Full Version: Going childless for the environment
What is difficult to understand, in the context of whether it is selfish (or thoughtless) in deciding to have children, is how anyone cannot be concerned about the environment. Is it not in our own self-interest to see that we do not pollute the air and water - the very elements upon which all life depends - and preserve the land and sea that provides for our existence? Can there be anything more important? And, what about the future? - Can we be so selfish as not to be concerned about the quality of life of our own children and grandchildren? What will be their inheritance? Will they see us as good stewards of that which we only hold in trust? - Or will they curse us for wasting their birthright? Can we be so short-sighted as not to foresee the consequences of our actions - or so callous as not to care? Yet, it is so.
John Ruskin, an early environmentalist, most cogently expressed this sentiment in one of his essays thus:
"The benevolent regards and purposes of men in masses seldom can be supposed to extend beyond their own generation. They may look to posterity as an audience, may hope for its attention, and labor for its praise: they may trust to its recognition of unacknowledged merit, and demand its justice for contemporary wrong. But all this is mere selfishness, and does not involve the slightest regard to, or consideration of, the interest of those by whose numbers we would fain swell the circle of our flatterers, and by whose authority we would gladly support our presently disputed claims. The idea of self-denial for the sake of posterity, of practicing present economy for the sake of debtors yet unborn, of planting forests that our descendants may live under their shade, or of raising cities for future nations to inhabit, never, I suppose, efficiently takes place among publicly recognized motives of exertion. Yet these are not the less our duties; nor is our part fitly sustained upon the earth, unless the range of our intended and deliberate usefulness include, not only the companions but the successors of our pilgrimage. God has lent us the earth for our life; it is a great entail. It belongs as much to those who are to come after us, and by whose names are already written in the book of creation, as to us; and we have no right, by anything that we do or neglect, to involve them in unnecessary penalties, or deprive them of benefits which it was in our power to bequeath. And this the more, because it is one of the appointed conditions of the labour of men that, in proportion to the time between the seed-sowing and the harvest, it is the fulness of the fruit; and that generally, therefore, the farther off we place our aim, and the less we desire to be ourselves the witnesses of what we have laboured for, the more wide and rich will be the measure of our success. Men cannot benefit those that are with them as they can those who come after them; and of all the pulpits from which human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it reaches so far as from the grave."
- John Ruskin, The Lamp of Memory (1849)
John Ruskin, an early environmentalist, most cogently expressed this sentiment in one of his essays thus:
"The benevolent regards and purposes of men in masses seldom can be supposed to extend beyond their own generation. They may look to posterity as an audience, may hope for its attention, and labor for its praise: they may trust to its recognition of unacknowledged merit, and demand its justice for contemporary wrong. But all this is mere selfishness, and does not involve the slightest regard to, or consideration of, the interest of those by whose numbers we would fain swell the circle of our flatterers, and by whose authority we would gladly support our presently disputed claims. The idea of self-denial for the sake of posterity, of practicing present economy for the sake of debtors yet unborn, of planting forests that our descendants may live under their shade, or of raising cities for future nations to inhabit, never, I suppose, efficiently takes place among publicly recognized motives of exertion. Yet these are not the less our duties; nor is our part fitly sustained upon the earth, unless the range of our intended and deliberate usefulness include, not only the companions but the successors of our pilgrimage. God has lent us the earth for our life; it is a great entail. It belongs as much to those who are to come after us, and by whose names are already written in the book of creation, as to us; and we have no right, by anything that we do or neglect, to involve them in unnecessary penalties, or deprive them of benefits which it was in our power to bequeath. And this the more, because it is one of the appointed conditions of the labour of men that, in proportion to the time between the seed-sowing and the harvest, it is the fulness of the fruit; and that generally, therefore, the farther off we place our aim, and the less we desire to be ourselves the witnesses of what we have laboured for, the more wide and rich will be the measure of our success. Men cannot benefit those that are with them as they can those who come after them; and of all the pulpits from which human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it reaches so far as from the grave."
- John Ruskin, The Lamp of Memory (1849)
QUOTE(Nemo @ Dec 16 2007, 09:45 AM) 
What is difficult to understand, in the context of whether it is selfish (or thoughtless) in deciding to have children, is how anyone cannot be concerned about the environment. Is it not in our own self-interest to see that we do not pollute the air and water - the very elements upon which all life depends - and preserve the land and sea that provides for our existence? Can there be anything more important? And, what about the future? - Can we be so selfish as not to be concerned about the quality of life of our own children and grandchildren? What will be their inheritance? Will they see us as good stewards of that which we only hold in trust? - Or will they curse us for wasting their birthright? Can we be so short-sighted as not to foresee the consequences of our actions - or so callous as not to care? Yet, it is so.
John Ruskin, an early environmentalist, most cogently expressed this sentiment in one of his essays thus:
"The benevolent regards and purposes of men in masses seldom can be supposed to extend beyond their own generation. They may look to posterity as an audience, may hope for its attention, and labor for its praise: they may trust to its recognition of unacknowledged merit, and demand its justice for contemporary wrong. But all this is mere selfishness, and does not involve the slightest regard to, or consideration of, the interest of those by whose numbers we would fain swell the circle of our flatterers, and by whose authority we would gladly support our presently disputed claims. The idea of self-denial for the sake of posterity, of practicing present economy for the sake of debtors yet unborn, of planting forests that our descendants may live under their shade, or of raising cities for future nations to inhabit, never, I suppose, efficiently takes place among publicly recognized motives of exertion. Yet these are not the less our duties; nor is our part fitly sustained upon the earth, unless the range of our intended and deliberate usefulness include, not only the companions but the successors of our pilgrimage. God has lent us the earth for our life; it is a great entail. It belongs as much to those who are to come after us, and by whose names are already written in the book of creation, as to us; and we have no right, by anything that we do or neglect, to involve them in unnecessary penalties, or deprive them of benefits which it was in our power to bequeath. And this the more, because it is one of the appointed conditions of the labour of men that, in proportion to the time between the seed-sowing and the harvest, it is the fulness of the fruit; and that generally, therefore, the farther off we place our aim, and the less we desire to be ourselves the witnesses of what we have laboured for, the more wide and rich will be the measure of our success. Men cannot benefit those that are with them as they can those who come after them; and of all the pulpits from which human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it reaches so far as from the grave."
- John Ruskin, The Lamp of Memory (1849)
John Ruskin, an early environmentalist, most cogently expressed this sentiment in one of his essays thus:
"The benevolent regards and purposes of men in masses seldom can be supposed to extend beyond their own generation. They may look to posterity as an audience, may hope for its attention, and labor for its praise: they may trust to its recognition of unacknowledged merit, and demand its justice for contemporary wrong. But all this is mere selfishness, and does not involve the slightest regard to, or consideration of, the interest of those by whose numbers we would fain swell the circle of our flatterers, and by whose authority we would gladly support our presently disputed claims. The idea of self-denial for the sake of posterity, of practicing present economy for the sake of debtors yet unborn, of planting forests that our descendants may live under their shade, or of raising cities for future nations to inhabit, never, I suppose, efficiently takes place among publicly recognized motives of exertion. Yet these are not the less our duties; nor is our part fitly sustained upon the earth, unless the range of our intended and deliberate usefulness include, not only the companions but the successors of our pilgrimage. God has lent us the earth for our life; it is a great entail. It belongs as much to those who are to come after us, and by whose names are already written in the book of creation, as to us; and we have no right, by anything that we do or neglect, to involve them in unnecessary penalties, or deprive them of benefits which it was in our power to bequeath. And this the more, because it is one of the appointed conditions of the labour of men that, in proportion to the time between the seed-sowing and the harvest, it is the fulness of the fruit; and that generally, therefore, the farther off we place our aim, and the less we desire to be ourselves the witnesses of what we have laboured for, the more wide and rich will be the measure of our success. Men cannot benefit those that are with them as they can those who come after them; and of all the pulpits from which human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it reaches so far as from the grave."
- John Ruskin, The Lamp of Memory (1849)
I don't know anyone that is outright not concerned about the environment. The issue regarding global warming is whether or not man is the primary liability. I don't think anyone is debating the existance of GW, but the reason. Giving up parenthood only for the purpose of saving the planet seems a little extreme. If those in the man-made GW camp weren't so hypocritical, I would entertain some of their positions. However, you have people like Al Gore as their champion. So far, he has won all sorts of awards, but has yet to go face to face with anyone that disagrees with his position. Why won't he debate a dissenter if he knows he is right? Let's talk about the dissenters for a moment. What I get from many people in the man made GW camp is that the scientists that are dissenters only do so for the big oil money. I have yet to see any proof of these scientists getting anything from big oil. They go on to say that those supporting man made GW don't get the big money. Now for the hypocracy. Al Gore flies around the world to give speeches. He charges millions of dollars to give these speeches. He then avoids the press, and hides behind closed doors from many of the people that come out to his speeches. Let's move on to the UN IPCC. All the nations were at the UN in New York recently conducting business as usual. Then, they all flew to Bali for a conference on climate change. More than 10,000 people from over 180 countries decended upon Bali. Haven't these people heard of conference calls? Video confrences? What on earth required more than 10,000 people to get on a plane and stay in energy wasting hotels and convention halls? If they were so concerned about the environment, wouldn't they find a greener way to do business? Now on to the biggest hypocracy of them all. Live Earth. Do I even need to get into the points of flying all of those bands (and their crews) around the world to 8 destinations around the globe, all of the energy used to conduct the events, all of the energy used to broadcast the events, all of the trash left by the concert goers, all of the fuel to get the concert goers to and from the events, all of the energy that was used to watch the events on TV or the internet?
Now let's look at the arguments themselves. We have a group of people that are making the claim that the earths average temperature has risen 0.45-0.6 degrees Celsius (°C) (0.8-1.0 degrees Fahrenheit - °F) and that the end of the world is coming. Now, I am not a scientist, but correct me if I am wrong. The Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old. We are taking information that is mostly gathered not from actual readings, but from ice cores whose accuracy is not accepted by the entire scientific community, as shown in the link provided. We do, however have accurate satellite readings since the first MSU was launched in late 1978. That article goes on to point out the accuracy of the sattelite measurements. So, my point is this; we have accurate global readings covering about 30 years of our planets 4.5 billion year history. Isn't this a little outrageous? Taking 30 years of information about something that is 4.5 billion years old and trying to predict what is going to happen over the next 100 years? Seems fishy to me at best.
My point in regards to this thread is this; making a dramatic step to save the planet such as sterilization makes no sense to me in any way. Though man made GW supporters would like to say the debate is over, that clearly isn't the case given the number of resources found on google when "global warming dissent" is used to conduct the search. "Global warming fraud" gets even more hits. The debate isn't over, and sterilization is rediculous, except for the fact that that will be one less child growing up to try to force us to change our lives on what many consider a scam, including John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel and the 15,000 scientists that dispute theory of global warming, among many others.
[quote]Can we be so selfish as not to be concerned about the quality of life of our own children and grandchildren? What will be their inheritance? Will they see us as good stewards of that which we only hold in trust? - Or will they curse us for wasting their birthright? Can we be so short-sighted as not to foresee the consequences of our actions - or so callous as not to care? Yet, it is so.[/qwuote]
The real issue though, is whether or not we need to thin the herd for the environment. It's hard to leave the land for our children and grandchildren that you so eloquently spoke of, it's especially hard for the gal who had an abortion to save the environment, if kids aren't being born in the first place, then how can we leave it to those who come after us?
I really don't believe the woman quoted in the article has it adequately thought out.
The real issue though, is whether or not we need to thin the herd for the environment. It's hard to leave the land for our children and grandchildren that you so eloquently spoke of, it's especially hard for the gal who had an abortion to save the environment, if kids aren't being born in the first place, then how can we leave it to those who come after us?
I really don't believe the woman quoted in the article has it adequately thought out.QUOTE(azwhitewolf @ Dec 6 2007, 07:55 PM)
QUOTE
There is no gods, the world is not flat, and Global Warming is a fact, as evolution and gravity.
Really? No debate? It's "just a fact" now?
You can subtract out the religious usage due to the inability to study immaterial super natural phenomena. The world indeed is not flat nor is a perfect sphere in all regards, just look at a mountain. Gravity exists but not yet is fully defined physically, this means all kinds of complex realities and explanations which is currently under investigation by people with phds in physics and stuff like that, they use lasers.
Evolution as supported by empirical, quantifiable, and any other scientific method issue based fact only supports it. This amount of evidence constantly grows and exists outside of the scope of any one persons ability to know it all volume wise alone, I mean in terms of a lifetime even. You can be explained as an existing organism of various taxonomic values or names down to a molecular view in which genetic traits in a population like eye color can even be infected by the interaction over time with microbial life like bacteria. So yes its very true physically, I don’t know about the various metaphysical and spiritual definitions or reactions to such, it just is simply a physical truth and or reality that life evolves. Sorry but it seemed like you were asking really.
As for global climate change, or global warming or the gore spin engine of world domination via the U.N, it to is very real for the same scientific methodologies used to understand the natural world aka reality. Environmental issues are very large in scope and require intense understanding. The data being supported by science currently provides the understanding of human to environment impact. What it is showing is that human behavior is currently having a growing negative impact on a variety of variables environmentally speaking. Such as extinction of species or death of life, to changing massive systems such as weather or atmospheric composition. Most of this has to be understood from a point of view of understanding life factually down to understanding volcanism factually and just about anything in the environment. So for a large scientific consensus to exist on such a matter alone within the respective fields of study, such as environmental chemistry, to various other disciplines with peer reviewed data showing this negative impact should be understood and death with. TO add to this science as a whole does not seem to live in much confliction at all with such findings. The basic reality of global warming also can be demonstrated using very simple and elementary experiments.
QUOTE(gordo @ Dec 22 2007, 06:30 PM)
QUOTE(azwhitewolf @ Dec 6 2007, 07:55 PM)
QUOTE
There is no gods, the world is not flat, and Global Warming is a fact, as evolution and gravity.
Really? No debate? It's "just a fact" now?
You can subtract out the religious usage due to the inability to study immaterial super natural phenomena. The world indeed is not flat nor is a perfect sphere in all regards, just look at a mountain. Gravity exists but not yet is fully defined physically, this means all kinds of complex realities and explanations which is currently under investigation by people with phds in physics and stuff like that, they use lasers.
Evolution as supported by empirical, quantifiable, and any other scientific method issue based fact only supports it. This amount of evidence constantly grows and exists outside of the scope of any one persons ability to know it all volume wise alone, I mean in terms of a lifetime even. You can be explained as an existing organism of various taxonomic values or names down to a molecular view in which genetic traits in a population like eye color can even be infected by the interaction over time with microbial life like bacteria. So yes its very true physically, I don’t know about the various metaphysical and spiritual definitions or reactions to such, it just is simply a physical truth and or reality that life evolves. Sorry but it seemed like you were asking really.
As for global climate change, or global warming or the gore spin engine of world domination via the U.N, it to is very real for the same scientific methodologies used to understand the natural world aka reality. Environmental issues are very large in scope and require intense understanding. The data being supported by science currently provides the understanding of human to environment impact. What it is showing is that human behavior is currently having a growing negative impact on a variety of variables environmentally speaking. Such as extinction of species or death of life, to changing massive systems such as weather or atmospheric composition. Most of this has to be understood from a point of view of understanding life factually down to understanding volcanism factually and just about anything in the environment. So for a large scientific consensus to exist on such a matter alone within the respective fields of study, such as environmental chemistry, to various other disciplines with peer reviewed data showing this negative impact should be understood and death with. TO add to this science as a whole does not seem to live in much confliction at all with such findings. The basic reality of global warming also can be demonstrated using very simple and elementary experiments.
OK, so you claim that human behavior is currently having a growing negative impact on systems such as weather or atmospheric composition. You also over use the word 'factually'. According to this source, 19,000 American scientists object to the consensus. According to this source, and this source, there isn't a consensus of the impact of human activity regarding global warming. You claim "factual" evidence of man made global warming. Any refuting my sources disputing such a claim?
"If world leaders do not immediately engage in a race against time to save the Earth's coral reefs, these vital ecosystems will not survive the global warming and acidification predicted for later this century. That is the conclusion of a group of marine scientists from around the world in a major new study published in the journal Science on Dec. 13.
"It's vital that the public understands that the lack of sustainability in the world's carbon emissions is causing the rapid loss of coral reefs, the world's most biodiverse marine ecosystem," said Drew Harvell, Cornell professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and head of the Coral Disease Research Team, which is part of the international Coral Reef Targeted Research (CRTR) group that wrote the new study."
link to full story
Besides the story the site is pretty good for modern research writing in a tone that does not require years of expensive college to understand.
Also if you would take a second to look at all the various debate on this topic primarily on this board alone you will see that hard core data is hard to come buy simply because not everyone knows what the heck scientists happen to be talking about. Every major scientific institution with a reputation in the world that I know of supports the reality that various scientific studies show a very strong negative impact on the environment. There is an ever growing list of standard college majors that hinges around understanding, managing and controlling overall environmental impact.
This is a pdf file from the royal society of science, its one of the most respectable and longstanding scientific institutions in the UK. The pdf file describes common misperceptions of what the science behind global climate change means. The site also houses numerous sources of information on the topic. Remember this institution has survived 350 years so in time alone they must be doing pretty well to have a respected reputation.
"A guide to facts and fictions about climate change"
link to pdf and site
"It's vital that the public understands that the lack of sustainability in the world's carbon emissions is causing the rapid loss of coral reefs, the world's most biodiverse marine ecosystem," said Drew Harvell, Cornell professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and head of the Coral Disease Research Team, which is part of the international Coral Reef Targeted Research (CRTR) group that wrote the new study."
link to full story
Besides the story the site is pretty good for modern research writing in a tone that does not require years of expensive college to understand.
Also if you would take a second to look at all the various debate on this topic primarily on this board alone you will see that hard core data is hard to come buy simply because not everyone knows what the heck scientists happen to be talking about. Every major scientific institution with a reputation in the world that I know of supports the reality that various scientific studies show a very strong negative impact on the environment. There is an ever growing list of standard college majors that hinges around understanding, managing and controlling overall environmental impact.
This is a pdf file from the royal society of science, its one of the most respectable and longstanding scientific institutions in the UK. The pdf file describes common misperceptions of what the science behind global climate change means. The site also houses numerous sources of information on the topic. Remember this institution has survived 350 years so in time alone they must be doing pretty well to have a respected reputation.
"A guide to facts and fictions about climate change"
link to pdf and site
QUOTE(gordo @ Dec 23 2007, 04:12 PM)
"If world leaders do not immediately engage in a race against time to save the Earth's coral reefs, these vital ecosystems will not survive the global warming and acidification predicted for later this century. That is the conclusion of a group of marine scientists from around the world in a major new study published in the journal Science on Dec. 13.
"It's vital that the public understands that the lack of sustainability in the world's carbon emissions is causing the rapid loss of coral reefs, the world's most biodiverse marine ecosystem," said Drew Harvell, Cornell professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and head of the Coral Disease Research Team, which is part of the international Coral Reef Targeted Research (CRTR) group that wrote the new study."
link to full story
Besides the story the site is pretty good for modern research writing in a tone that does not require years of expensive college to understand.
Also if you would take a second to look at all the various debate on this topic primarily on this board alone you will see that hard core data is hard to come buy simply because not everyone knows what the heck scientists happen to be talking about. Every major scientific institution with a reputation in the world that I know of supports the reality that various scientific studies show a very strong negative impact on the environment. There is an ever growing list of standard college majors that hinges around understanding, managing and controlling overall environmental impact.
This is a pdf file from the royal society of science, its one of the most respectable and longstanding scientific institutions in the UK. The pdf file describes common misperceptions of what the science behind global climate change means. The site also houses numerous sources of information on the topic. Remember this institution has survived 350 years so in time alone they must be doing pretty well to have a respected reputation.
"A guide to facts and fictions about climate change"
link to pdf and site
"It's vital that the public understands that the lack of sustainability in the world's carbon emissions is causing the rapid loss of coral reefs, the world's most biodiverse marine ecosystem," said Drew Harvell, Cornell professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and head of the Coral Disease Research Team, which is part of the international Coral Reef Targeted Research (CRTR) group that wrote the new study."
link to full story
Besides the story the site is pretty good for modern research writing in a tone that does not require years of expensive college to understand.
Also if you would take a second to look at all the various debate on this topic primarily on this board alone you will see that hard core data is hard to come buy simply because not everyone knows what the heck scientists happen to be talking about. Every major scientific institution with a reputation in the world that I know of supports the reality that various scientific studies show a very strong negative impact on the environment. There is an ever growing list of standard college majors that hinges around understanding, managing and controlling overall environmental impact.
This is a pdf file from the royal society of science, its one of the most respectable and longstanding scientific institutions in the UK. The pdf file describes common misperceptions of what the science behind global climate change means. The site also houses numerous sources of information on the topic. Remember this institution has survived 350 years so in time alone they must be doing pretty well to have a respected reputation.
"A guide to facts and fictions about climate change"
link to pdf and site
So there isn't anything to refute the 19,000 plus scientists that disagree with the so called consensus while also providing scientific evidence disproving the claims of the global warming doomsdayers. My point is that there isn't a consensus. The other two links I provided list 400+ scientists that dispute the consensus, many of which are former members of the UN IPCC.
In reply to scubatim:
The second link I gave you addresses that issue. Actually the pdf file should have resolved that for you. You do have to realize that even the national academy of sciences here in the US supports the IPCC. The IPCC has nothing but solid support. No I did not counter your claim in a fashion you might like but I did none the less in my opinion. I also read your 19,000 scientist thing and I would have to say its little more then a joke. They don’t have a single scrap of research to present save for one paper that’s barely even that. Maybe I am missing something but if there is more please go ahead and point it out to me. Meanwhile I guess you don’t agree with NOAA, NASA or the EPA, they should just be ignored in favor of this?
I actually think I had to deal with that link in the past how funny really. That and the lomborg guy. You know what’s funny about this. One issue you deal with is global warming is all political, then those same people argue over it. If you know its false why do you care? Government spending or oversight? I mean this scary design on what science is saying by some really creeps me out. Science is a completely open and transparent organization, its not even that, its just a job some people like to do in life. You can find every religion and people or what not that I know of working in it. If you took away science from humanity that remainder of a world is something I don’t think anyone can really envision, each childbirth alone would have no medical support at all simply because otherwise would require objective understanding to exist, its a great human ability and probably our real saving grace. Scientists get burned at the stake and strong-armed by politicians, not the other way around.
To say science is pulley a trick, why and what for and why on such a scale? I would challenge you simply to offer up any support on to why science as a whole would be putting forward something false like global warming.
The second link I gave you addresses that issue. Actually the pdf file should have resolved that for you. You do have to realize that even the national academy of sciences here in the US supports the IPCC. The IPCC has nothing but solid support. No I did not counter your claim in a fashion you might like but I did none the less in my opinion. I also read your 19,000 scientist thing and I would have to say its little more then a joke. They don’t have a single scrap of research to present save for one paper that’s barely even that. Maybe I am missing something but if there is more please go ahead and point it out to me. Meanwhile I guess you don’t agree with NOAA, NASA or the EPA, they should just be ignored in favor of this?
I actually think I had to deal with that link in the past how funny really. That and the lomborg guy. You know what’s funny about this. One issue you deal with is global warming is all political, then those same people argue over it. If you know its false why do you care? Government spending or oversight? I mean this scary design on what science is saying by some really creeps me out. Science is a completely open and transparent organization, its not even that, its just a job some people like to do in life. You can find every religion and people or what not that I know of working in it. If you took away science from humanity that remainder of a world is something I don’t think anyone can really envision, each childbirth alone would have no medical support at all simply because otherwise would require objective understanding to exist, its a great human ability and probably our real saving grace. Scientists get burned at the stake and strong-armed by politicians, not the other way around.
To say science is pulley a trick, why and what for and why on such a scale? I would challenge you simply to offer up any support on to why science as a whole would be putting forward something false like global warming.
QUOTE(gordo @ Dec 23 2007, 05:16 PM)
In reply to scubatim:
The second link I gave you addresses that issue. Actually the pdf file should have resolved that for you. You do have to realize that even the national academy of sciences here in the US supports the IPCC. The IPCC has nothing but solid support. No I did not counter your claim in a fashion you might like but I did none the less in my opinion. I also read your 19,000 scientist thing and I would have to say its little more then a joke. They don’t have a single scrap of research to present save for one paper that’s barely even that. Maybe I am missing something but if there is more please go ahead and point it out to me. Meanwhile I guess you don’t agree with NOAA, NASA or the EPA, they should just be ignored in favor of this?
I actually think I had to deal with that link in the past how funny really. That and the lomborg guy. You know what’s funny about this. One issue you deal with is global warming is all political, then those same people argue over it. If you know its false why do you care? Government spending or oversight? I mean this scary design on what science is saying by some really creeps me out. Science is a completely open and transparent organization, its not even that, its just a job some people like to do in life. You can find every religion and people or what not that I know of working in it. If you took away science from humanity that remainder of a world is something I don’t think anyone can really envision, each childbirth alone would have no medical support at all simply because otherwise would require objective understanding to exist, its a great human ability and probably our real saving grace. Scientists get burned at the stake and strong-armed by politicians, not the other way around.
To say science is pulley a trick, why and what for and why on such a scale? I would challenge you simply to offer up any support on to why science as a whole would be putting forward something false like global warming.
The second link I gave you addresses that issue. Actually the pdf file should have resolved that for you. You do have to realize that even the national academy of sciences here in the US supports the IPCC. The IPCC has nothing but solid support. No I did not counter your claim in a fashion you might like but I did none the less in my opinion. I also read your 19,000 scientist thing and I would have to say its little more then a joke. They don’t have a single scrap of research to present save for one paper that’s barely even that. Maybe I am missing something but if there is more please go ahead and point it out to me. Meanwhile I guess you don’t agree with NOAA, NASA or the EPA, they should just be ignored in favor of this?
I actually think I had to deal with that link in the past how funny really. That and the lomborg guy. You know what’s funny about this. One issue you deal with is global warming is all political, then those same people argue over it. If you know its false why do you care? Government spending or oversight? I mean this scary design on what science is saying by some really creeps me out. Science is a completely open and transparent organization, its not even that, its just a job some people like to do in life. You can find every religion and people or what not that I know of working in it. If you took away science from humanity that remainder of a world is something I don’t think anyone can really envision, each childbirth alone would have no medical support at all simply because otherwise would require objective understanding to exist, its a great human ability and probably our real saving grace. Scientists get burned at the stake and strong-armed by politicians, not the other way around.
To say science is pulley a trick, why and what for and why on such a scale? I would challenge you simply to offer up any support on to why science as a whole would be putting forward something false like global warming.
Science is not putting anything forward false. The political organizations such as the UN IPCC, Al Gore, and anyone that gets grants from any government have reason to put forth false claims. Those that are threatened to not go against the supposed consensus have something to gain by not disputing (actually have everything to lose by speaking up). If this science is so solid, why is it that respected scientists that don't work for government entities dispute the end of days rhetoric? Even the 400+ scientists that I shared previously are some that were former members of your revered UN IPCC have come out and made the claim that what governments around the world are fighting for is a scam. You claim that the petition project is a joke, "They don’t have a single scrap of research to present save for one paper that’s barely even that." I point you to this peer reviewed paper that was funded by
QUOTE
Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.
You seem to write this paper off without actual factual evidence. How is that? This report lists hundreds of respected scientists that are dissenters.
No where have I claimed global warming does not exist. That is not the position I hold. I disagree with the position that we are responsible, that we can stop it, and that if we don't all change our ways, the world will come to an end. These papers support my position. You have only come back to make the claim that the Petition Project is simply a joke and not supported, but if you actually open the report up, you will find hundreds of references on each topic. If you actually open the other report, you will see the dissenting scientists in their own words. So far, you have only tried to discredit my sources by calling them a joke, but have not provided anything to dispute my position that there is not a consensus. Since I have provided over 19,000 scientists that are not part of the alleged consensus, I think that pretty much proves that there isn't a consensus. Or am I mistaken on the definition of consensus?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Dec 23 2007, 11:54 PM)
No where have I claimed global warming does not exist. That is not the position I hold. I disagree with the position that we are responsible, that we can stop it, and that if we don't all change our ways, the world will come to an end. These papers support my position. You have only come back to make the claim that the Petition Project is simply a joke and not supported, but if you actually open the report up, you will find hundreds of references on each topic. If you actually open the other report, you will see the dissenting scientists in their own words. So far, you have only tried to discredit my sources by calling them a joke, but have not provided anything to dispute my position that there is not a consensus. Since I have provided over 19,000 scientists that are not part of the alleged consensus, I think that pretty much proves that there isn't a consensus. Or am I mistaken on the definition of consensus?
Dissenters, is that what you call them?
I don’t even know why you would say that. Its getting close to being a Tom Clancy novel now, dissenters of darwin would be its title, heck bush could even be the main hero, got to have a hero.Really though it has no research, no proof, or proofs, nothing that I can see. I posted again that link, the second one, it speaks directly of acts of espionage and subversion like these dissenters of the overmind
They have no science on why they say things, I asked you to point some of that out because I have handed you in terms of those two links countless scientific studies by so many different people and groups about the reality of global warming. Actual research with evidence, by a very large group of people. Seriously now, not a single non government based act of science on global warming? How can you think such with a straight face, or do you honestly want to lie for some reason? Because that is a lie, environmental research is not just a government run activity though I bet you wish it were.
Also you did not answer my question as to why global warming is some kind of scientific conspiracy, I would really like to hear your response on this. Simply put if you don’t have one, I will think I am debating some inane and loopy paranoia really and nothing more.
QUOTE(gordo @ Dec 23 2007, 06:12 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Dec 23 2007, 11:54 PM)
No where have I claimed global warming does not exist. That is not the position I hold. I disagree with the position that we are responsible, that we can stop it, and that if we don't all change our ways, the world will come to an end. These papers support my position. You have only come back to make the claim that the Petition Project is simply a joke and not supported, but if you actually open the report up, you will find hundreds of references on each topic. If you actually open the other report, you will see the dissenting scientists in their own words. So far, you have only tried to discredit my sources by calling them a joke, but have not provided anything to dispute my position that there is not a consensus. Since I have provided over 19,000 scientists that are not part of the alleged consensus, I think that pretty much proves that there isn't a consensus. Or am I mistaken on the definition of consensus?
Dissenters, is that what you call them?
I don’t even know why you would say that. Its getting close to being a Tom Clancy novel now, dissenters of darwin would be its title, heck bush could even be the main hero, got to have a hero.Really though it has no research, no proof, or proofs, nothing that I can see. I posted again that link, the second one, it speaks directly of acts of espionage and subversion like these dissenters of the overmind
They have no science on why they say things, I asked you to point some of that out because I have handed you in terms of those two links countless scientific studies by so many different people and groups about the reality of global warming. Actual research with evidence, by a very large group of people. Seriously now, not a single non government based act of science on global warming? How can you think such with a straight face, or do you honestly want to lie for some reason? Because that is a lie, environmental research is not just a government run activity though I bet you wish it were.
Also you did not answer my question as to why global warming is some kind of scientific conspiracy, I would really like to hear your response on this. Simply put if you don’t have one, I will think I am debating some inane and loopy paranoia really and nothing more.
And that paper that I pointed you towards shows research, articles, facts, charts, and evidence supporting their claim. I don't know what you want exactly. At the bottom of this page: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm lists 132 references for the 12 page paper. Do I need to actually post links to each of the various PDFs and slide shows to provide you with the arguments in this paper, or can you actually click on the link I have provided and actually read what is written? Please explain to me in simple English what you consider to be research, proof, proofs or whatever you need to make this more credible than a joke, because I find simlarly structured sources sited on this website as I find in the falling sky is falling presentations. I will admit that I did not read your PDF link word for word, but what I did read basically says that if it does not agree with the UN IPCC papers, it is wrong. Not sure how that is scientific. I did not read anything that says that claim XYZ is wrong because of scientific evidence ABC. It pretty much says that anything that doesn't agree with the UN IPCC is wrong because we say so.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Dec 24 2007, 01:00 AM)
And that paper that I pointed you towards shows research, articles, facts, charts, and evidence supporting their claim. I don't know what you want exactly. At the bottom of this page: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm lists 132 references for the 12 page paper. Do I need to actually post links to each of the various PDFs and slide shows to provide you with the arguments in this paper, or can you actually click on the link I have provided and actually read what is written? Please explain to me in simple English what you consider to be research, proof, proofs or whatever you need to make this more credible than a joke, because I find simlarly structured sources sited on this website as I find in the falling sky is falling presentations. I will admit that I did not read your PDF link word for word, but what I did read basically says that if it does not agree with the UN IPCC papers, it is wrong. Not sure how that is scientific. I did not read anything that says that claim XYZ is wrong because of scientific evidence ABC. It pretty much says that anything that doesn't agree with the UN IPCC is wrong because we say so.
The pdf file or research uses all outdated and proven false means of understanding environmental impact. The sun cycle and the midevil warming period are actually used out of context in regards to current understanding of what that actually was. Most all of the reference material lead back to issues dealing with nothing more then the expansion of hydrocarbon and nuclear based technology. There is not real reporting itself on environmental issues save a distorted take using outdated and wrong graphs and literature review, aka there was no real research done. Modern environmental research is fully integrated with physical reality, its not review of existing material alone.
Also again in science you have to prove your case, the pdf is a collection of cases proven false scientifically. The reference material is largely composed of more or older data that pertains mostly to industry not environment. The very small handful of newer references pertain primarily to forms of research that have to do with hydrocarbon and nuclear technology again. For instance one of the references is purely on coal, its really just about coal and nothing more. There is not real environmental piece of research existing in that save for again outdated and plainly wrong graphs as proven already such as the sun cycle combined with literature review.
Modern environmental science does not just study industry. Industry is but one facet of the issue, the other side of it if you want is its impact. The current understanding of the impact is that its negative, in which if you want I can compile a large series of modern studies if you want. I mean after all if you trust science enough to side with what you are you surely should have no problem with a study showing the reality of global climate change. You decision to harp on the IPCC as some gore related engine of world domination still does not hold any water really or rational thinking for that matter. The reality of global warming is held so clear in the minds of people from the data that its part of standard curriculum in public education in many places and is becoming a standard in such globally.
QUOTE(gordo @ Dec 23 2007, 07:21 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Dec 24 2007, 01:00 AM)
And that paper that I pointed you towards shows research, articles, facts, charts, and evidence supporting their claim. I don't know what you want exactly. At the bottom of this page: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm lists 132 references for the 12 page paper. Do I need to actually post links to each of the various PDFs and slide shows to provide you with the arguments in this paper, or can you actually click on the link I have provided and actually read what is written? Please explain to me in simple English what you consider to be research, proof, proofs or whatever you need to make this more credible than a joke, because I find simlarly structured sources sited on this website as I find in the falling sky is falling presentations. I will admit that I did not read your PDF link word for word, but what I did read basically says that if it does not agree with the UN IPCC papers, it is wrong. Not sure how that is scientific. I did not read anything that says that claim XYZ is wrong because of scientific evidence ABC. It pretty much says that anything that doesn't agree with the UN IPCC is wrong because we say so.
The pdf file or research uses all outdated and proven false means of understanding environmental impact. The sun cycle and the midevil warming period are actually used out of context in regards to current understanding of what that actually was. Most all of the reference material lead back to issues dealing with nothing more then the expansion of hydrocarbon and nuclear based technology. There is not real reporting itself on environmental issues save a distorted take using outdated and wrong graphs and literature review, aka there was no real research done. Modern environmental research is fully integrated with physical reality, its not review of existing material alone.
Also again in science you have to prove your case, the pdf is a collection of cases proven false scientifically. The reference material is largely composed of more or older data that pertains mostly to industry not environment. The very small handful of newer references pertain primarily to forms of research that have to do with hydrocarbon and nuclear technology again. For instance one of the references is purely on coal, its really just about coal and nothing more. There is not real environmental piece of research existing in that save for again outdated and plainly wrong graphs as proven already such as the sun cycle combined with literature review.
Modern environmental science does not just study industry. Industry is but one facet of the issue, the other side of it if you want is its impact. The current understanding of the impact is that its negative, in which if you want I can compile a large series of modern studies if you want. I mean after all if you trust science enough to side with what you are you surely should have no problem with a study showing the reality of global climate change. You decision to harp on the IPCC as some gore related engine of world domination still does not hold any water really or rational thinking for that matter. The reality of global warming is held so clear in the minds of people from the data that its part of standard curriculum in public education in many places and is becoming a standard in such globally.
Since it has all been proven false, please share your science proving your claim. I have a hard time taking things like this at the word of one person.
Why does my distrust of the UN IPCC not hold any water, because you say so? You claim that I am not thinking rationally, please help me understand, afterall, I am not thinking rationally, I need your help. These claims that the "reality of global warming is held so clear in the minds of people" is so inaccurate simply by definition. There are millions of laypeople that don't buy into the hype, and thousands of scientists along with them that by definition, there isn't a consensus. Consensus means that everyone agrees. Obviously not everyone agrees. You still have not addressed the scientists that are former members of the UN IPCC that have been quoted in dissent of their former politically formed study group. I am sure they have no research too, right?
Backing away from global warming and returning to going childless for the environment.
Here is an article "Japan Eyes Population Time Bomb"
"Japan is about to experience demographic change on an unprecedented scale.
The birth rate has been falling steeply for half a century. In the early 1970s it passed the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman and in 2005 hit a record low of 1.26."
Entire article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7084749.stm
This is not a good thing for the economy. Population freefall could lead to a host of environmental problems.
Have any of you watched "It's a Wonderful Life" this Christmas? One person can make a difference.
Raising socially responsible children can do more than to save the environment than sterilizing yourself.
Here is an article "Japan Eyes Population Time Bomb"
"Japan is about to experience demographic change on an unprecedented scale.
The birth rate has been falling steeply for half a century. In the early 1970s it passed the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman and in 2005 hit a record low of 1.26."
Entire article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7084749.stm
This is not a good thing for the economy. Population freefall could lead to a host of environmental problems.
Have any of you watched "It's a Wonderful Life" this Christmas? One person can make a difference.
Raising socially responsible children can do more than to save the environment than sterilizing yourself.
QUOTE
Population freefall could lead to a host of environmental problems.
Such as?
Silverwolf:
From the article:
I particularly found the "reversal of nature" comment to be very accurate.
You're right. She has done me no harm, however, celebrating an abortion with a congratulations card is... well, tacky. It's not like we beat the information out of her - she had a news story! And no, I wouldn't bust on someone for deciding to go childless, though I still maintain her effort was for naught. Ten billion people aren't going to abort for the environment as a result of her, so the effect on the environment simply isn't going to matter. "Blind Rage"? C'mon. Who is full of rage? It's absurd at best, and attention whoring at worst. She even let the reporter take her picture.
As far as the global warming issue, it's a scam. Researches need funding. Funding requires results. Results turn into more grants, which pay for more research. More research needs funding... and so on.
Gordo:
I was.
I'm not going to threadjack this and turn it into a religious debate. We can take it elsewhere, but I will say this:
Scientists have the most modern equipment and technology when it comes to weather tracking. Still, our local weatherman can't even predict if it will rain or not. A "30" percent chance of rain is predicted, and it rains. That means somebody was "scientifically" 70% wrong.
Some of you may call my religious beliefs fiction. That's okay. I think science is limited by the scope of fallible human understanding. I question both constantly. I find it curious that most people figure that they're right based on what they can see, while others base that they're right on what they can't see. I'd have a heck of a lot more faith in science if it didn't take scientists 40 years to figure out that the Piltdown Man was a fake, or that the Archaeoraptor was two fossils glued together. Evolutionary scientists by this (and other) examples don't make them more objectionable or open-minded than people of faith, though those defending science are quick to assume that. I'd contend it takes just as much faith to believe in scientific concepts such as evolution or global warming as it does to believe in God.
But we all have our reasons, don't we?
I see you didn't hesitate to defend your faith in science when questioned. I like that. Likewise, I don't hesitate to defend my faith either, and flat statements about "there is no God" is equally offensive as me saying to you "Science has no place in society". Heck, I subscribe to National Geographic because I'm fascinated with new discoveries. Not all faith people have their heads in the sand despite the stereotypes, media portrayals, or the Trading Spouses' "God-Warrior" and Fred Phelps' of the world.
I'm seriously hoping you see that I'm being sincere and not trying to be a jerk.
That aside, I hope that explains why I don't buy this whole global warming mess. Just because Al Gore and "renound" scientists say the world is in deep trouble doesn't mean I'm bound to believe it. Here's a guy who claims to be concerned, writes a book, gets wealthy, and flies a jet around to spread the message. Wait... what?!
Okay, here's my prediction.
Whatglobal warming climate change is all about, if you want my opinion, is a way for governments to finally measure and tax you for "air". Viva Carbon Credits! And when a century of planting trees in thousands of square miles doesn't show an improvement, well, OOPS.
And 50 years from now, we'll be worried about another ice age, and as a result, burning styrofoam will be popular. Don't worry, tho. The government is on top of it, and the best thing YOU can do is just give a few more bucks from your paycheck to help the greater good.
Don't complain. The woman in this article sacrificed her kid. A few thousand bucks is the least you can do.
Don't laugh. Australia is already suggesting A BABY TAX to the tune of thousands, plus hundreds for yearly "forest maintenance fees" for tree planting. I feel for the cool people of Oz. What a stupid joke. $4300. US initially, and then an additional $350. to $750 PER YEAR.
And this is based on.... ???
So let's get to proving it before that crap starts happening here in America. Enough of this "theory" nonsense complete with Hollywood rock stars and worldwide concerts. Let's hear the dissenters, the objections, find some actual scientific reasoning (and not from a source dependent on ongoing government funding like how this whole debacle started, either!) and figure it out. Once the tax starts, it never goes away. It may go somewhere ELSE, but it NEVER goes away.
QUOTE
(That's the true tragedy of the commons; one person does very little harm, but ten billion people do a great deal of harm.) But one cannot understand the blind rage which is directed at this decision, until one realizes that it is directed at the fact of being child-free itself, and not to whatever motivation is offered.
From the article:
QUOTE
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
I particularly found the "reversal of nature" comment to be very accurate.
You're right. She has done me no harm, however, celebrating an abortion with a congratulations card is... well, tacky. It's not like we beat the information out of her - she had a news story! And no, I wouldn't bust on someone for deciding to go childless, though I still maintain her effort was for naught. Ten billion people aren't going to abort for the environment as a result of her, so the effect on the environment simply isn't going to matter. "Blind Rage"? C'mon. Who is full of rage? It's absurd at best, and attention whoring at worst. She even let the reporter take her picture.
As far as the global warming issue, it's a scam. Researches need funding. Funding requires results. Results turn into more grants, which pay for more research. More research needs funding... and so on.
Gordo:
QUOTE
Evolution as supported by empirical, quantifiable, and any other scientific method issue based fact only supports it.
Sorry but it seemed like you were asking really.
Sorry but it seemed like you were asking really.
I was.
I'm not going to threadjack this and turn it into a religious debate. We can take it elsewhere, but I will say this:
Scientists have the most modern equipment and technology when it comes to weather tracking. Still, our local weatherman can't even predict if it will rain or not. A "30" percent chance of rain is predicted, and it rains. That means somebody was "scientifically" 70% wrong.
Some of you may call my religious beliefs fiction. That's okay. I think science is limited by the scope of fallible human understanding. I question both constantly. I find it curious that most people figure that they're right based on what they can see, while others base that they're right on what they can't see. I'd have a heck of a lot more faith in science if it didn't take scientists 40 years to figure out that the Piltdown Man was a fake, or that the Archaeoraptor was two fossils glued together. Evolutionary scientists by this (and other) examples don't make them more objectionable or open-minded than people of faith, though those defending science are quick to assume that. I'd contend it takes just as much faith to believe in scientific concepts such as evolution or global warming as it does to believe in God.
But we all have our reasons, don't we?
I see you didn't hesitate to defend your faith in science when questioned. I like that. Likewise, I don't hesitate to defend my faith either, and flat statements about "there is no God" is equally offensive as me saying to you "Science has no place in society". Heck, I subscribe to National Geographic because I'm fascinated with new discoveries. Not all faith people have their heads in the sand despite the stereotypes, media portrayals, or the Trading Spouses' "God-Warrior" and Fred Phelps' of the world.
I'm seriously hoping you see that I'm being sincere and not trying to be a jerk.
That aside, I hope that explains why I don't buy this whole global warming mess. Just because Al Gore and "renound" scientists say the world is in deep trouble doesn't mean I'm bound to believe it. Here's a guy who claims to be concerned, writes a book, gets wealthy, and flies a jet around to spread the message. Wait... what?!
Okay, here's my prediction.
What
And 50 years from now, we'll be worried about another ice age, and as a result, burning styrofoam will be popular. Don't worry, tho. The government is on top of it, and the best thing YOU can do is just give a few more bucks from your paycheck to help the greater good.
Don't complain. The woman in this article sacrificed her kid. A few thousand bucks is the least you can do.
Don't laugh. Australia is already suggesting A BABY TAX to the tune of thousands, plus hundreds for yearly "forest maintenance fees" for tree planting. I feel for the cool people of Oz. What a stupid joke. $4300. US initially, and then an additional $350. to $750 PER YEAR.
And this is based on.... ???
So let's get to proving it before that crap starts happening here in America. Enough of this "theory" nonsense complete with Hollywood rock stars and worldwide concerts. Let's hear the dissenters, the objections, find some actual scientific reasoning (and not from a source dependent on ongoing government funding like how this whole debacle started, either!) and figure it out. Once the tax starts, it never goes away. It may go somewhere ELSE, but it NEVER goes away.
1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?
Selfish? No. It is a natural biological drive that is inherent in all living things. The eco-destructiveness only comes into play when the carrying capacity of the land is pushed or ignored.
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
The decision to provide a healthy atmosphere for the children should be paramount. That said I am into Malthusian eugenics to the point where I believe public policy should interfere in times of crisis in your daily life. In fact it is about the only circumstance I do accept state intervention. If you want lots of kids you will pay an additional tax over and above the cost of rearing another child. The notion of balance does not confer equity. The human race has rarely been in balance. I highly recommend watching the musical Urinetown as it depicts a class struggle for the use of toilets and the right to use water. Funny and entertaining, it drives home the point of being victims of our own success. If there is one point to take from the musical is that pushing free access through egalitarian means opens the door for increased consumption. At the end of the musical everyone goes from being happy to the disintegration of the town because all the water is used up. Suddenly the pay-per-pee class struggle didn't seem that bad, and we gain a whole new appreciation for guys like Mao who purposely induce famines in overly populated countries. Sometimes you have to be the bad guy to help people and by help I mean sacrifice so that the majority can carry on.
3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?
I would say the person who has children out of wedlock is the most selfish person of all. If we criminalized the single parent I think we would have the added benefit of pressuring potential divorcees as well. The beauty of this route is that it punishes both sexes equally. I would like to foster a new culture of stigmatization on such individuals, one that haunts them through increased taxation, decreased access to public institutions, and dissolve their right to privacy as their names would be published in the media for all to gawk at. Make their business everyone's business because let's be honest, if a claim is made on public resources than a public awareness of your private life is in order.
Selfish? No. It is a natural biological drive that is inherent in all living things. The eco-destructiveness only comes into play when the carrying capacity of the land is pushed or ignored.
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
The decision to provide a healthy atmosphere for the children should be paramount. That said I am into Malthusian eugenics to the point where I believe public policy should interfere in times of crisis in your daily life. In fact it is about the only circumstance I do accept state intervention. If you want lots of kids you will pay an additional tax over and above the cost of rearing another child. The notion of balance does not confer equity. The human race has rarely been in balance. I highly recommend watching the musical Urinetown as it depicts a class struggle for the use of toilets and the right to use water. Funny and entertaining, it drives home the point of being victims of our own success. If there is one point to take from the musical is that pushing free access through egalitarian means opens the door for increased consumption. At the end of the musical everyone goes from being happy to the disintegration of the town because all the water is used up. Suddenly the pay-per-pee class struggle didn't seem that bad, and we gain a whole new appreciation for guys like Mao who purposely induce famines in overly populated countries. Sometimes you have to be the bad guy to help people and by help I mean sacrifice so that the majority can carry on.
3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?
I would say the person who has children out of wedlock is the most selfish person of all. If we criminalized the single parent I think we would have the added benefit of pressuring potential divorcees as well. The beauty of this route is that it punishes both sexes equally. I would like to foster a new culture of stigmatization on such individuals, one that haunts them through increased taxation, decreased access to public institutions, and dissolve their right to privacy as their names would be published in the media for all to gawk at. Make their business everyone's business because let's be honest, if a claim is made on public resources than a public awareness of your private life is in order.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Nov 23 2007, 11:44 AM)
1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?
1.) In a word to the first part of the question: Yes. It is the natural order of things that the more consumers that exist, the more resources shall be depleted, and thereby cause ecological crisis unless the number is matched or exceeded by people exiting the consumer-cycle [a.k.a. dying].
In several words to "is it selfish?" No. It's biology. People like reproducing.
2.) No. Goodness no. Without the manpower to save the environment for later generations, only the rats will care.
3.) That would depend on the frame of mind of the individual. I don't think people are driven to have children to annoy those who choose not to. I don't think Tina and George lay awake at night plotting their next dastardly move to cause global peril and decide to parent a child.
U.K. Daily Mirror article on Eco-activist selfish couples
Questions for debate:
1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?
No, it is not ecologically destructive. Children are part and parcel of the environment, as are all of us. As for it being "selfish", its no more so than eating or breathing. Having children is natural. The environment is natural. Ergo, having children in environmental.
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
The question itself is nonsense on so many levels. First, going childless in order to "save the environment" entails an irrational assumption about the future impact a specific potential child will have on the environment, or as they say is statistics, its a "WAG" (wild a..... guess). What's to say that this bonehead didn't just slam the door on the child who was going to create cold fusion and solve all our energy problems?
Now, perhaps if her perspective is utterly shaped and informed by her own self-loathing, she's convinced (without an rational cause) that her children will be as useless as she is, which is utterly in keeping with the sort of fascistic deterministic eugenics thinking that underlies so much of environmentalism today. 
Second, unless said potential child is literally going to destroy the universe, the lit'l scamp isn't going to "save the environment" or destroy it. The environment will continue on with or without more or fewer rugrats. It may change, but hey, isn't that what progressivism is all about? Change?
Third, what's so great about the environment that it deserves to be "saved?" Back when the environment was (supposedly) all pristine and beautiful and wunnerful, life for humans was nasty, brutish and short.
3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?
Generally, eco-childless activists.
QUOTE
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"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."
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"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."
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
Questions for debate:
1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?
No, it is not ecologically destructive. Children are part and parcel of the environment, as are all of us. As for it being "selfish", its no more so than eating or breathing. Having children is natural. The environment is natural. Ergo, having children in environmental.
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
The question itself is nonsense on so many levels. First, going childless in order to "save the environment" entails an irrational assumption about the future impact a specific potential child will have on the environment, or as they say is statistics, its a "WAG" (wild a..... guess). What's to say that this bonehead didn't just slam the door on the child who was going to create cold fusion and solve all our energy problems?
Now, perhaps if her perspective is utterly shaped and informed by her own self-loathing, she's convinced (without an rational cause) that her children will be as useless as she is, which is utterly in keeping with the sort of fascistic deterministic eugenics thinking that underlies so much of environmentalism today. Second, unless said potential child is literally going to destroy the universe, the lit'l scamp isn't going to "save the environment" or destroy it. The environment will continue on with or without more or fewer rugrats. It may change, but hey, isn't that what progressivism is all about? Change?
Third, what's so great about the environment that it deserves to be "saved?" Back when the environment was (supposedly) all pristine and beautiful and wunnerful, life for humans was nasty, brutish and short.
3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?
Generally, eco-childless activists.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Feb 17 2008, 07:19 PM)
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
The question itself is nonsense on so many levels. First, going childless in order to "save the environment" entails an irrational assumption about the future impact a specific potential child will have on the environment, or as they say is statistics, its a "WAG" (wild a..... guess). What's to say that this bonehead didn't just slam the door on the child who was going to create cold fusion and solve all our energy problems? Now, perhaps if her perspective is utterly shaped and informed by her own self-loathing, she's convinced (without an rational cause) that her children will be as useless as she is, which is utterly in keeping with the sort of fascistic deterministic eugenics thinking that underlies so much of environmentalism today.
Second, unless said potential child is literally going to destroy the universe, the lit'l scamp isn't going to "save the environment" or destroy it. The environment will continue on with or without more or fewer rugrats. It may change, but hey, isn't that what progressivism is all about? Change?
The question itself is nonsense on so many levels. First, going childless in order to "save the environment" entails an irrational assumption about the future impact a specific potential child will have on the environment, or as they say is statistics, its a "WAG" (wild a..... guess). What's to say that this bonehead didn't just slam the door on the child who was going to create cold fusion and solve all our energy problems?
Now, perhaps if her perspective is utterly shaped and informed by her own self-loathing, she's convinced (without an rational cause) that her children will be as useless as she is, which is utterly in keeping with the sort of fascistic deterministic eugenics thinking that underlies so much of environmentalism today. Second, unless said potential child is literally going to destroy the universe, the lit'l scamp isn't going to "save the environment" or destroy it. The environment will continue on with or without more or fewer rugrats. It may change, but hey, isn't that what progressivism is all about? Change?
Those are actually quite interesting points, but you can counter them by asking "What if the child is the next Hitler?" No one really knows who a fetus will grow into, even less so if aforementioned fetus is not created.
The simple logic is that more people = more drain on resources. So it's at least understandable where these people are coming from and the angle they choose to attack the issue with. I doubt it would be debilitating to the earth, since birth rates around the world are on a steady decline except in Africa and southeast Asia. The drain on resources is enough to raise a red flag that it would "harm" the enviornment.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 18 2008, 08:50 AM)
Those are actually quite interesting points, but you can counter them by asking "What if the child is the next Hitler?" No one really knows who a fetus will grow into, even less so if aforementioned fetus is not created.
The simple logic is that more people = more drain on resources. So it's at least understandable where these people are coming from and the angle they choose to attack the issue with. I doubt it would be debilitating to the earth, since birth rates around the world are on a steady decline except in Africa and southeast Asia. The drain on resources is enough to raise a red flag that it would "harm" the enviornment.
The simple logic is that more people = more drain on resources. So it's at least understandable where these people are coming from and the angle they choose to attack the issue with. I doubt it would be debilitating to the earth, since birth rates around the world are on a steady decline except in Africa and southeast Asia. The drain on resources is enough to raise a red flag that it would "harm" the enviornment.
Given the beliefs of those that are sterilizing themselves and the reasons for it, I would say they are making the wrong choice. If they wanted to save mother earth, why not breed their own little army of environmentalists. Now, by them not reproducing, they are limiting the existence of their base, aren't they? If all the environmentalist stopped procreating, only those of us that don't buy into the religion that is man made global warming will exist, and in turn we will all destroy the entire planet by next week!
As the Gorelites die off, no one would be around to carry the cross, and the entire issue would disappear. Not that I am saying that it is a bad idea, just that it is counterproductive for the purpose that it is intended, in my opinion.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 18 2008, 09:40 AM)
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 18 2008, 08:50 AM)
Those are actually quite interesting points, but you can counter them by asking "What if the child is the next Hitler?" No one really knows who a fetus will grow into, even less so if aforementioned fetus is not created.
The simple logic is that more people = more drain on resources. So it's at least understandable where these people are coming from and the angle they choose to attack the issue with. I doubt it would be debilitating to the earth, since birth rates around the world are on a steady decline except in Africa and southeast Asia. The drain on resources is enough to raise a red flag that it would "harm" the enviornment.
The simple logic is that more people = more drain on resources. So it's at least understandable where these people are coming from and the angle they choose to attack the issue with. I doubt it would be debilitating to the earth, since birth rates around the world are on a steady decline except in Africa and southeast Asia. The drain on resources is enough to raise a red flag that it would "harm" the enviornment.
Given the beliefs of those that are sterilizing themselves and the reasons for it, I would say they are making the wrong choice. If they wanted to save mother earth, why not breed their own little army of environmentalists. Now, by them not reproducing, they are limiting the existence of their base, aren't they? If all the environmentalist stopped procreating, only those of us that don't buy into the religion that is man made global warming will exist, and in turn we will all destroy the entire planet by next week!
As the Gorelites die off, no one would be around to carry the cross, and the entire issue would disappear. Not that I am saying that it is a bad idea, just that it is counterproductive for the purpose that it is intended, in my opinion.I'll give you credit for what was perhaps a bit of tongue-in-cheek, but ...
Wow! That's quite a prediction.
There is no guarantee that the problems of future generations will be anything like those we face or that the next generation will see thing like their parents. Children are not and should not be clones of their parents. For example during the 1972 election Frank Sinatra supported Nixon,
while Nancy Sinatra went for McGovern. Danny Thomas was in the Nixon camp and Marlo Thomas supported McGovern. 
Historically, there are substantial differences between John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams. The same is true of George H. W. Bush, 
who stopped short of Baghdad and George W. Bush, who was practically peeing his pants to go in.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 18 2008, 10:42 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 18 2008, 09:40 AM)
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 18 2008, 08:50 AM)
Those are actually quite interesting points, but you can counter them by asking "What if the child is the next Hitler?" No one really knows who a fetus will grow into, even less so if aforementioned fetus is not created.
