigan · 03-19-2002, 05:09 PM

MadMordigan: I agree with you, but im unsure to what extent you are saying that we shouldnt be taking care of other peoples children. Out of curiosity, do you believe that we should maintain (and or improve) the current support and welfare system, or restrict it?

My opinion is that the welfare and social support systems we have should be strengthened for those children who are here already and are on there way. They are here against their will, and we might as well spend the effort it takes to help them.

But I am ready to say no mas to those who wish to inflict more children on societies shoulders. I mean come on people, they are 100% preventable. If you want them, pay for them. If you can't pay for them, don't have them. If you have them and won't pay for them, then in my mind you are a criminal.

MadMordigan · 03-19-2002, 05:19 PM

Personally I'm quite comfortable that I have moral obligations to my community as well as my own personal obligations.
The same as I think the community has moral obligations to myself. Seems fair in a Contractarian kinda way.

I agree with this. But the issue is not about reciprical obligations between society and the individual. The issue is whether certain individuals within society can unilaterally MULTIPLY those obligations for the rest of us.

echidna · 03-19-2002, 07:06 PM

Yes WWSD, no matter how we live there will always be many factors governing our health. But to step back, all indicators are that our lifespans are increasing, not decreasing. Prove a significant enough risk from xenoestrogens, and our wonderful legal system will legislate appropriate protection. Until then I can worry myself sick about all the potential carcinogens. No, not perfect, but then again, can you find anything better in our history ? The objective evidence says I will live longer today than if I had lived 50 years ago, but the evidence also indicates that I�ll still die of something or other �

As for having children being immoral, no, I think that�s an inappropriate word. I think one can argue that it is sometimes irresponsible, but I wouldn�t argue it on moral grounds. My parenting thread was really only in this MFP for continuity reasons.

Whether you see the world as crappy is quite a subjective viewpoint of course. Last month I was reminding a friend of mine that in all of history, I think I would most have chosen to been born when I was. I think my generation was the luckiest of all previous, to have the longevity, freedom and knowledge which I have at my fingertips. But even luckier than my generation is the generation of her children, who will live even longer, have even more freedom.

What is difficult today, is learning the wisdom of how best to make the best choices from the multitude which we are presented with. Life was so much simpler when we lived a subsistence life and died at 30. And there are many times through our long lives when we may wish for such simplicity.

echidna · 03-19-2002, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
I agree with this. But the issue is not about reciprical obligations between society and the individual. The issue is whether certain individuals within society can unilaterally MULTIPLY those obligations for the rest of us.

Do you have a practical and humanitarian proposal for how to decide who can have children and who can�t ?

MadMordigan · 03-19-2002, 07:19 PM

Do you have a practical and humanitarian proposal for how to decide who can have children and who can’t ?

no, unfortunately.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: MadMordigan ]

03-19-2002, 07:19 PM	#30
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Do you have a practical and humanitarian proposal for how to decide who can have children and who can’t ? no, unfortunately. [ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: MadMordigan ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2002, 01:56 PM	#21
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Cheers PB, unfortunately your link won�t work for me. The problem complicates horribly when one brings it down to personal aesthetic lifestyle preferences. On Sunday I purposely refused to sign a petition opposing some highrise apartment buildings overlooking a local bicycle track. Yes the treeline is more attractive, but if one doesn�t build upwards one builds outwards & last weekend while camping, all I could hear was the sound of chainsaws and falling trees while people cleared their properties so they could enjoy their country lifestyle. In many ways I think a high density urbanite is more environmentally friendly than an outback hippie. They are less likely to own a car, they are more likely to use public transport, they will use less water, their house is likely to be smaller & their apartments are more energy friendly than free-standing dwellings, etc etc etc. Everything becomes a double-edged sword, and the consumerism of others is much easier to criticise than our own consumerism. Off topic I know, but it just bugged me on Sunday, how people see such problems so simplistically, without appreciating that every decision we make comes at a price. These macro problems seem generally traceable in our own personal attitudes. We desire the freedom of an automobile. We desire personal space, the more the better. We desire the enjoyment of consumerism. We desire the company and happiness of our family and friends. Can we all deny these things to ourselves before we deny them to others ? I�ve always liked the slogan "Think global, act local".

03-19-2002, 12:33 PM	#22
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	This really is one of the issues that pisses me off. In my opinion, having kids is not in itself immoral. It is a perfectly legitimate pursuit of happiness by the parents. If kids turn your crank, enjoy. What is immoral is the expectation by those who wish to be parents that everyone else in society should be imposed with the responsibility to support and protect those children's lifestyles. It is no different than a person building a sports car then demanding that everyone else get out of the fast lane so they can drive 200km/h. Or a person demanding that a marina be built so they have somewhere to store the yacht they will buy in a couple of years. Or to build a private golf course with public funds. I'm the guy who has to die when its my turn to die. The short time I have in my life is all I'll ever have to enjoy. Someone else monopolizing the roads with their sports car, or taxing my resources to provide them with mooring directly reduces the quality of my life. It would be unfair to justify such a policy by saying 'everyone loves boats/golf/fast cars'. It strikes me as fundamental principle of social fairness that no one should be loaded with a responsibility without their consent. I don't have any input, consultation or even consideration when someone else decides to pinch off a flesh loaf. How can it possibly be considered fair that two people should be able to unilaterally decide to increase the demands on everyone else in the community? If a person gains a viceral thrill by pushing a steel mechanism down an ashphalt surface at 1/4 the speed of sound, good on them, but THEY should be resonponsible for the care, upkeep and maintenance of the machine and the environment needed to enjoy that hobby. If a person enjoys the viceral thrill of brainwashing an ignorant snot covered barbarian who knows no better than to squak out "I lub you daddy", they they should be likewise responsible. All of the benifits of having a child, from the aestestic 'It's got uncle Joe's ears' to the pathetic attempt at a vicarious immortality accrue to the parents of that child. More power too them, I have strange hobbies as well. But I DO NOT STICK OTHERS WITH THE BILL! Conflicts like this are best resolved by negotiation. In this spirit I propose the following bargain. I'll voluntairily take on the responsibility of the care of everyone else's children, in return for the privilige of fucking everyone else's wife.

03-19-2002, 04:51 PM	#24
ju'iblex Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Sydney Australia and beyond the realms of Gehenna Posts: 6,035	MadMordigan: I agree with you, but im unsure to what extent you are saying that we shouldnt be taking care of other peoples children. Out of curiosity, do you believe that we should maintain (and or improve) the current support and welfare system, or restrict it?

03-19-2002, 05:05 PM	#25
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Personally I'm quite comfortable that I have moral obligations to my community as well as my own personal obligations. The same as I think the community has moral obligations to myself. Seems fair in a Contractarian kinda way.

03-19-2002, 05:09 PM	#26
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	MadMordigan: I agree with you, but im unsure to what extent you are saying that we shouldnt be taking care of other peoples children. Out of curiosity, do you believe that we should maintain (and or improve) the current support and welfare system, or restrict it? My opinion is that the welfare and social support systems we have should be strengthened for those children who are here already and are on there way. They are here against their will, and we might as well spend the effort it takes to help them. But I am ready to say no mas to those who wish to inflict more children on societies shoulders. I mean come on people, they are 100% preventable. If you want them, pay for them. If you can't pay for them, don't have them. If you have them and won't pay for them, then in my mind you are a criminal.

03-19-2002, 05:19 PM	#27
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Personally I'm quite comfortable that I have moral obligations to my community as well as my own personal obligations. The same as I think the community has moral obligations to myself. Seems fair in a Contractarian kinda way. I agree with this. But the issue is not about reciprical obligations between society and the individual. The issue is whether certain individuals within society can unilaterally MULTIPLY those obligations for the rest of us.

03-19-2002, 07:06 PM	#28
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Yes WWSD, no matter how we live there will always be many factors governing our health. But to step back, all indicators are that our lifespans are increasing, not decreasing. Prove a significant enough risk from xenoestrogens, and our wonderful legal system will legislate appropriate protection. Until then I can worry myself sick about all the potential carcinogens. No, not perfect, but then again, can you find anything better in our history ? The objective evidence says I will live longer today than if I had lived 50 years ago, but the evidence also indicates that I�ll still die of something or other � As for having children being immoral, no, I think that�s an inappropriate word. I think one can argue that it is sometimes irresponsible, but I wouldn�t argue it on moral grounds. My parenting thread was really only in this MFP for continuity reasons. Whether you see the world as crappy is quite a subjective viewpoint of course. Last month I was reminding a friend of mine that in all of history, I think I would most have chosen to been born when I was. I think my generation was the luckiest of all previous, to have the longevity, freedom and knowledge which I have at my fingertips. But even luckier than my generation is the generation of her children, who will live even longer, have even more freedom. What is difficult today, is learning the wisdom of how best to make the best choices from the multitude which we are presented with. Life was so much simpler when we lived a subsistence life and died at 30. And there are many times through our long lives when we may wish for such simplicity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.