Quote:
Well, it's a past time I'm pretty good at in the first place, so I don't see why I shouldn't get paid for it.
:iagree: Funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Printable View
Quote:
Well, it's a past time I'm pretty good at in the first place, so I don't see why I shouldn't get paid for it.
:iagree: Funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
This is a good stance. There are more than enough foster children to go around.Quote:
Originally Posted by BookBeauty
Well, I hadn't proposed any solutions, and those ones sound a bit extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
But, I mean, we should think about it. We've got this huge planet, with all of these resources, and there are literally millions starving, and dying.
Resources are not being allocated efficiently, or sustainably.
We have an economy that continues to grow, and depends upon growth, and our resources are finite. We are heading for disaster.
We can't even trust what they put in our toothpaste, because toothpaste companies don't care about your health, they just care about the profit. Now think about all of the other companies that are selling things to you.
Everything should be healthy, with as little side effects as possible. Aspartame was refused by a health board 7 times before it was finally accepted, under dubious circumstances. The only reason it got pushed through was money, and profit. Nobody cares about anyone else.
Who would even want to raise kids in this world? There's so much to fix, but nobody really sees it, or refuses to see it. That being said....
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Although, admittedly, I may be one of those, as I named 'em, selfish individuals who decides to have my own one day. I can't rule that out. So I'm just as bad. :blush2:
Just call me an honest hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BookBeauty
Having kids is a subject I have thought about a whole lot. First of all I never wanted kids but I always said that if I'd ever get pregnant I would keep it. I got pregnant and I kept and love it (him). I would never trade my life with him for anything but that being said, there is no way in he.. I'll have another one.
the reasons you said are a big part of it. This world is always getting worse and worse both when it comes to nature and people, mainly people.
also being pregnant sucks.
but mainly the world is mean.
Its because things are quite tolerable for most of us now, and humans have a high stress threshold, which means its very hard for the average person to get motivated about serious problems which will arise 10, 20, 30 years down the line. Themistocles rose to his feet in the Athenian assembly and time after time warned the Athenians of the impending Persian invasion, an invasion intended to annihilate Athens and its people. It was only when the invasion force was practically in its ships and marching formations that the Athenians could be moved to make the grand effort required to save themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by BookBeauty
And then there is ignorance in addition to this complacency. I myself am complacent but I am not ignorant. I know the ****-storm which gathers dark and destructive on the horizon. But many people do not. The whole edifice of power rests on the still and stale sands of the status quo. To change things would mean changing who now make money and now hold offices of power. So they mouth platitudes in the case of politicians, or they distort information as in the case of the corporations. Its all a hellish quagmire of fiendish ghouls who care naught for no one, not even their own grand-children, willing to trample underfoot life, truth and beauty in their mad pitiful dash for wealth and power.
We can be a wise and heroic species, at least some of us, some of the time. Rarely if ever do humans as a whole exhibit much other than ignorance, apathy, a passive acceptance of what was, what is and what will be.
I don't like the genralisation that individuals make such as people selfishly think of themselves. I can only presume that the poster never does and its just the rest of us that do and of course if that isn't the case, then why on earth would I give any credence to what they are saying?
It isn't considered humane to force sterlization or abortion on the homeless and unemployed or third world but its ok to force their kids down the throats of families that have room for them through guilt tripping 'should' statements?
Why should one group retain a freedom while another is being asked to sacrifice theirs? I can't imagine ever adopting or fostering a child.
Why not? I think in the future I will adopt. As awesome as my genetics are it seems my family is prone to some very nasty illnesses, as are those peculiarly of most every girl I've ever been seriously involved with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
I think adoption is a wonderful thing. A good friend of mine was adopted and he turned out great and loves his adopted parents as I do my biological ones.
If you're referring to me as said poster, since I did cite that people are selfish, I had admitted to also being selfish, since I might one day make the decision to have my own children. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
In addition, many people don't think about the consequences of having children, and are usually not ready for the responsibility. There's another case of selfishness. I can understand not seeing the big picture-- The entire world is enormous, and it's difficult to see past our own environments.