The simple logic is that more people = more drain on resources. So it's at least understandable where these people are coming from and the angle they choose to attack the issue with. I doubt it would be debilitating to the earth, since birth rates around the world are on a steady decline except in Africa and southeast Asia. The drain on resources is enough to raise a red flag that it would "harm" the enviornment.
The simple logic is that more people = more drain on resources. So it's at least understandable where these people are coming from and the angle they choose to attack the issue with. I doubt it would be debilitating to the earth, since birth rates around the world are on a steady decline except in Africa and southeast Asia. The drain on resources is enough to raise a red flag that it would "harm" the enviornment.
Given the beliefs of those that are sterilizing themselves and the reasons for it, I would say they are making the wrong choice. If they wanted to save mother earth, why not breed their own little army of environmentalists. Now, by them not reproducing, they are limiting the existence of their base, aren't they? If all the environmentalist stopped procreating, only those of us that don't buy into the religion that is man made global warming will exist, and in turn we will all destroy the entire planet by next week!
As the Gorelites die off, no one would be around to carry the cross, and the entire issue would disappear. Not that I am saying that it is a bad idea, just that it is counterproductive for the purpose that it is intended, in my opinion.Wow! That's quite a prediction.
There is no guarantee that the problems of future generations will be anything like those we face or that the next generation will see thing like their parents. Children are not and should not be clones of their parents. For example during the 1972 election Frank Sinatra supported Nixon,
while Nancy Sinatra went for McGovern. Danny Thomas was in the Nixon camp and Marlo Thomas supported McGovern. Historically, there are substantial differences between John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams. The same is true of George H. W. Bush, who stopped short of Baghdad and George W. Bush, who was practically peeing his pants to go in.I can always count on BoF! You didn't notice the sarcasm?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 18 2008, 10:53 AM)
I can always count on BoF! You didn't notice the sarcasm?
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 18 2008, 10:42 AM)
I'll give you credit for what was perhaps a bit of tongue-in-cheek, but ...
I can always count on scubtim to quote someone's post without checking for edits. Check the timing, the edit was made 10:52 a.m. and you posted at 10:53 a.m.
Yeah, I caught the sarcasm, often called the lowest form of humor, but I gave you credit for a higher form of humor - tongue-in-cheek.
Please slow down enough to check for edits before you quote someone. This doesn't have the urgency of someone rushing to a fire.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 18 2008, 11:05 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 18 2008, 10:53 AM)
I can always count on BoF! You didn't notice the sarcasm?
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 18 2008, 10:42 AM)
I'll give you credit for what was perhaps a bit of tongue-in-cheek, but ...
I can always count on scubtim to quote someone's post without checking for edits. Check the timing, the edit was made 10:52 a.m. and you posted at 10:53 a.m.
Yeah, I caught the sarcasm, often called the lowest form of humor, but I gave you credit for a higher form of humor - tongue-in-cheek.
Please slow down enough to check for edits before you quote someone. This doesn't have the urgency of someone rushing to a fire.
I began my response after you began but before you completed your edit. I will concede that you did edit before I was done, but timing can't be helped, and with our history, I would not have been surprised if the edit had not gotten done.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 18 2008, 12:02 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 18 2008, 11:05 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 18 2008, 10:53 AM)
I can always count on BoF! You didn't notice the sarcasm?
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 18 2008, 10:42 AM)
I'll give you credit for what was perhaps a bit of tongue-in-cheek, but ...
I can always count on scubtim to quote someone's post without checking for edits. Check the timing, the edit was made 10:52 a.m. and you posted at 10:53 a.m.
Yeah, I caught the sarcasm, often called the lowest form of humor, but I gave you credit for a higher form of humor - tongue-in-cheek.
Please slow down enough to check for edits before you quote someone. This doesn't have the urgency of someone rushing to a fire.
I began my response after you began but before you completed your edit. I will concede that you did edit before I was done, but timing can't be helped, and with our history, I would not have been surprised if the edit had not gotten done.
Nor would I have been surprised, but I did catch your attempt at humor.
Have a good day.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 18 2008, 11:42 AM)
Given the beliefs of those that are sterilizing themselves and the reasons for it, I would say they are making the wrong choice. If they wanted to save mother earth, why not breed their own little army of environmentalists. Now, by them not reproducing, they are limiting the existence of their base, aren't they? If all the environmentalist stopped procreating, only those of us that don't buy into the religion that is man made global warming will exist, and in turn we will all destroy the entire planet by next week! As the Gorelites die off, no one would be around to carry the cross, and the entire issue would disappear. Not that I am saying that it is a bad idea, just that it is counterproductive for the purpose that it is intended, in my opinion.
As the Gorelites die off, no one would be around to carry the cross, and the entire issue would disappear. Not that I am saying that it is a bad idea, just that it is counterproductive for the purpose that it is intended, in my opinion. I think the cult-ish element is what they're trying to avoid. Attacks on parenting and all that.I think this will be an issue spanning generations until the the planet is destroyed [perhaps by next week]. Some people can't get rid of the idea that we'll all eventually float into the sky and they're not called crazy by mainstream America. Just because some people think the planet will go out in a non-religious bang doesn't mean they're crazy for taking measures they feel best address the problem.
Each child brought into the world is a draw just as each vehicle put into the world requires energy. What needs to happen is a premeditated campaign of discouragement that affects everyone. A one child policy is a must as is heavy taxation for offenders. Child birth must be heavily regulated to the point where it a hassle. This will help ease the growth problems on the educational system and allow for consolidation, something that hasn't happened in decades.
QUOTE(Trouble @ Feb 21 2008, 09:49 AM)
Each child brought into the world is a draw just as each vehicle put into the world requires energy. What needs to happen is a premeditated campaign of discouragement that affects everyone. A one child policy is a must as is heavy taxation for offenders. Child birth must be heavily regulated to the point where it a hassle. This will help ease the growth problems on the educational system and allow for consolidation, something that hasn't happened in decades.
You are serious? What happens if a family has more than one child? Taxation? Execution? Where does anyone come up with any idea that the government can control who has kids and how many they have? At what point did democracy and a republican form of government stop meaning anything?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 10:15 AM)
Where does anyone come up with any idea that the government can control who has kids and how many they have?
Directly no, but U. S. tax code doesn't discourage and may encourage having multiple children.
IRS Publication 972: Child Tax Credit
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 21 2008, 10:51 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 10:15 AM)
Where does anyone come up with any idea that the government can control who has kids and how many they have?
Directly no, but U. S. tax code doesn't discourage and may encourage having multiple children.
IRS Publication 972: Child Tax Credit
Interpretation is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
QUOTE(scubatim)
You are serious? What happens if a family has more than one child? Taxation? Execution? Where does anyone come up with any idea that the government can control who has kids and how many they have? At what point did democracy and a republican form of government stop meaning anything?
I never joke when it comes to children. I'm flexible on a variety of topics except with the right to procreate. Then I am a hardliner. There will be a campaign on sticking it right where it hurts to big families based on incremental increases in taxes. No kids? Hand out money. Make people envious of the lifestyle. One kid? Neutral. Two kids, tax penalty that grows as each additional child is added to the list. No such thing as assitance - couples will endure the cost of the child over and above the penalty. Children from past relationships count to the total. There will be several documentaries set up to document the difficulties experienced and held as a warning to schools as poor family planning. This is family planning with teeth.
All money collected will be focused on the complete dissolution of parental and biological rights, cutbacks in ALL pediatric medicene, and a system of that reminds the tardy who do not fill out the paperwork that they will have a very hard time enrolling in education. No compromises. Not challengable in any court. Left and right have no bearing.
If preplanned birth rates/infant mortality are met there can be a relaxation going back to basic birth control. If not, a four fold increase in basic food stuffs will get peoples attention in a hurry.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 10:54 AM)
Interpretation is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Nice meaningless one liner.
Add it up scubatim.
1. $3400 dollar per child dependent exemption
2. Child tax credit of $1000 per child subject to some limitations
3. Earned Income Credit that goes up dramatically to a maximum of two children
Earned income credit also goes up ti a maximum of two children.
QUOTE(IRS EIC Overview)
Families with one or more children can receive much more EIC than single workers who do not care for any children.
IRS Schedule EIC
Also keep in mind that parents may write off a portion of expenses paid for qualified day care.
I realize, scubatim that supporting children is an expensive proposition and I have no objection to any of the tax break I mentiond as a way to help struggling families, but I will say again, current tax policy does not discourage and may encourage having multiple children.
What is your interpretation? Maybe you can come up with a well thought out response rather than the one line crap you threw at me above.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 21 2008, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 10:54 AM)
Interpretation is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Nice meaningless one liner.
Add it up scubatim.
1. $3400 dollar per child dependent exemption
2. Child tax credit of $1000 per child subject to some limitations
3. Earned Income Credit that goes up dramatically to a maximum of two children
Earned income credit also goes up ti a maximum of two children.
QUOTE(IRS EIC Overview)
Families with one or more children can receive much more EIC than single workers who do not care for any children.
IRS Schedule EIC
Also keep in mind that parents may write off a portion of expenses paid for qualified day care.
I realize, scubatim that supporting children is an expensive proposition and I have no objection to any of the tax break I mentiond as a way to help struggling families, but I will say again, current tax policy does not discourage and may encourage having multiple children.
What is your interpretation? Maybe you can come up with a well thought out response rather than the one line crap you threw at me above.
No, my position stands, interpretation is a beautiful thing.
