Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

What's So Terrible About Kids?

<< < (23/25) > >>

Cambyses:

--- Quote ---But then we would lose our humanity. Is the future of the planet more important than humanity?
--- End quote ---

I'm not really sure what you mean here. How would this necessarily make us lose our "humanity?" It wouldn't stop us from having empathy, or any of the other positive human traits. And as for a dichotomy between "humanity" and the earth, I think it's not an either/or situation. We can't survive without the planet, it's the only place we have to live, the resources it has are all we have to live on for the rest of our life as a species. When it goes, we go with it. Bringing our numbers down in the most humane way possible is in our interest as a species. We have too many humans living on this planet as it is for it to be able to support us indefinitely. Even if our population quits growing and stabilizes, at our current numbers and rate of consumption it's still only a matter of time before we use up all of our resources and our civilization crashes and burns.

If we want our descendents 100 years from now to be anything other than ragged, malnourished post-apocalyptic hobos waiting to die on a ruined planet, we need to take a multi-leveled approach, and having fewer children or choosing to adopt in stead would have to be part of it, along with developing green technologies, somehow reforming the economy and our personal habits so that we don't waste such sickening quantities of food, water and other resources, and perhaps not driving everywhere in colossal military-inspired steel fortresses that pound down oceans of gas like they're trying to impress their friends.

ackblom12:
If we survive past this century, Earth won't be the only place we'll be living.

Doesn't change the fact that the rest of your post is perfectly accurate.

pwhodges:

--- Quote from: ackblom12 on 09 Jan 2013, 16:36 ---If we survive past this century, Earth won't be the only place we'll be living.
--- End quote ---

There's nothing like optimism!

Realistically, some predictions are far short of what we achieve, but others turn out to be pie in the sky.

de_la_Nae:
I like the Mongo solution much better.

Welu:

--- Quote from: idontunderstand on 09 Jan 2013, 02:46 ---I know what you're saying, I just feel it's a narrow perspective. "Very little justification", what, I need a justification to have children, but you don't need one to not have one? If we're not free to do what we want with our bodies, our society is not worth saving and we can just give it all up right now.

--- End quote ---

A little bit late and someone already said about justifying not doing something but I feel a big point here is in a way, yes it's your body and do what you like with it. Although having a child makes this whole other person that's effected by your choice and had no say in their creation. Then you can get into creating a person means creating something that will continue to cause effects on a small and possibly large scale for their entire existence. Not even in terms of carbon footprint, just them meeting people or taking up a seat in a school. So it definitely would need more justification than, "Just because." Compared to not having a child, "Just because." is less consequential since there's nothing, except yourself and possibly some family/friends/partner's emotions being effected.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page