Breeding = FunBAm-bAM_
I am detecting much win in this area.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
the planet is going to become overpopulated sooner or later. Humanityis nothing but a plague that infects Earth. The earth's economy will soon crumble under the massive weight of all humans. face it, earth was better off without humans. and no i am not a depressed freak who sits in a dark corner all day, im just saying it like it is.101_king
1) I think you meant to say ecosystem instead of economy
2) what makes you think the earth would be better off without people?
But why isn't it a good idea? The planet gets saved, and there would be no more kids anymore. Win-win situation!Warfighter3000Here we see the 60 year old man screaming at the youngsters on his lawn telling them in his feable voice "Get of my lawn you whipper snappers!"
so..what...isn't this technically a cult? save the earth by killing yourself?chrisrooR
No, you don't kill yourself. You just avoid having kids and soon enough there would be no more humans. You can keep on living life. Nobody needs to die. Except during abortions, but that wouldn't really count, since embryos don't have souls.
[QUOTE="DarKre"]You can't even get 99% of Africa to put on a condom...ice_radonTheir mentality is easily 99 percent of the problem where they just breed like damn animals and let like half their kids die. And they say I am sick to think that they should be sniped.
No need to snipe them. Eventually, they too will see the way and will stop breeding.
Their mentality is easily 99 percent of the problem where they just breed like damn animals and let like half their kids die. And they say I am sick to think that they should be sniped.[QUOTE="ice_radon"][QUOTE="DarKre"]You can't even get 99% of Africa to put on a condom...Warfighter3000
No need to snipe them. Eventually, they too will see the way and will stop breeding.
It has not happened yet, and all their are doing is eating up earths resources for wastes anyways because we are feeding kids that will die by the age of 5 anyways...These people are such morons.
If you're really serious about lowering the population, you have to target the proper "market": china, india, bangladesh, muslims, crazy evangelical christians, etc.
Your decision not to procreate will only hurt your parents who'd probably kill to have grandkids and will do nothing to reduce the world population. You should be telling this to people who insist on having 10 kids despite not being able to support them financially, but that's another issue altogether.
spierdalaj666
Finally, someone who isn't completely irrational. Voluntary extinction will never work because of biological factors such as Darwinism. The need to procreate is too much a part of human nature. And if you are going to go around preaching this, don't do it in the West where it isn't as large a problem.
[QUOTE="spierdalaj666"]These people are such morons.
If you're really serious about lowering the population, you have to target the proper "market": china, india, bangladesh, muslims, crazy evangelical christians, etc.
Your decision not to procreate will only hurt your parents who'd probably kill to have grandkids and will do nothing to reduce the world population. You should be telling this to people who insist on having 10 kids despite not being able to support them financially, but that's another issue altogether.
RicardoIII
Finally, someone who isn't completely irrational. Voluntary extinction will never work because of biological factors such as Darwinism. The need to procreate is too much a part of human nature. And if you are going to go around preaching this, don't do it in the West where it isn't as large a problem.
That is where you are wrong. Read this, it is a part of the VHEMT faq.
"Q: What about the human instinct to breed?
Humans, like all creatures, have urges which lead to reproduction. Our biological urge is to have sex, not to make babies. Our "instinct to breed" is the same as a squirrel's instinct to plant trees: the urge is to store food, trees are a natural result. If sex is an urge to procreate, then hunger's an urge to defecate.
Culturally-induced desires can be so strong that they seem to be biological, but no evolutionary mechanism for an instinct to breed exists. Why do we stop breeding after we've had as many as we want? If the instinct is to reproduce, how are so many of us able to over ride it? There are too many who have never felt that urge: mutations don't occur in this high a percentage of a population.
Looking to our evolutionary roots, imagine Homo erectus feeling the urge to create a new human. He then has to understand that a cavewoman is needed, sexual intercourse must be engaged in, and they will have to wait nine months.
Q: Do we have to stop having sex?
Sex is the way most babies are started, but is sexual intercourse really the primary cause of human reproduction? Let's consider the statistics:
The World Health Organization estimates that 100 million couples engage in sexual intercourse on an average day, which is only 3.3% of the world's six billion humans. This pitifully low amount of love-making results in around 910,000 pregnancies, thanks in part to contraceptives and sterility. For a variety of reasons, 55% of these zygotes don't make it through fetushood to live birth. According to a current U.S. Census Bureau estimate, 359,000 do make it daily.
So, less than 0.4% of each day's heterosexual trysts result in the creation of new humans -- a statistically insignificant correlation for proving causation. In fact, it rounds to zero.
Try it for yourself. Estimate how many times you've engaged in sexual activity in your lifetime. Now estimate how many times you were trying to make a baby. Divide the little number by the big number to give you the percent of times sex and procreation have simultaneously motivated you.
Perhaps if there were more opportunities for sexual gratification, so many people wouldn't feel the need to fill a nagging emptiness with a needy dependent.
[Please note: the above shows how statistics may be manipulated. If we approach the equation from the other end, more than 99% of us were started by sexual intercourse.]
Q: What's wrong with babies? Don't you like babies? VHEMT Volunteers love babies as much as anyone else. "Having babies" is not so much the problem -- having adults is what's causing the problems. The environmental impact of disposable diapers is heavy, but we are adults much longer than we are children.
People who envision having a baby often forget that they are creating an entirely new human being who will leave in a few years as an adult.
Youth is a wonderful phase of life, whether it's people, panda, or panther. It's sad to imagine there being no more of any of them. A baby condor may not be as cute as a baby human, but we must choose to forego one if the others are to survive.
Children's welfare will improve as there are fewer of them to care for. Considering the future world we are creating for future generations, procreation today is like renting rooms in a burning building -- renting them to our children no less.
Choosing to refrain from producing another person demonstrates a profound love for all life.
Q: What about our right to breed? Could VHEMT eventually lead to coercion?
While we righteously argue against coercive methods to improve birth rates, let's keep in mind that coercion is already with us. Reproductive rights are not universally respected, so we already have coercion and involuntary population control. Hundreds of millions of couples want to avoid conceptions, and are denied this right. Where is the outrage at this coercion?
Advocates of coerced contraception are vilified as "ecofascists," while advocates of coerced births are respectfully called "pro-life".
When breeding is an unquestioned right, we are also guaranteeing the right to breed slave labor, and to sentence someone to life in a rapidly deteriorating environment. A solid case could be made that procreation today is de facto child abuse.
Eighty million unwanted conceptions occur each year. 50 million of those are not carried to full term, and 78 to 80 thousand women die from complications of unsafe abortions as a result -- an outrageous denial of basic human right:s. Each year, roughly 30 million people are denied their right to not be born into a family that doesn't want them.
Those of us who love freedom, and who realize that none are free as long as anyone is oppressed, will continue to promote universal reproductive freedom and responsibility.
Seems as if our entire industrialized civilization is one big suicide cult. The symptoms surround us.
We propel our bodies about in fragile metal boxes, at potentially fatal speeds, without much care or reason.
We ingest so much poison that meat from our bones wouldn't meet government standards for pork.
We pull strands from the web of life, jump up and down on it, and expect it to hold our ever-increasing weight. Few notice there's no safety net.
Instead, we could be embracing life: voluntary human extinction offers a healthy cure for humanity's collective death wish.
"The destruction which has overtaken a number of civilizations in the past has never been the work of any external agency, but has always been in the nature of an act of suicide."~Arnold Toynbee
A Study of History 1949
Like... sure, why not kill the human kind? I don't know about you, but people like living. If we're all dead, nobody would care if the earth is unpolluted. The animals would eventually learn to drive cars (I bet monkeys could do it). Then, one moment they would be like:"Let's kill ourselves for the sake of the unpolluted world". And next up, would be the plants. The plants would start killing each other, because they can't walk... and yet, they rule the planet. :|
You know... if we stop breeding it could take a while. What about murder-suicides? A lot faster. :)
[QUOTE="RicardoIII"][QUOTE="spierdalaj666"]These people are such morons.
If you're really serious about lowering the population, you have to target the proper "market": china, india, bangladesh, muslims, crazy evangelical christians, etc.
Your decision not to procreate will only hurt your parents who'd probably kill to have grandkids and will do nothing to reduce the world population. You should be telling this to people who insist on having 10 kids despite not being able to support them financially, but that's another issue altogether.
Warfighter3000
Finally, someone who isn't completely irrational. Voluntary extinction will never work because of biological factors such as Darwinism. The need to procreate is too much a part of human nature. And if you are going to go around preaching this, don't do it in the West where it isn't as large a problem.
That is where you are wrong. Read this, it is a part of the VHEMT faq.
"Q: What about the human instinct to breed?
Humans, like all creatures, have urges which lead to reproduction. Our biological urge is to have sex, not to make babies. Our "instinct to breed" is the same as a squirrel's instinct to plant trees: the urge is to store food, trees are a natural result. If sex is an urge to procreate, then hunger's an urge to defecate.
Culturally-induced desires can be so strong that they seem to be biological, but no evolutionary mechanism for an instinct to breed exists. Why do we stop breeding after we've had as many as we want? If the instinct is to reproduce, how are so many of us able to over ride it? There are too many who have never felt that urge: mutations don't occur in this high a percentage of a population.
Looking to our evolutionary roots, imagine Homo erectus feeling the urge to create a new human. He then has to understand that a cavewoman is needed, sexual intercourse must be engaged in, and they will have to wait nine months.
Considering how often our species has the urge for sex, it's likely human sexuality serves primarily a pair-bonding function rather than procreative. Human infants are vulnerable for so long that their survival, in prehistoric times, may have depended on a strong pair bond between parents. Bonobos, perhaps our closest biological relative, engage in sex for social reasons far more than for reproductive reasons."
This argument is so silly and full of holes that it can be deconstructed very easily.
1) not everyone stops breeding after they've had as many as they want, so people keep on going forever. One reason is obviously cultural, but you can find people like this all over the world. Since we're culturally distinct, i'd attribute this desire to over-procreate to a biological basis.
2) The homo erectus argument is just sad. Whether it's homo erectus or homo sapiens, all species have a biological mandate for procreation. Whether you're a hunter/gatherer or farming society, there is a societal recognition that in order to survive one must have offspring. Having offspring doesn't just guarantee the continuation of the species but also of the parents' lives, since as they got older, they obviously lose their ability to irrigate the land and hunt animals and have to depend on their offspring to provide for them (remember, a welfare system did not exist until recently). I think that even homo erectus must have realized that.
In addition, procreation is a necessary part of darwinism. Take the example of a hiennas in africa. To survive, they have to hunt and eat their prey, which is generally not plentiful in africa. In addition, there are rival packs of hiennas that are also hunting the same prey to survive. Hiennas are territorial animals and if your group has more adults than your rival's, then when you engage them in territorial combat, you'll generally win and will cast them out of your territory and guarantee the survival of your group.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment