Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Why VHEMT? able to not agree 2 breed

Expand Messages
  • briman1970
    Anyone who bases having children solely on the fact that their offspring may suffer later must have a miserable outlook on life. We (humans) are part of life.
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 3, 2004
      Anyone who bases having children solely on the fact that their
      offspring may suffer later must have a miserable outlook on life. We
      (humans) are part of life. We came up with the word and are the only
      beings capable of perceiving the meaning of the concepts behind the
      word. Would life still exist if we blinked out of existence? We
      conceive that it would, but who truly knows? Our universe is entirely
      made up of human concepts.

      If you believe in evolution then you must also believe that if we all
      passed on, an animal life-form would eventually evolve into something
      that would threaten life on earth with it's very existence and
      propagation, much like the way we do. It would also ultimately
      threaten it's own existence. In fact, logic should tell you that it
      virtually would happen in the blink of an eye since time is a concept
      measured only by sentient beings.

      Life is hard. Damn right it's hard. I still wanted to have a child
      and I will teach her to step lightly on this world while she's here.
      I will advise her to live each day with hope and caring for our
      fellow man and animals alike. I will also tell her that thinking too
      far ahead is a futile waste of time.

      Life will go on no matter what we do. Albert Einstein once said, "I
      never think of the future. It comes soon enough."



      In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Kate Derrick <katederrick@y...> wrote:
      > Another thing-I'm wondering, are those breeders having
      > such a wonderful life that they feel they must
      > absolutely bring new people into the world??? Do they
      > realy think they have so much hope and joy to offer???
      > Than I must really have a miserable outlook on life
      > because I just don't want to risk anyone having to
      > suffer in the future. Or do you suspect that most
      > people who have children are really just desiring to
      > fill thier empty lives with kids??? I think most
      > people are afraid of regret or becoming lonely or
      > bored. Whn I was younger and more idealistic I dreamt
      > of having children, but now that I've seen more of
      > reality, I don't want this responsibility - am I a
      > horrible pessimist or a realist???? I feel that life
      > is just so hard....there's beauty alright, but it's a
      > tough road. I find the more you know and experience,
      > the tougher it gets. I guess that's part of growing
      > up. Does anyone else feel the same way I do????I often
      > feel like a freak for my beliefs-many think I'm
      > totally off the wall, and I agree with them!!! What
      > are your thoughts???? Cheers, Kate
      > --- Kate Derrick <katederrick@y...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > > Yes, it's all rather depressing isn't it. People
      > > will
      > > accuse environmentalists as doomsdayers, but the
      > > evidence is pretty clear. I also wish it wasn't
      > > true-some of the information you see about the world
      > > situation is so contradictory that it is hard to
      > > know
      > > what is truthful and what isn't. At what point did
      > > the
      > > human species become a threat??? With the industrial
      > > revolution??? Before then perhaps??? Soem will say
      > > that might is right and that the strongest species
      > > has
      > > the right to dominate the earth- that may be so, but
      > > at what rate are we ultimately killing ourselves in
      > > the process??? We are now scientifically classified
      > > as
      > > a plague species-it's awful to consider this, but
      > > it's
      > > fact. I wish there were more positive facts about
      > > the
      > > world situation, but this is the truth and it is
      > > highly probable that the situation will not imrpove
      > > over the following generations. Is it ethical to
      > > just
      > > keep on reproducing when the future is so uncertain
      > > and just let nature take her own revenge??? Aren't
      > > we
      > > underestimating nature's power, which has existed
      > > for
      > > billions of years?? We seem to think that we will be
      > > able to outsmart nature, even though we cannot
      > > create
      > > the simplest of life forms!!! We will be able to
      > > manipulate nature and create much advanced
      > > technology,
      > > but whether we will ever be able to recreate nature
      > > itself after we have destroyed so much of it??? I do
      > > not know whether it will ever be possible to
      > > recreate
      > > life with the power of our minds...It took millions
      > > of
      > > years for it all to evolve afterall and we've only
      > > been here for a few thousand....Who knows???? I
      > > wonder
      > > if God would approve of us destroying what took
      > > millions of years to evolve??? Anyone have some
      > > opinions to share about this??? I am so interested
      > > to
      > > hear your thoughts. Thanks, kate
      > >
      > > --- "K.A. Seland" <the_kid_qwellz@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > > We could create and or protect some amazing
      > > things,
      > > > If
      > > > we wanted to. That is what is so terrific &
      > > massive
      > > > to me, we don't seem to want to. Clean air and
      > > > clean
      > > > water are so crucial to the survival of
      > > everything,
      > > > and we spend all of our time wasting and polluting
      > > > both. That is the thing that just blows me away
      > > > with
      > > > these "breeders and deep thinkers" that come on
      > > this
      > > > sight: "there'll always be more clean air and
      > > clean
      > > > water." Open your eyes people. I had one tell me
      > > > "we'll just filter the water and use aqua-lungs to
      > > > get
      > > > air." I still chuckle quietly to myself about
      > > that
      > > > one. We'll just issue every plant and animal a
      > > > water
      > > > filter and aqua-lung and everything will be all
      > > > right.
      > > > Of course you've got to give the plants and
      > > animals
      > > > instruction booklets and hope they don't loose
      > > them.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- Kate Derrick <katederrick@y...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Yeah, well you know, we actually share more than
      > > > 50%
      > > > > of DNA with worms and fruitflies, and ther's
      > > very
      > > > > little difference between the DNA of Chimps and
      > > > > Humans. SO we are more closely related than most
      > > > of
      > > > > us
      > > > > realise. We consider cannabalism and human
      > > > sacrifice
      > > > > to be unethical, but few people bat an eyeid at
      > > > the
      > > > > atrocities we inflict on other life forms. They
      > > > feel
      > > > > pain just as much as we do.If we are to be more
      > > > > civilised than the rest of the animal knigdom,
      > > > then
      > > > > we
      > > > > have to stop this brutal slaying. Otherwise we
      > > are
      > > > > far
      > > > > less civilised, despite our technology and
      > > > culture.
      > > > > What use is damn culture when we can't grant
      > > > Nature
      > > > > the respect she deserves??? Is murdering the
      > > > > environment "culture"-and who will be inspired
      > > to
      > > > > write beautiful poetry, paint beautiful pictures
      > > > > etc,
      > > > > when the World has become polluted,
      > > > > sick and ugly??? we think we're so advanced,
      > > but
      > > > we
      > > > > cannot even create the most simple of life
      > > forms,
      > > > so
      > > > > what hope do we think we have in saving life on
      > > > > earth
      > > > > with technology. Prevention is better than
      > > > > cure!!!Kate
      > > > >
      > > > > --- "K.A. Seland" <the_kid_qwellz@y...>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > > How smart could humans be if they wipe out the
      > > > > > system
      > > > > > that keeps them alive?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Big brains. No clean air no clean water, put
      > > > your
      > > > > > big
      > > > > > brain to work on that.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > How important could humans be if they can not
      > > > see
      > > > > > the
      > > > > > death all around them that is caused by their
      > > > > silly
      > > > > > life style?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > As 4 the importance of family, can't you see
      > > > that
      > > > > > you
      > > > > > are killing all your relatives? Just a few
      > > > > > generations back the beings that predicated us
      > > > > were
      > > > > > rat like, a few b4 that they were reptilian.
      > > > > Cousin
      > > > > > insect and cousin tree.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > If you truly value thinking, you might want to
      > > > > > start.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- varltos <Kytro@F...> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > While I respect the right for people to
      > > > support
      > > > > > the
      > > > > > > idea, I cannot
      > > > > > > agree with it because:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Human existence is more important than all
      > > > other
      > > > > > > life, as no other
      > > > > > > life has shown the potential of humans.
      > > When
      > > > > > other
      > > > > > > life can explain
      > > > > > > to me why I shoud care about it, I will
      > > > consider
      > > > > > it
      > > > > > > intelligent
      > > > > > > enough to worry about.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > The damage done ot earth is not my concern,
      > > > > other
      > > > > > > than to ensure it
      > > > > > > is liveable for humans. I believe
      > > technology
      > > > > has
      > > > > > > the possibility to
      > > > > > > succeed.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Lastly, your ideals are misplaced as by
      > > > failing
      > > > > to
      > > > > > > breed, the spread
      > > > > > > of your ideals and culture will be limited -
      > > > > > family
      > > > > > > is often a very
      > >
      > === message truncated ===
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _______________________________
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
      > http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
    • Hal Friedman
      Yes, Les, the NY Times report to which I referred is the Pop, not Bang article. The Abernethy study seems to conflict with the conclusions noted in this
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 17, 2004
        Yes, Les, the NY Times report to which I referred is the "Pop, not Bang"
        article.

        The Abernethy study seems to conflict with the conclusions noted in this
        article. Does the Abernethy study consider the economic motivations of
        poor people in agricultural areas to breed more children to get extra
        help in the fields, not to mention the need these parents have for more
        children to support them in their old age since they live in countries
        too poor to have Social Security systems or where the parents are not
        working in jobs which provide pensions? Also, poorer people tend to be
        more susceptible to religious superstitions that tell them to "go forth
        and multiply" and they also tend to be less knowledgeable about and have
        less access to safe, easy contraception.

        I really question the conclusion of the Abernethy study. Perhaps
        affluence alone may not fully explain lower birth rates, but affluent
        people tend to be more educated and to have better-educated children. So
        a more complete explanation probably must include education as well as
        affluence, not to mention the greater opportunities and career paths
        women generally have in more affluent societies.

        My personal experience, limited as it is, contradicts the Abernethy
        study. My grandparents were mainly poorly-educated immigrants who were
        born into poverty and who faced poverty when they first came to America.
        Their families were mostly large. Their children, my parents and their
        age cohorts, were more affluent, better educated and had much smaller
        families. My own age group either hasn't reproduced, my case, or have
        had only one or two children at most. (The only exception to this is a
        woman I know who came from an impoverished ghetto background where she
        was subject to child abuse but she only had three kids) Again, we are
        more educated and affluent than our parents were. Also, the women of my
        age group have many more career paths than being mothers and have very
        different attitudes towards themselves and what they can do with their
        lives than those of their parents. The trend seems to indicate that
        affluence, education and freedom for women will result in lower birth
        rates.

        I agree that we, as conscious individuals, shouldn't just sit back and
        let nature, or economics take its course, but do more to construct an
        understanding of what to do with affluence that is not based on mindless
        consumerism. Perhaps those of us who were born into relative affluence
        will not be so consumed with the need to pile up more and more stuff for
        ourselves since we never experienced the poverty that our ancestors had.
        I have no need whatsoever to buy an SUV or spend everything I have to
        get energy-burning things. Maybe the children of those in affluent areas
        will thus be more open to living a materially simpler way of life since
        they will not feel the need to compensate for an impoverished childhood.

        From Hal who says there is still hope.

        "Les U. Knight" wrote:
        >
        > Hal, I too haven't given up on humanity yet. I wouldn't be promoting
        > anything voluntary if I had.
        >
        > >The statistics noted in the NY times report belie the contention that
        > it's the smart and affluent people who breed the most.<
        >
        > I can't remember ever hearing that contention. I contend that,
        > although people breed less in affluent regions, our environmental
        > impact is so much greater that one of us is the equivalent of many
        > more people in over-exploited regions.
        >
        > > The greatest rate
        > of decline in population is occurring in the most affluent countries
        > with the most educated populace. The poorer areas of the world,
        > particularly India and China, still have high population growth. So
        > the
        > link is: poverty equals population growth. <
        >
        > China's increase of 10 million per year is the result of momentum
        > rather than high birth rates. They're breeding about the same as
        > Italy: 1.3. Maybe we can't use China in this particular discussion,
        > due to their more restrictive society.
        >
        > >Also note that the areas
        > which have the highest number of educated and affluent women have the
        > highest rate of population decline. If women have higher status and
        > greater power and wealth, then, all other things being equal, there
        > will
        > be a lower birth rate. <
        >
        > When women are allowed the freedom to pursue education, careers, and
        > roles other than wife and mother, birth rates are greatly improved.
        > This freedom, a result of higher status in that society, is the
        > largest single factor in birth rates. I think education is one of the
        > results of more opportunity rather than the cause. If all women were
        > granted honorary doctorates, it wouldn't make any difference if they
        > still couldn't pursue careers -- if they still only had the roles of
        > wife and mother to play.
        >
        > >One can then draw the conclusion that, generally speaking, the more
        > affluent and educated the population, the slower the population growth
        > rate. <
        >
        > This is the Demographic Transition Theory. Virginia Abernethy's study
        > of birth rates and economics within countries shows that as people's
        > perception of their future economic well-being improves, the more
        > offspring they produce. The converse is also true. In the US, the
        > lowest birth rates were during the economic depression of the 1930s,
        > a time when contraception was illegal in many states and difficult to
        > find in others.
        >
        > Although we can look at the world and see that affluent regions have
        > lower birth rates, it doesn't necessarily follow that affluence will
        > cause lower birth rates. Abernethy analyzed trends within countries
        > rather than comparing counties with each other.
        >
        > >From this, it seems clear that humanity's goals should be the
        > alleviation of poverty, if for no other reason that to reduce the
        > number
        > of people in the long run, and the elimination, to the maximum degree
        > possible, of gender inequality.<
        >
        > I agree with these goals, though from a different line of logic.
        > Opportunity for all to achieve a good life seems like a just goal to
        > me. Reproductive freedom plays a critical role in equal opportunity.
        >
        > > These goals will be enormously difficult
        > to achieve, but the fact that it has occurred in some parts of the
        > world, shows that it can be done. This should be the focus, then, of
        > all
        > environmentally conscious people. The quicker this is done, then the
        > quicker we will reach the maximum number of people and the quicker
        > will
        > the numbers of people decline to a sustainable level.<
        >
        > Social Justice and Environmental Justice advocates are joining with
        > environmentalists to improve conditions for both people and the
        > environment. Latin America is way ahead of the US in resisting
        > privatization, which is usually devastating to both people and planet.
        >
        > >Rather than breed complacency, the NY Times report should give a
        > greater
        > impetus to work to solve the poverty and gender inequality problems.
        > The
        > report gives one reason to hope, not despair. <
        >
        > I'm not sure which NYT report you're referring to. Is it the one that
        > said the population bomb is only a pop?
        > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/weekinreview/29mcne.html?pagewanted=all&position=
        >
        > Les
        >
        > VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ADVERTISEMENT
        > [click here]
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------------------------------------
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_VHEMT/
        >
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > Why_VHEMT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.