Sperm/Egg donations: Would you do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Alex... are you suggesting that the current population is unsustainable, which contrary to Juniper's statement, is false.

---

You should tell that to every professor I've ever had, I'm sure they'll be ecstatic to recieve your expert opinion. The Canadian foster care system is overburdened, and ****ty. There are many kids who need care on our own soil, and becoming a foster parent is comparatively cheap too - sometimes the government even gives you money, whereas anonymous in-vitro can cost up to $25,000 for one round (money which you might need to provide an optimum quality of life for your new family). Also I didn't say that every child without a stable home was in an industrialized society, and you are able to adopt outside of your country (like Virgil did). It's a bit troublesome, but the price is comparable to anonymous in-vitro, especially if you're using a donated egg (and that's only for one round, it often requires two or three, or it never takes). My assertion thus far in this thread has been that given the choice between costly anonymous in-vitro and costly overseas adoption/domestic fostering, I'd choose the latter because the children already exist and need to be cared for. Better to reduce suffering than to create more.

J-curve:
http://www.subdude-site.com/WebPages...es_703x578.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The wealthy Western nations have the wherewithal to feed, shelter, and clothe the entire planet.

---

Yeah, that should be happening any day now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Of course in all reality I suspect the whole notion of a grand sacrifice in not having children is just typical youthful idealism.

---

You're really going to have to stop beating that poor horse, it's long dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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.

---

Yeah, but most of the really fat people in America are poor, and the reason they're fat is because they can only afford food that's high in fat and sugar and low in vitamins and nutrients, like fast food. The first world does have a lot of resources though, and I believe that scientific and technological advancement really could meet at least the basic needs for the world's entire human population and still account for our species' natural pyramidal distribution tendancy, but we've really got to get going on it. Agricultural biogenetics/pesticide innovation/ect. is a step in the right direction, that's why "organic" food isn't a good idea. Vastly decreased food output, those on the bottom suffer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Yeah, but most of the really fat people in America are poor, and the reason they're fat is because they can only afford food that's high in fat and sugar and low in vitamins and nutrients, like fast food. The first world does have a lot of resources though, and I believe that scientific and technological advancement really could meet at least the basic needs for the world's entire human population and still account for our species' natural pyramidal distribution tendancy, but we've really got to get going on it. Agricultural biogenetics/pesticide innovation/ect. is a step in the right direction, that's why "organic" food isn't a good idea. Vastly decreased food output, those on the bottom suffer.

---

I agree. You clearly have a handle on what I was getting at. I'm impossibly bad at getting my point across with clarity, and I really appreciate that you, and so many others are better at it than me. :P

And to those of you who are fighting this--

Even if our planet can sustain the current population of the planet-- Are we using resources efficiently and intelligently? Sustainably? To clothe, and feed the population? No. We have an inadequate system. Many people think that, even if we run out of resources, we can play catch-up with science and fix things that way. I think that's an irresponsible way to look at it, and it's about time we all start trying to take some global responsibility.

We're using methods of energy that are wasteful, and if you're not thinking about profit, you're thinking about getting your own clothes, and taking care of your own mouths to feed.

This is really only the fault of our current system-- But, individuals aren't really thinking on a large scale, either-- Which is what I was jiving at. I'm not necessarily very good at organizing my thoughts well in order to communicate them.

Maybe you're under the impression that, as an individual, you have no say.

As I've said in another thread, and as I see it, it's just as relevant here:

People do make a difference. Everything we do, everything we buy, everything we eat makes an impact on someone, or something else. We don't get a choice on whether what we do makes a difference or not. We get to decide only if the difference we inevitably make is negative, or positive. There are no neutral actions.

Even if we can, and even if the resources are in abundance, we're not helping anybody. That is the true disaster. People are upset about the state of the world. Nobody is going to deny that people are starving, and that there is needless war, and needless waste.

By stating these things, I'm not setting out to upset anyone. I'm saying what I think are facts. Nobody's denying them, either.

There's just disagreement about whether we can last forever or not, but that's not really that important. I was trying to point out something on a larger scale. I was trying to point out that what we've got going on isn't working, and needs to change. And many of you agree with me, and have worded that far better than I ever could.

What you do with the information is yours. Any hostility or aggression shown towards this information is yours. It has nothing to do with me, and it should tell you more about yourself than about me.

Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Alex... are you suggesting that the current population is unsustainable, which contrary to Juniper's statement, is false.

You should tell that to every professor I've ever had, I'm sure they'll be ecstatic to recieve your expert opinion. The Canadian foster care system is overburdened, and ****ty. There are many kids who need care on our own soil, and becoming a foster parent is comparatively cheap too -

Tell me just how poorly those kids living in foster care in Canada are doing? Are they truly starving? Has UNICEF arrived? The fact that there is an excess of children in need of parents is not the same as suggesting that the nation is unable to sustain the current population. I doubt even that there are more children in need of parents than there are willing parents out there. If the Canadian system is anything like the US system, then it is likely that the bureaucracy is so convoluted, top-heavy, and labyrinthine (surely worthy of Kafka's horrific vision) that many qualified and willing potential parents give up. I don't know if this was Virgil's experience, but I have one relative and one close friend who both found it far easier to adopt overseas (Latin-America) than to go through the years of bureaucratic BS imposed by moronic underpaid social workers.

But is that what I was even discussing? I thought the issue was the inability to sustain the populace in the wealthy nations. I'll tell you about the children in the district in the US that currently has the largest percentage of foreclosures in North America. These children are all categorized as Title 1. That means every last one of them lives at or below the US federal poverty level. Every last one of them, the entire neighborhood population lives in what is deemed as "poverty" by the US government. There are many horrible things about their lives. They have to walk to school each day past prostitutes, gangs, drug dealers, alcoholics, etc... They have almost all been witness to a shooting and know what to do in a "drive by". They move frequently... skipping out on landlords. Their parents are often abusive... sexually, physically, emotionally... and yet in no way are they starving. We are not seeing walking skeletons ala some African famine. Most come to school clutching bags of candy and chips purchased on the way to school. They wear Adidas and Nikes and designer shirts and clutch the latest cell-phones and i-pods. They have computers at home... or if not, have computer access just around the block at the library. What you fail to grasp is that "poverty" is relative. In terms of food, clothing and shelter the vast majority of those classified as "poor" in North America or the rest of the modernized post-industrial world are better off today than the majority of the population at any other time in history... and they are certainly better off than a great majority of the "poor" in "third world nations".

...sometimes the government even gives you money, whereas anonymous in-vitro can cost up to $25,000 for one round (money which you might need to provide an optimum quality of life for your new family). Also I didn't say that every child without a stable home was in an industrialized society, and you are able to adopt outside of your country (like Virgil did). It's a bit troublesome, but the price is comparable to anonymous in-vitro, especially if you're using a donated egg (and that's only for one round, it often requires two or three, or it never takes). My assertion thus far in this thread has been that given the choice between costly anonymous in-vitro and costly overseas adoption/domestic fostering, I'd choose the latter because the children already exist and need to be cared for. Better to reduce suffering than to create more.

First of all... it would seem that the choice on how to use ones own money is probably something best left up to the individual, not to others to deem wasteful or not. The choice to have children is even more personal and certainly has little or nothing to do with some illusory notion of alleviating world suffering.

SLG- The wealthy Western nations have the wherewithal to feed, shelter, and clothe the entire planet.

Yeah, that should be happening any day now.

And did I say it was going to happen? Farmers in the US are frequently paid not to grow crops in an effort to manipulate the market and maintain a higher price. Vast expanses of the US farmlands alone are spent in growing tobacco or corn to create Ethanol to cut auto emissions. Canada, Australia, the former Soviet Union, most of Europe produce more than enough to feed themselves at an appropriate level and produce vast surpluses. But are the wealthy countries likely to hand over such surpluses freely to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts? Not likely.

And then we have the issue of wasted potential. India has a huge surplus of cattle... and yet because the cow is sacred, more than 50% of the population live in a state of malnutrition. Much of Africa is farm-able... yet continued wars, poor leadership continually undermines the efforts to create a sustainable society.

Yeah, but most of the really fat people in America are poor, and the reason they're fat is because they can only afford food that's high in fat and sugar and low in vitamins and nutrients, like fast food.


You need to stop pulling these stereotypes and nonsense statements out of your posterior. There are just as many obese middle-class and wealthy Americans. If any group has less obesity in terms of percentages than the populace as a whole, it may just be the wealthy... but that is because it is an issue of education and access to proper medical care and/or the time and money needed for gyms, trainers, etc... Certainly, there is an epidemic of obesity among the poor, but this has nothing to do with the lack of money to afford healthy foods. Fast foods and pre-processed foods and junk foods are in no way more expensive than healthy food. For the poor it often comes down to education. For the rest of the population it comes down to poor habits (grabbing fast food on the run rather than spending the time sitting down and slowly eating and enjoying the meal). It also has to do with excess wealth and our sedentary lifestyle. We no longer labor in the fields from sun up to sundown or put in 12 hour shifts in the steel mills.

The first world does have a lot of resources though, and I believe that scientific and technological advancement really could meet at least the basic needs for the world's entire human population...

Isn't that what I said at the start? The advanced cultures already have more than enough resources to feed themselves and most of the rest of the world... and future developments could likely continue to meet the needs of a growing population... but here's the problem. Why should they do so? And let's not go into idealistic fantasies that humanity will suddenly recognize the need to share equally and be their brother's keepers. Why should the United States or Britain or France or Germany or Japan or Australia, or Canada expend their labor and their resources to feed people in Africa or Asia or Latin-America?

Even if our planet can sustain the current population of the planet-- Are we using resources efficiently and intelligently? Sustainably? To clothe, and feed the population? No. We have an inadequate system. Many people think that, even if we run out of resources, we can play catch-up with science and fix things that way. I think that's an irresponsible way to look at it, and it's about time we all start trying to take some global responsibility.

Yet isn't this what we have always done? When, in the course of history, was the entire planet fully able to sustain itself... to meet and surpass the basic needs of every living human being? And yet as the population of the planet has increased, humanity has always developed the means to meet the increased demands. Do we really have solid scientific research establishing just exactly what the limit is on the world population before the planet can no longer sustain us... or is this based upon chicken-little, doomsday scenarios?

As for thinking globally... again what impact will it have if I, living in one of the wealthiest nations fully able to sustain its current population and and any foreseeable increase in population, decide not to have children? Will this somehow magically transfer into increased resources for those nations that are already unable to sustain their populations? How do we go about changing the situation in other countries where the heart of the population problem as it exists lies?

We're using methods of energy that are wasteful, and if you're not thinking about profit, you're thinking about getting your own clothes, and taking care of your own mouths to feed.

Ah... but you of course don't think about such things. Your thoughts lie with alleviating world hunger and bringing about global peace... you and every Miss America contestant. Me... I'm just selfish. Thoughts of how to pay for gasoline so that I can drive to work and earn enough to feed myself and my family are much more pressing than concerns for the starving in Bangladesh (if it even still exists).

This is really only the fault of our current system--

So what system do you propose as an alternative. "Imagine there's no countries..." A great idea... now how do you bring this about in a realistic, practical manner? What is your notion of a Utopian system?

But, individuals aren't really thinking on a large scale...

What is "larger" than meeting your own needs and those of your family? I am ever cautious of those who would place the state or the masses to the entire planet over individuals. We have seen this again and again throughout history... and it always end in a "reign of terror".

People do make a difference. Everything we do, everything we buy, everything we eat makes an impact on someone, or something else. We don't get a choice on whether what we do makes a difference or not. We get to decide only if the difference we inevitably make is negative, or positive. There are no neutral actions.

And? Perhaps we should stop buying all those clothes made in third-word sweat shops and stop typing on these computers also made in third-world sweat shops... and then we need to stop using oil... we'll walk 40 miles to work each day and figure that's the end of all our plastic toys and gadgets...

The problem lies with sweeping statements concerning wastefulness and our lifestyle as opposed to offering some meaningful and realistic solutions to the problems that you recognize.

Even if we can, and even if the resources are in abundance, we're not helping anybody.

Everything we do as human beings involves some motivation. The question I have raised repeatedly is why should we in the wealthier nations of the world spend our labor and our resources in assisting others in the poorer nations to meet their basic needs... which they should be meeting themselves? What possible gain or advantage is there? Are we to assume that the farmers in the US and Canada and Britain and elsewhere will jump at the opportunity to work for nothing... sending their crops to Latin-America or Africa? Or perhaps the average citizen in those countries will have no problem with sacrificing in the form of higher taxes so that our nations may play the role of the good Samaritan?

I am too sentimental and ruled by my emotions to donate sperm.



That doesn't mean I have a weird relationship with my semen it just means I would forever wonder if my 'seed had been sown', so to speak.

There's a sperm bank near my University of course and they only pay £12. Another reason not to sell my essence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Even if our planet can sustain the current population of the planet-- Are we using resources efficiently and intelligently? Sustainably? To clothe, and feed the population? No. We have an inadequate system. Many people think that, even if we run out of resources, we can play catch-up with science and fix things that way. I think that's an irresponsible way to look at it, and it's about time we all start trying to take some global responsibility.

Yet isn't this what we have always done? When, in the course of history, was the entire planet fully able to sustain itself... to meet and surpass the basic needs of every living human being? And yet as the population of the planet has increased, humanity has always developed the means to meet the increased demands. Do we really have solid scientific research establishing just exactly what the limit is on the world population before the planet can no longer sustain us... or is this based upon chicken-little, doomsday scenarios?

As for thinking globally... again what impact will it have if I, living in one of the wealthiest nations fully able to sustain its current population and and any foreseeable increase in population, decide not to have children? Will this somehow magically transfer into increased resources for those nations that are already unable to sustain their populations? How do we go about changing the situation in other countries where the heart of the population problem as it exists lies?

We're using methods of energy that are wasteful, and if you're not thinking about profit, you're thinking about getting your own clothes, and taking care of your own mouths to feed.

Ah... but you of course don't think about such things. Your thoughts lie with alleviating world hunger and bringing about global peace... you and every Miss America contestant. Me... I'm just selfish. Thoughts of how to pay for gasoline so that I can drive to work and earn enough to feed myself and my family are much more pressing than concerns for the starving in Bangladesh (if it even still exists).

This is really only the fault of our current system--

So what system do you propose as an alternative. "Imagine there's no countries..." A great idea... now how do you bring this about in a realistic, practical manner? What is your notion of a Utopian system?

But, individuals aren't really thinking on a large scale...

What is "larger" than meeting your own needs and those of your family? I am ever cautious of those who would place the state or the masses to the entire planet over individuals. We have seen this again and again throughout history... and it always end in a "reign of terror".

People do make a difference. Everything we do, everything we buy, everything we eat makes an impact on someone, or something else. We don't get a choice on whether what we do makes a difference or not. We get to decide only if the difference we inevitably make is negative, or positive. There are no neutral actions.

And? Perhaps we should stop buying all those clothes made in third-word sweat shops and stop typing on these computers also made in third-world sweat shops... and then we need to stop using oil... we'll walk 40 miles to work each day and figure that's the end of all our plastic toys and gadgets...

The problem lies with sweeping statements concerning wastefulness and our lifestyle as opposed to offering some meaningful and realistic solutions to the problems that you recognize.

Even if we can, and even if the resources are in abundance, we're not helping anybody.

Everything we do as human beings involves some motivation. The question I have raised repeatedly is why should we in the wealthier nations of the world spend our labor and our resources in assisting others in the poorer nations to meet their basic needs... which they should be meeting themselves? What possible gain or advantage is there? Are we to assume that the farmers in the US and Canada and Britain and elsewhere will jump at the opportunity to work for nothing... sending their crops to Latin-America or Africa? Or perhaps the average citizen in those countries will have no problem with sacrificing in the form of higher taxes so that our nations may play the role of the good Samaritan?

---

I understand. You want me to give you solutions, rather than point out the problems.

And it is also an issue when richer countries spend extravagant amounts of money in other poor countries, when they have people freezing to death with no electricity or heat in their own country. I know this very well.

There's nothing overtly wrong with taking care of yourself, and your family, and dealing with problems on a small scale.

I merely suggest that very few actually do look at the bigger picture, and very few try to find solutions.

You've got me all wrong.

I mean, I never claimed to be better than anybody else, or that I have all the answers, or that I'm even doing what I'm supposed to, to help things on a global scale. I'm still learning and trying to figure out what needs to be done on a smaller scale that can affect things positively on a global scale. But, at least the intent is there, and I'm trying, and learning, and attempting to figure things out.

A lot of people aren't trying, learning, and being informed.

Also, I don't think it's necessarily a solution to quit buying things from sweat shops. The kids that work there are trying to raise money to support their families, and getting their income from these places. When you shut down the sweat shops, it eliminates a means of income, causing them to turn to prostitution or worse.

There has to be something that's brought in to replace it, or to make it unnecessary for these children to work and make money. What is that something? What is the solution? I have no idea, but I will keep reading and trying to figure it out. And I will keep asking these questions.

I'm not suggesting people stop buying oil and stop doing things, making their lives impractical. I'm not suggesting that I have any answers.

I'm suggesting people get informed and start asking questions and trying to find their own solutions, and their own answers.

I understand. You want me to give you solutions, rather than point out the problems.

Bingo! Of course I am not aiming this at you, specifically, I am simply saying that I have heard these sweeping doomsday statements for as long as I can recall... and individuals declaring that driving or having children or whatever is somehow irresponsible considering the fact that there are starving people wherever (indeed, I remember my mother admonishing me to eat those Lima Beans that I hated because there were people starving in China)... but they never come to illustrate cause and effect... ("How is my eating those damn beans gonna help the starving Chinese, Mom?") How is my choice to have or not have children going to impact conditions in Africa and Asia? Nor do they ever offer a logical, realistic alternative. "Stop driving." Yeah... and how do I get to work in a nation with crappy public transportation?

And it is also an issue when richer countries spend extravagant amounts of money in other poor countries, when they have people freezing to death with no electricity or heat in their own country. I know this very well.

Yes... there is this as well... although outside of the homeless (and that's another issue altogether) it is quite difficult to cut the electricity and heat on the poor in the US. But let's be honest here, are you willing to sacrifice your access to free public education, subsidized college/university education... are you even willing to give up your cell phones, TVs, i-pods, computers, video games, and designer clothes in order to alleviate world hunger?

There's nothing overtly wrong with taking care of yourself, and your family, and dealing with problems on a small scale.

"let us cultivate our garden?"

I merely suggest that very few actually do look at the bigger picture, and very few try to find solutions.

I suspect that any educated individual in the wealthier nations of the world is fully aware of what life is like elsewhere... aware of how "lucky" or "blessed" they are... but their concerns lie first and foremost with themselves and their families.

There has to be something that's brought in to replace it, or to make it unnecessary for these children to work and make money. What is that something? What is the solution? I have no idea, but I will keep reading and trying to figure it out. And I will keep asking these questions.

When any nation reaches a certain level of wealth, it will no longer be acceptable to labor under certain conditions or for less than an appropriate wage. The sweat shop conditions that we currently abhor, were a reality in our own not-so-distant past. It seems to me that every culture or society passes through the same stages moving from small villages to city-stages to larger agrarian-based nations, to industrial nations, to post-industrial nations. Can we expect that others will jump right to the same state as we are at without the same long-drawn-out growing pains as we went through?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I thought that is what I was do every time I have sex. Am I doing it wrong?

---

:rofl: :rofl: Ummm, maybe. If you don't want little Darcy's.

I think some little Darcy's in the world would be wonderful! :hurray:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

I think some little Darcy's in the world would be wonderful! :hurray:

---

lol. Thanks, but no little Darcys until big Darcy finishes his university degree.

There are more than enough resources to properly feed the world's entire population now, but people like myself in the rich countries hoard an unreasonable share of them, a trend that I would bet my life will never turn around, and so descreasing the world's population is probably not a bad idea.

I would adopt not to limit the number of humans but to provide a happy and healthy home for a child already born. Adoption seems like a no-brainer to me. The more I think about it the closer I am coming to actually making the decision to some day do it. I would rather take a chance on a random kid than subject others to my flawed genes. The world has enough alcoholics, diabetics, depressives and just generally sick looney folks as is.

I gotta agree with what stlukes says on these issues. When talking to my dad (55 years old) about the overpopulation problem, he pretty much says the "experts" were all saying the same things being said now when he was in high school. From what he heard, the planet should have reached a world-wide famine by now or be so crowded that there would literally be not enough space on the planet to fit everyone.

Plus, everyone is far in America. Rich, poor, and everyone in between. Poor people are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise, like everyone else. There are plenty of skinny and in shape poor people to show that it's perfectly possible to not be obese as a product of lack of money.

Is there a problem? Yes. Is our current population rate unsustainable to the point where people should be having less kids? No. Maybe in China and India, but not worldwide. Like someone said, throughout all of history, no matter he population side, there have always been those with and those without.

There are more than enough resources to properly feed the world's entire population now, but people like myself in the rich countries hoard an unreasonable share of them, a trend that I would bet my life will never turn around, and so descreasing the world's population is probably not a bad idea.

Cetainly... but how do you propose we undertake this? It makes absolutely no sense to curtail the population in the wealthy Western nations that are fully able to sustain themselves, and to do so will have virtually no impact upon the overpopulation in other poverty-stricken nations. So what is the solution. We've already have more than a few famines, genocides, wars, AIDS etc... but it hasn't been enough to slow the growth. There have been attempts at educating the population about birth-control, but then we've had hostile responses of the uneducated populations of those we have attempted to help... and the uneducated morons at home. Perhaps we should just lob a few nukes their way and get it over with... or again turn to Dr. Jonathan Swift's solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

There are more than enough resources to properly feed the world's entire population now, but people like myself in the rich countries hoard an unreasonable share of them, a trend that I would bet my life will never turn around, and so descreasing the world's population is probably not a bad idea.

Cetainly... but how do you propose we undertake this? It makes absolutely no sense to curtail the population in the wealthy Western nations that are fully able to sustain themselves, and to do so will have virtually no impact upon the overpopulation in other poverty-stricken nations. So what is the solution. We've already have more than a few famines, genocides, wars, AIDS etc... but it hasn't been enough to slow the growth. There have been attempts at educating the population about birth-control, but then we've had hostile responses of the uneducated populations of those we have attempted to help... and the uneducated morons at home. Perhaps we should just lob a few nukes their way and get it over with... or again turn to Dr. Jonathan Swift's solution.

---

A Modest Proposal is brilliant. I love Swift.

I don't know. I don't think any organization or effort could ever tackle something as widespread and multi-faceted as the problem of over-population. Certainly curtailing reproduction among rich westerners is not going to make much of a substantial impact. If the resources were more equitably distributed across the globe I'd wager the birth rates in under-developed countries would appreciably decline. But again - who or what would be capable of orchestrating such an initiative? God? I doubt He'll bother to intervene. Over-population is not some isolated singular thing. Its the result of biology, agriculture, wealth, industrialization, religion, science, a whole host of mightily complex and impossible-to harness-things.

In short - we're ****ed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Tell me just how poorly those kids living in foster care in Canada are doing? Are they truly starving?

---

Did I say they were?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The fact that there is an excess of children in need of parents is not the same as suggesting that the nation is unable to sustain the current population.

---

Did I say it was? I believe I said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

My assertion thus far in this thread has been that given the choice between costly anonymous in-vitro and costly overseas adoption/domestic fostering, I'd choose the latter because the children already exist and need to be cared for. Better to reduce suffering than to create more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I doubt even that there are more children in need of parents than there are willing parents out there.

---

Wow, really? Doubt away, you're still wrong. There are more people in the world ready and willing to adopt kids than there are kids without parents? Where are you getting that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I thought the issue was the inability to sustain the populace in the wealthy nations.

---

I think the issue is adoption vs. in-vitro actually. You're just latching onto the one point of my posts that is arguable, which is overpopulation and the concept that the first world has enough resources to feed and clothe the entire world. The truth is that yes, the math works out, if you completely ignore human nature and our pyramidal distribution tendancy and pretend that everyone can take no more than they need and share everything equally, which is unfeasible and thus not even worth mentioning. Overpopulation exists and is a serious problem if we take REALITY into account (which I think you'll agree is probably important), so to REALISTICALLY reduce suffering I would be more comfortable with myself, if I were in a situation in which I really wanted a kid and had to seek alternative methods to the standard, if I were to take one out of the crowded, ****ty foster care system in which they recieve sub-par education, ratty clothes and food lacking in nutrition (because people don't like sharing with domestic orphans either) or else adopt a kid from an overpopulated nation overseas to reduce the number of mouthes to feed in those places. What's even debatable about this? And developing nations are overpopulated, meaning that the number of people are too many for the amount of resources needed to keep everyone healthy. Do I have to bring out my graph again? I have one that shows the population growth of developing vs. industrialized nations from UNEP if you'd prefer, and I can tie it up with another regarding resource availability and some informaiton about basic human needs to hammer the point home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

First of all... it would seem that the choice on how to use ones own money is probably something best left up to the individual, not to others to deem wasteful or not.

---

Yeah, I've said that three times now. You're just arguing for it's own sake, aren't you? What a kettle. It is a personal consideration - and individuals often consider the idea that adoption might be less wasteful and more socially responsible, like several people on this forum have already expressed (including myself right now, which is what you're debating).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

And did I say it was going to happen?

---

No, but you did miss my point. The idea that the first world might have enough to feed and clothe the entire world is useless, because we aren't and won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

India has a huge surplus of cattle... and yet because the cow is sacred, more than 50% of the population live in a state of malnutrition. Much of Africa is farm-able... yet continued wars, poor leadership continually undermines the efforts to create a sustainable society.

---

Yeah, again, that should be happening any day now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Fast foods and pre-processed foods and junk foods are in no way more expensive than healthy food.

---

You've clearly never been poor. When you're poor, you still have to eat every day and yet you only have maybe ten dollars for food (that's each day, you don't have more than ten dollars today and that's what you'll have tomorrow if you're lucky). You could buy a head of lettuce and some tomatoes today, and you could buy maybe some bread and mayo tomorrow, then ham the next day, and look! After three days you have enough to make sandwiches for a week and a half! Doesn't do you very much good on those first three days though. Or, you could live that day on a meal at a fast food restaurant and a box of kraft dinner. This is how you live after you've run out of the cheap food that you load the fridge with on payday, and even then healthy food spoils quickly so you buy frozen meals and canned food. You live day by day, and feed yourself day by day. Trust me, pre-prepared/"fast" food and meal-in-a-box style eating is the best way to go. You have all the food groups there each day, and you get full from it. You can buy "low fat" or "low sodium" frozen dinners and meal-in-a-box's, but they're still pretty unhealthy and honestly they taste like garbage (except cauliflower Kraft Dinner, that **** is delicious).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

For the poor it often comes down to education.

---

I'm not sure it takes much education to realize that unhealthy food and sitting around all day = you get fat. Being poor doesn't mean you're retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Isn't that what I said at the start?

---

And I didn't argue it, so I'm not sure why you're trying to. I've said almost exactly this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The advanced cultures already have more than enough resources to feed themselves and most of the rest of the world... and future developments could likely continue to meet the needs of a growing population... but here's the problem. Why should they do so?

---

...several times on this forum. The population isn't too high for what industrialized nations COULD provide, it's too high for what we DO provide, so overpopulation is still a problem, and also the standard of living for kids in the Canadian foster care system is crap. So, adoption = good choice.