QUOTE(Trouble @ Feb 21 2008, 10:49 AM)
Each child brought into the world is a draw just as each vehicle put into the world requires energy. What needs to happen is a premeditated campaign of discouragement that affects everyone. A one child policy is a must as is heavy taxation for offenders. Child birth must be heavily regulated to the point where it a hassle. This will help ease the growth problems on the educational system and allow for consolidation, something that hasn't happened in decades.
I like your words, but I could spin this in a court of law as a violation of the pursuit of happiness and link it to the American precedent of domain over our bodies. Government imposing monetary regulations is very different than couples making the choice not to reproduce. It would be an amazing blow to morale for many couples who feel the urge- so to speak- to be fruitful. Government should have no say in the number of children permissible in this country, even though I agree that each additional mouth to feed creates an increased margin of resources lost.
QUOTE(scubatim)
No, my position stands, interpretation is a beautiful thing.
That argument really doesn't hold water because in other threads you've made a point to hassle others for their interpretation.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 21 2008, 02:00 PM)
even though I agree that each additional mouth to feed creates an increased margin of resources lost.
And I would go on to say that each child born gives us another opportunity to have another great mind enter our society. Great minds can find great solutions, unless of course they never exist.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM)
And I would go on to say that each child born gives us another opportunity to have another great mind enter our society. Great minds can find great solutions, unless of course they never exist.
The argument goes both ways. The next baby born could be Attila the Hun. It just doesn't hold water when the universal truth of this subject is more people = more of a strain on limited resources.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 21 2008, 02:00 PM)
QUOTE(Trouble @ Feb 21 2008, 10:49 AM)
Each child brought into the world is a draw just as each vehicle put into the world requires energy. What needs to happen is a premeditated campaign of discouragement that affects everyone. A one child policy is a must as is heavy taxation for offenders. Child birth must be heavily regulated to the point where it a hassle. This will help ease the growth problems on the educational system and allow for consolidation, something that hasn't happened in decades.
I like your words, but I could spin this in a court of law as a violation of the pursuit of happiness and link it to the American precedent of domain over our bodies. Government imposing monetary regulations is very different than couples making the choice not to reproduce. It would be an amazing blow to morale for many couples who feel the urge- so to speak- to be fruitful. Government should have no say in the number of children permissible in this country, even though I agree that each additional mouth to feed creates an increased margin of resources lost.
QUOTE(scubatim)
No, my position stands, interpretation is a beautiful thing.
That argument really doesn't hold water because in other threads you've made a point to hassle others for their interpretation.
There were three possible interpretations in my post. Of course, scubatim missed this.
1. Tax policy does not discourage having children
2. Tax policy encourages having children
3. Tax policy is appropriate because it helps parents support kids.
1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?
In my opinion, Toni’s fervency is a bit silly. Yes, more people place more drain on the environment, but urging everyone not to have children and characterizing those who do as selfish environment destroyers is fairly ridiculous. It makes it embarrassing for those of us who choose to remain childless for our own, personal reasons.
That being said, I believe it to be incredibly selfish to have more children than you can care for properly, both financially and emotionally. From the ultra-rich who have kids and immediately foist them off on nannies, to the poor family making sub-poverty wages who has a passel of kids, it is not responsible behavior. Sure, it’s a “biological” thing, but for goodness sakes, use the organ inside your head before the one in your pants! I’m sick of the idolization of multiple-birth parents (99% of whom used fertility drugs to have their “litters” of preemies) in shows like “Jon and Kate + 8”, “Life with the Duggars” (or whatever they call that show. Just check TV listings on Discovery Health Channel, and 8 out of 10 have to do with reproduction and multiple births). To me, this isn’t something to be celebrated and rewarded with a TV show, but irresponsible behavior, in the extreme. I find the people who have dozens of kids to be the most selfish people on the planet. They are oblivious to anything but their own breeding program.
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?
In my opinion, Toni’s fervency is a bit silly. Yes, more people place more drain on the environment, but urging everyone not to have children and characterizing those who do as selfish environment destroyers is fairly ridiculous. It makes it embarrassing for those of us who choose to remain childless for our own, personal reasons.
That being said, I believe it to be incredibly selfish to have more children than you can care for properly, both financially and emotionally. From the ultra-rich who have kids and immediately foist them off on nannies, to the poor family making sub-poverty wages who has a passel of kids, it is not responsible behavior. Sure, it’s a “biological” thing, but for goodness sakes, use the organ inside your head before the one in your pants! I’m sick of the idolization of multiple-birth parents (99% of whom used fertility drugs to have their “litters” of preemies) in shows like “Jon and Kate + 8”, “Life with the Duggars” (or whatever they call that show. Just check TV listings on Discovery Health Channel, and 8 out of 10 have to do with reproduction and multiple births). To me, this isn’t something to be celebrated and rewarded with a TV show, but irresponsible behavior, in the extreme. I find the people who have dozens of kids to be the most selfish people on the planet. They are oblivious to anything but their own breeding program.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 21 2008, 02:00 PM)
QUOTE(Trouble @ Feb 21 2008, 10:49 AM)
Each child brought into the world is a draw just as each vehicle put into the world requires energy. What needs to happen is a premeditated campaign of discouragement that affects everyone. A one child policy is a must as is heavy taxation for offenders. Child birth must be heavily regulated to the point where it a hassle. This will help ease the growth problems on the educational system and allow for consolidation, something that hasn't happened in decades.
I like your words, but I could spin this in a court of law as a violation of the pursuit of happiness and link it to the American precedent of domain over our bodies. Government imposing monetary regulations is very different than couples making the choice not to reproduce. It would be an amazing blow to morale for many couples who feel the urge- so to speak- to be fruitful. Government should have no say in the number of children permissible in this country, even though I agree that each additional mouth to feed creates an increased margin of resources lost.
QUOTE(scubatim)
No, my position stands, interpretation is a beautiful thing.
That argument really doesn't hold water because in other threads you've made a point to hassle others for their interpretation.
I didn't offer an interpretation, I simply pointed out that interpretation is a good thing. I also didn't say his was wrong, did I?
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 21 2008, 02:13 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM)
And I would go on to say that each child born gives us another opportunity to have another great mind enter our society. Great minds can find great solutions, unless of course they never exist.
The argument goes both ways. The next baby born could be Attila the Hun. It just doesn't hold water when the universal truth of this subject is more people = more of a strain on limited resources.
And why is my point so out of line? If Al Gore hadn't been born, we wouldn't have had the documetary "An Inconvenient Truth", now would we? If any number of world leaders had not been born historically, we might still be under British rule, for example. Saying that not having babies because they will only further the destruction of our planet leaves out the possibility that one of those babies not born might be the saving grace of the problem. That is all I am saying.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 21 2008, 02:13 PM)
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 21 2008, 02:00 PM)
QUOTE(Trouble @ Feb 21 2008, 10:49 AM)
Each child brought into the world is a draw just as each vehicle put into the world requires energy. What needs to happen is a premeditated campaign of discouragement that affects everyone. A one child policy is a must as is heavy taxation for offenders. Child birth must be heavily regulated to the point where it a hassle. This will help ease the growth problems on the educational system and allow for consolidation, something that hasn't happened in decades.
I like your words, but I could spin this in a court of law as a violation of the pursuit of happiness and link it to the American precedent of domain over our bodies. Government imposing monetary regulations is very different than couples making the choice not to reproduce. It would be an amazing blow to morale for many couples who feel the urge- so to speak- to be fruitful. Government should have no say in the number of children permissible in this country, even though I agree that each additional mouth to feed creates an increased margin of resources lost.
QUOTE(scubatim)
No, my position stands, interpretation is a beautiful thing.
That argument really doesn't hold water because in other threads you've made a point to hassle others for their interpretation.
There were three possible interpretations in my post. Of course, scubatim missed this.
1. Tax policy does not discourage having children
2. Tax policy encourages having children
3. Tax policy is appropriate because it helps parents support kids.
Did I ever say your interpretation was anything specific or that your interpretation was wrong?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 02:42 PM)
Did I ever say your interpretation was anything specific or that your interpretation was wrong?
No, but then again all you have given us a series of cheap, but cute one liners that don't say anything and are contrary to board rules in that they are not debatable.
QUOTE(AD Survival Guide)
One-liners are rarely debatable, and are not constructive.
http://www.americasdebate.com/?page=guide
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 21 2008, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 02:42 PM)
Did I ever say your interpretation was anything specific or that your interpretation was wrong?
No, but then again all you have given us a series of cheap, but cute one liners that don't say anything and are contrary to board rules in that they are not debatable.
QUOTE(AD Survival Guide)
One-liners are rarely debatable, and are not constructive.
http://www.americasdebate.com/?page=guide
I don't see why you insist on continuing, but if you do, let's be sure we are making correct statements. There is nothing in the "Rules" section about one liners. I also wouldn't go looking to your posts as examples of ideal responses as many times your responses stoke the fire more than contribute to constructive debate:
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 20 2008, 10:38 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 20 2008, 09:57 AM)
Now it is a conservative v. liberal issue? I don't think anyone has made that assertion, except you. Way to take this off topic yet again!
Apparently observation isn’t one of your talents. Look at the demographics of those who have posted this thread.
Those who support and their self-description.
For Random Drug Testing Teachers
Scubatim - Very Conservative
Sleepe - Very Conservative
Amlord - Conservative
Azwhitewolf - Conservative
*BaphometsAdcocate – the odd man out, but someone who tends to lean toward conservative positions
Against Random Drug Testing of Teachers
nebraska 29 – Very Liberal
quarkhead – Very Liberal
BoF – Liberal
drewyorktimes – Liberal
Eeyore – Liberal
Julian - Liberal
That leaves VDemosthenes a moderate who seems torn between the two positions.
It sort of shakes out as a de facto,l if not classic, liberal vs. conservative confrontation, doesn’t it?
QUOTE(scubatim