Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
The poor die off to the tune of 30,000 children each day, but the population keeps rising because the ethic of those who have them by the truck load seems to be, some of these sickly children might survive to take care of us, and some might live long enough to get sponsored by some rich person who'll send us money. So it can be argued that sponsorship results in third world countries spawning more children, and hence, more poverty, more starvation, and a need for even more sponsorship. Is this why there's more sponsorship adds on television now than in the past? There certainly are more of these adds.
This is also why I refuse to sponsor a child. Am I being unethical? I don't think so. As for those who do sponsor third world children, I won't applaud them. In fact, I'd argue that their supposed altruistic behaviour is not ethical if it results in more poverty in the end. I'd even call their actions irresponsible and shortsighted. This is the same reason I'm against any nation sending any other nation any kind of foreign aid. We've got homeless people on the streets in our own town. And the analogy I think would be something like this:
If my neighbour living next door has a child who's hungry. And I have a child who is hungry, who's child should I feed? Our foreign policy as it stands is saying: Ignore your own child and feed your neighbour's child. It's your moral imperative!
This is bullshit, pure and simple. As long as there is one homeless person on the streets of Vancouver's eastside (home to Canada's most downtrodden) then not even one cent of taxpayers money should be going to third world nations.
The reason I refuse to have children (I've convinced my wife to my position and she's actually happy for it) is because of one reason alone: We can't afford it.
I refuse to bring a child into the world if I cannot provide for the child and make life as easy as possible for them, financially speaking. Otherwise, I think I would make a fantastic father, mainly because I have a compassionate and understanding wife with high moral fibre. I think the world would be far better off if everyone thought my way, but of course this is arrogant, isn't it?
But the economic system we're governed by demands that most of the population be of a lower education and working class, not lawyers/doctors/rocket scientists etc., but just menial lower class labourers, to make the system work. If there were no peons where would the kings and queens be? So shy would I want to contribute to such a sickening system of deliberately induced impoverishment and slavery?
One ending note: "If all the humans on earth suddenly dropped dead all the animals would offer up one great collective sigh of relief."
Why oh why would anyone in their right mind think being born and trapped in work for 60 years was a worthwhile endeavour? Keep it! I'm sure when I was just a random collection of atoms floating around the cosmos unconsciously, I was perfectly okay. That is how my children shall remain.
Why subject them to this?
So your just a collection of some random atoms trapped together working in perfect harmony to achieve absolutly nothing?Is that really any different than floating around trying to achieve nothing?.....Rubbish!
What does a wonderful life have to do with anything,life sucks,but just because you dont appreciate this contradictory state of being doesn't mean your children wont....Rubbish!
You want to know what i think gogo,i think your brain needs a hug.
Somehow, it doesnt make sense to me to not have children as to not subject then to suffering. With an infinite of minds being created into an infinity of worlds, one or ten or ten billion more cant make any difference. Like, if you dont do that, and infinity of other people will do it for you, making the whole thing pointless. Whats the point of not throwing garbage in a river if there is a constant, massive divine flow of garbage into this same river?
I think yours needs 50 cc's of Thorazine.
50 cc's,or units?
Are you telling me that im better off dead?
...Rubbish!
Well you got to understand something,im from Texas and we aint use to words with more than one syllable.Your right though, i wont bother you again gojo.Be good friend.
What does a wonderful life have to do with anything,life sucks,but just because you dont appreciate this contradictory state of being doesn't mean your children wont ...Quote:
The odds are stacked against them! Unless you happen to be Bill Gates, or someone like him. But even then, when the economic system collapses, and farmers quit making crops, and the stores run out of food, and the gasoline stations run out of gas ... what then? I suppose we'll all take our guns out and go shopping for human meat to eat. The future that I see coming from the civilization we humans have built is something monstrous. If I had my head in a guillotine and the blade was rushing down I'd think the prospects would be much better, albeit the end would come much sooner.
manfred;99437 wrote:What does a wonderful life have to do with anything,life sucks,but just because you dont appreciate this contradictory state of being doesn't mean your children wont ...Quote:
The odds are stacked against them! Unless you happen to be Bill Gates, or someone like him. But even then, when the economic system collapses, and farmers quit making crops, and the stores run out of food, and the gasoline stations run out of gas ... what then? I suppose we'll all take our guns out and go shopping for human meat to eat. The future that I see coming from the civilization we humans have built is something monstrous. If I had my head in a guillotine and the blade was rushing down I'd think the prospects would be much better, albeit the end would come much sooner.
Who's to say they will not become the next Billy boy,or better yet,what if your child came up with a concept so original it literally changed the perspective of reality itself?I myself would welcome a world where we still used flint,but that's never going to happen,so mine as well keep populating this earth with morons,one of em is bound to get it right sooner or later.And as far as this economic/agriculture collapse you speak of is concerned,it's called natural selection,really stupid people will eventually kill themselves off and what we will be left with is a smaller,more manageable system of checks and balances.What if your children's children were to become the leaders of this new(old/ballance)world,only you decided to chop your own head off before it had a chance to talk you out of it? Not to get off subject,but i found 6$ today,aint that neat?:letme-at-em:
Being alive now, conscious and capable of thought, all things considered, would you rather never have been born?
Discuss...
Either state precludes the other. There is no sensible way for me to answer the question.
[ Not to get off subject,but i found 6$ today,aint that neat?:letme-at-em:
Well, sadly, I cannot stop other people from procreating, but it absolutely DOES make a difference if I don't do it. I will not bear the guilt of having subjected anyone to this, first of all. That is an immediate and significant difference. Besides, that is the fallacy of common practice; you are proposing that just because everyone else is popping out children, I should mindlessly do likewise. That ain't how I roll.
Anyway, the river thing is a weak analogy. Garbage is neither conscious or sentient, so, hypothetically, even if I was to throw garbage into the river (which I would not, incidentally), it would have zero effect on the garbage. Calling someone into existence, on the other hand, will have a fairly profound effect on them!
It is exactly the thought process (for want of a better term) which you proposed which I believe to be a major problem in the world. "Oh, it's just what you do, isn't it? Well, why don't we bust out a few of our own?" People really should think a lot more deeply about the ramifications of having children before they do it.
Objectively, life for most people isn't particularly great, so why impose it on someone who didn't ask for it?
You can't deny a non-existant person pleasure, but you CAN spare them of pain. Do it.
manfred;99437 wrote:What does a wonderful life have to do with anything,life sucks,but just because you dont appreciate this contradictory state of being doesn't mean your children wont ...Quote:It wont necessarly be monstruous for then, Although unexistance is always better than existance. Well, I have already posted above my reasons for believing that not bringing people into existence so they dont suffer doesnt makes sense.
The odds are stacked against them! Unless you happen to be Bill Gates, or someone like him. But even then, when the economic system collapses, and farmers quit making crops, and the stores run out of food, and the gasoline stations run out of gas ... what then? I suppose we'll all take our guns out and go shopping for human meat to eat. The future that I see coming from the civilization we humans have built is something monstrous. If I had my head in a guillotine and the blade was rushing down I'd think the prospects would be much better, albeit the end would come much sooner.
Besides, going through armaggedon is fun. Well, maybe not, but whatever waits us behind death is not necessarly better.
Besides, going through armaggedon is fun. Well, maybe not, but whatever waits us behind death is not necessarly better.
The other thing is: For those who believe in God, there's always that mystery of what fate they will come face to face with if they do arise in an afterlife. More misery ... worse than anything they've experiened in this life? That would suck big time. Imagine having lived a life now full of depravation, misery, torment both physical and mentally, and maybe being murdered by some bloodthirsty savage in a back lane for the two bucks you had in your pocket.
I think the chances of it being better or worse are equal.
validity;99564 wrote:Yes there is. I don't get people like you who, instead of answering the question, just try to pick holes in it. I've already ignored a couple in this thread. It is an easy question to answer.Either state precludes the other. There is no sensible way for me to answer the question.
You should be asking the first person to be born in the year 2030 to start making notes now...
Perhaps you should be on a Politics forum?
It may be an easy question to answer but I do not see that there is value on the answer as the answer is drawn from a lack of knowledge i.e I have never been "not born" in order to claim that this is a state I would prefer over having been born. Being a philosophy forum, I thought it an appropriate response.
Basing on my current events happening to my life right now, I would say I would choose to never have been born. But, then I would have never answered this question, nor experiencing the events that have occurred to make me choose not being born at all.
this is VERY puzzling....
It may be an easy question to answer but I do not see that there is value on the answer as the answer is drawn from a lack of knowledge i.e I have never been "not born" in order to claim that this is a state I would prefer over having been born. Being a philosophy forum, I thought it an appropriate response.
I've not got this book yet, but I will get around to it.
---------- Post added 10-26-20at 11:13 AM ----------
Thanks for the tag ... read the introduction ... I could have written that.
Missed my big chance. Had no idea there was a market for such heresy.