But, people rush in and have children when they don't have the capacity. They want children, and they don't care if they can't raise them in a structured, safe, and nurturing environment. Making a conscious decision to have a child, knowing full well that you don't have the means to do so, is thoughtless and inconsiderate.
I'm not saying that these children can't grow up to be wonderful people-- But it is traumatizing for these children to grow up without proper care-- At least have enough to feed, clothe and shelter them.
At least in that sense, I hope to be thoughtful and selfless.
But I'll be the first to admit my many flaws.
Yes it is. I think that's one of the truest things that can be said of today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helga
That being said, congratulations of the life you've brought to this world! :) It sounds like he makes you very happy, and I'm sure that you make him happy as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Hey, I just speak the truth that applies to what I'd estimate to be 90% of guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho
And if a couple doesn't have the ability to have a child naturally, they should have every right to use science to have a child. I find the "the world is already populated enough so don't have children" line of thinking incredibly pompous.
Who suggested that anyone with a spare room should be forced to adopt a kid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Whether it's pompous or not doesn't matter, that there are more people alive than there are resources to keep everyone healthy is a fact. The world's population of humans is in a J-curve. No one's saying that sperm and egg banks be outlawed, it's just a shame that people would spend thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands if the process fails the first few times, to have a kid with their own genes when there are unwanted kids around who need people to take care of them. I don't understand why genetics mean so much to people, I don't care. I'm not saying anyone else should or shouldn't do anything, but I understand BB's position and I'd also adopt or foster someone who already exists before going the turkey baster route and creating yet another mouth to feed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
If you cannot have a child, but you want one, what is wrong with adoption? There are countless children with no parents, who will most likely spend their entire lives going from foster home to foster home, and their onus will be loneliness and sorrow, because how can one expect a creature which has never known what it is like to be loved, to care for another. If the world shall treat you like a beast, you shall become a beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Plus there are known overpopulation problems in the world. Naturally the mass mentality on this is such as Darcy pointed out; it does not affect me, I dont care. But if every man and woman instead of thinking about now, were to think about the past and the future, the world would have been a very different place. I could site countless examples in history were people chose to do the easy thing instead of the right thing, and the consequences were felt. Let us take some responsibility, are we not human? The actions of all our ancestors before us, have been judged and there are some which we thank today and a great many which we condemn today, if each of us remembered that all our actions shall create the future world, and our descendants shall justly judge us with the same severity which we have judged our ancestors - maybe at the very least, selfishness would not be flaunted as if it were a virtue.
Quote:
It isn't considered humane to force sterlization or abortion on the homeless and unemployed or third world but its ok to force their kids down the throats of families that have room for them through guilt tripping 'should' statements?
This has angered me. I would do very well to remind you that the cruel and conceited way you talk about and view these individuals, is the same exact way that your ancestors of one or two hundred years ago were viewed. Your ancestors were viewed in the same condescending and hostile light in the past because in the cream of societies eyes, your ancestors were nothing more than the lazy squalor of society; the squalor of society which the bigoted of one hundred years ago saw as your people, and the bigoted of now see as others.
Fortunately in the past amongst those of more fortunate birth, not all of them were bigots, and some saw beyond the hypocrisy and cold and selfish mindset which was common, and they labored to help, not their own people or class, but to help mankind. And it is because of these selfless people of the past that you now can sit at your computer and have the luxury of being bigoted. I would suggest that you be careful of certain views, because I assure you there are people now who view others like you, in the same bigoted and ignorant way, due to their selfish mindset.
Alexander, are you suggesting although I have had children and I do have a spare room that to not foster a child I am bigoted? I suppose being a woman it is a simple biological destiny in life me isn't it? Raise children because not to means that all I would do is enjoy the luxury of sitting behind a computer all day...
I think fostering and adoption are a wonderful option for those who can't bear children and for those who wish to give a home to foster kids but that still doesn't change how I feel about protecting my freedom and my choices without guilt. Frankly, people don't have to justify why they wouldn't foster a child and the truth is, most folk don't even consider it. So while your ideals are noble, that is all they are.
Well, I hadn't proposed any solutions, and those ones sound a bit extreme.
But, I mean, we should think about it. We've got this huge planet, with all of these resources, and there are literally millions starving, and dying.
Resources are not being allocated efficiently, or sustainably.
And how do you propose we correct this? The wealthy, modernized nations of the world produce far more than they need to sustain themselves. Do they owe it to the rest of the world to freely give away their surplus? Who do you propose will pay the costs of this to farmers, shipping, etc...? At the same time we need to face the reality that poorest nations also tend to be horrible at providing for any but the wealthiest of their populace as well as at controlling their own population growth and making proper use of their resources. Do we simply throw good money after bad (as it were), or force them to conform to our ideals? Obviously many of the problems with poverty in the "third world" stem from our own actions, behaviors, and excesses. How many of these are we willing to sacrifice?
We have an economy that continues to grow, and depends upon growth, and our resources are finite. We are heading for disaster.
Are you so certain about your conclusions? The earth has been able to sustain an ever increasing population. The standard of living of the average French or English citizen did not decline, but rather improved following WWII in spite of the fact that other other nations grew even wealthier and the population as a whole continued to expand. Rather than suggest that economic growth will lead to some great disaster, as if there is some clearly defined limitation of resources and wealth, is it not just as likely that such will lead to higher standards of living for the segments of the population whose lives have always been lived on the brink of disaster? As the economy grows there will be increased demands upon resources, obviously, but there will also be increased efforts to meet these demands.
Who would even want to raise kids in this world? There's so much to fix, but nobody really sees it, or refuses to see it.
At what point in history was this not true? Is this present century really worse than the past?
This world is always getting worse and worse both when it comes to nature and people, mainly people.
Really?
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ste..._violence.html
...there are known overpopulation problems in the world. Naturally the mass mentality on this is such as Darcy pointed out; it does not affect me, I dont care.
Alex... are you suggesting that the current population is unsustainable, which contrary to Juniper's statement, is false. The wealthy Western nations have the wherewithal to feed, shelter, and clothe the entire planet. The reasons for famine, drought, and poverty are far more complex than a simple overpopulation of the planet as a whole. We must consider any number of variables.
Some years back I read a book on the Black Death that occurred in Europe beginning in the 14th century. The author argue quite persuasively that a large reason for the excessive number of fatalities had to do with poverty and malnutrition. Like many poorer "third world" cultures, the poorer populations of Europe of the time were having children beyond their ability to sustain them... in the belief that at least several of these children would survive and be able to care for the parents when they grew old. The problem wasn't that the population as a whole had grown too large, but rather that it had grown too large among populations unable to sustain them.
The author explored the growth of populations after the plague using birth and death certificates, tombstones, etc... and discovered that in the Northern nations of Holland, England, Germany, France couples stopped having large families... and as a consequence they were soon able to easily meet their needs for survival and grow economically. We see a similar situation in the former-Soviet Union where we have an educated population that realizes the limitations of their own resources and as a result the birth-rate has fallen. China, by contrast, has a huge, illiterate rural populace and as a result attempts at birth control have been imposed from the state.
But the question arises just how is that someone in England, or France, or Canada, or the US, or Japan decides not to have children going to help with the burgeoning populations in nations in Africa, Asian, or Latin-America where they are unable to sustain this growth? Are you then going to take that money that you saved in not having a child... in paying for his or her food and shelter and clothing and education, etc... and send it off to some African nation? And even if you do, will it likely end up providing food, shelter, clothing, and education for the poor... or will it not, more likely, end up being used to purchase weapons for some petty dictator?
Of course in all reality I suspect the whole notion of a grand sacrifice in not having children is just typical youthful idealism. I can't count how many of my friends back in college had the same ideas... and now they're saddled with 2 or 3 kids.:arf:
Is it? That doesn't seem logical. I think the US itself consumes enough resources that if spread out could supply the world. We're a bunch of fat ****s.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf