echidna

Bummer, me neither.

ju'iblex

fair enough, i cant find anything i disagree with in that.

brighid

Lady Shea,
(I posted this before reading the other replies - sorry if it's redundant )
I disagree, especially here in the US. We have MORE then enough food to feed everyone healthy diets and no child should go hungry. BUT we don’t meet these needs because we waste so much of our valuable resources. We buy more then we can consume and we end up throwing much of it away because it spoils quickly. We can easily meet the demands of the people in this country through proper allocation of resources and waste management of those resources. If once a month we took the equivalent of what each household through out in unused or spoiled food, filled a box (or two or three) and gave that to a local soup kitchen, food pantry, etc. those children would never starve. There are plenty of solutions to the US’s hunger problems that don’t require tons of extra cash or grandiose plans. It’s sad and believe I KNOW what it’s like to go hungry. I know what it’s like to have to choose between putting gas in my car or buying some food so my child can eat and I can have a few bites too. It is truly HORRIBLE and very demeaning to go hungry or feel you need to go to a soup kitchen, local church or get assistance like WIC or food stamps just so you can eat.

And most people really don’t care if a child is starving in Somalia, Cambodia, Ecuador, etc. and most corporations and governments (not all of course) aren’t willing to donate the necessary resources to develop the land so these people can become self-sufficient. And often times the local governments of those countries thwart the efforts of relief organizations and steal the food and money sent to that country and trade it in for weapons.

There is a lot a community can do to help its local citizens. Community gardens like those that use to be havens for junk that are now transformed into a beautiful plot of land with flourishing fruits, vegetables and flowers.

I think, for those of us who are responsible people, having children or adopting children is very important to the future of our planet. We need to create future generations that are conscious and respectful of the environment, who respect diversity and value freedom of all people and who have strong critical thinking and logic skills. Or else we may one day destroy the environment and make it inhospitable to human life – such as with those “small” nukes and using them as pre-emptive or 1st strike strategies. We aren’t going to have much luck changing those already cemented in their ways, but the children are the future. I hope MY children will provide me with a legacy to be proud of and I hope that we can adopt a child soon – perhaps from one of the many war torn or disadvantaged countries.

So I do not agree that it’s irresponsible to have children, but very important to have them or teach children that are not our own the value of the Earth and her resources, respect for all life and the need for freedom of all people. This is the best way to shape the future into something better – through the education of our children.

We have a vested interest in our own children and the children of our neighbor and that of other countries. And charity is a good value to acquire and a wonderful example to set for children. When you have been on the opposite end of the ladder and you have to depend on the kindness and charity of others and strangers, you truly learn to value the opportunity charity provides you when you are on hard times.

Brighid

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Pandora

When I lived in Belfast, I used to be appalled by the number of families with huge numbers of children. I worked with a woman who had 22 - they were all gifts from God she told me.

These families were just about managing to exist through defrauding the welfare system and in a lot of cases various criminal activities.

The children were unsupervised, tended to to badly in school and for the most part, the boys ended up with a criminal record by 18 and the girls were single mothers on state handouts. There were exceptions but not many.

IMO if you are in a position to responsibly bring up a child, by all means have one. What annoys me if people who expect the state to do so. Why should I work hard and pay taxes to pay for what often appear to be society's least desirable candidates to procreate?

My theory for dealing with this is simple. In order to receive your welfare check you are required to show proof of contraception - depro-provera for example would be a good one. In return for the state paying for you, you lose your right to have offspring you can't provide for.

Danya

I don't have a problem paying into welfare. Only 16% percent of U.S. taxes go into social service programs. The system needs to be changed but taking away a womans privacy or reproductive rights are not worth it. I would prefer to pay a couple more dollars out of every paycheck.

They should (and usually do) give free medical and birth control to families on aid anyway. I don't think people on welfare get on it because they like living that way. It becomes a trap not only for the mother but for her kids who grow up being the only life they know or deserve.

DMB

It's nonsense to pretend that human beings don't have an environmental impact. We have been responsible for the extinction of other species and soil erosion since prehistoric times. Over the centuries we have poisoned soils and water with mining spoil and industrial processes. According to the IPCC, we are probably responsible for global warming, the effects of which may be unpredictable.

Any particular area has a carrying capacity for human beings that depends on climate, natural
resources and the way of life practised by the people.

It is true that in Europe now, TFR is below the replacement level. It is expected that this fertility decline (in the demographic, not the biological sense) may be gradually replicated in other areas, based on evidence from demographic surveys. It depends on many factors (see my post <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000050&p=3" target="_blank">here</a> - I don't want to go through all that again).

Predictions about what populations may be doing in 50 years' time are always a bit dodgy. What we can say is that contraceptive use has gone up by huge amounts and that although world population and the populations of many regions are still increasing, the rate of increase has been gradually slowing.

We may still find a world of nine billion people uncomfortable in many ways. If most populations decline, that will also bring problems in its wake, although there is no reason to suppose that they will be insoluble. Any sharp discontinuity, as would result, for example, if everybody suddenly decided not to reproduce, would cause huge problems.

IMO the problem to be solved in countries with a lot of space, such as the USA and Australia is not so much that there are too many people in any absolute sense, but that the per capita environmental impact is too high. The overall effect can be lessened either by reducing the number of capita or by adopting environmentally friendly policies. In practice, the world will probably see a combination of the two, as in Europe currently.

echidna

As with your closing post from the last thread, again I agree DMB.

(Just didn’t want to see you close another thread without some acknowledgement. )