After I saw this article on a different site it kind of struck me. Why do we need to continue reproducing so much? Especially in such large numbers as we are now (around 7 Billion...), it kind of makes things a lot harder to keep people safer and healthy and stuff. And that's just reproducing a lot. Why does humanity need to continue it's existence at all? I understand that it's embedded in our like basic instincts to survive and procreate. But why? It makes me think of the film Children of Men, which is about how no one can procreate anymore basically. But it makes everyone go crazy, and I'm pretty sure people would do that in real life if that happened. But I really don't understand why. I mean, I want to have kids, but I don't understand why we need to overpopulate the world and cause problems, and then have people like this guy that says homosexuality is a threat to the further existence of the human race. It just doesn't make any sense. Myah. But yeah. People are insane. EDIT: Also, forgive the bleakness.
I get why we need to procreate and all, I just don't understand the big dramatic "threat" that homosexuality presents to the continuation of the human race for these people. How many people are gay? Not nearly enough to make a dent in the population. How many kids are living in poor conditions in orphanages across the world? Gay adoption = total sense in an evolutionary context. It's clearly about something else, and they're trying to justify their position by making crap up. I can't help but think of the "scientific" studies that tried to prove blacks were "inferior" in the past to try to justify slavery in the U.S.
Nobody ever thinks that they and their family are part of the overpopulation problem. It comes down to simple biology. One of the fundamental elements of life is the ability and drive to reproduce. Heck, it's in me and I'm a gaywad. People who can reproduce and are driven to aren't going to ignore the 4 billion years of programming for a vague sense of the greater good. People who say homosexuality as a threat to humanity are either homophobic or are simply ignorant of the "mechanics" so to speak. They probably believe homosexuality is a learned trait, so the more it's accepted and the more exposure it gets, the greater the number of homosexuals there are. In that light, it would make sense why they see it as a threat. Also, third-world countries, particularly those that are heavily influenced by Allah's command to multiply, still see more people as an economic boost as opposed to a threat to the world's resources.
well, people forget the reason to why you have babies in the first place, everyone is too up their own arses in trying to give reason and proof to doing something rather than feeling. Having babies is a token of love between 2 parties Having kids is completely different and is a long term experience of love with that being said we live in an education system where we are taught that you have to be financially stable to begin a family, we have to have money, we have to marry into money etc. We also learn through science its a means of carrying traits etc blah blah blah for future generations, man + women makes baby and all that crap long story short its like we have to have scientific proof or a means in order to do something as lame as procreating, what happened to loving for love sake only? what makes us any better than the other animals on this planet, atleast they are getting it correct, there is no discrimination between same sex couples lol, heck they benefit this planet more than we do.
Social Pressure Need someone to take care of them when they are old/pass on their things to. Evolution For some countries... soldiers?
We procreate to continue the species, and our own genetic line. Having children is pretty central to most cultures. Of course, the continuation of the species is not going to be worse off (and, indeed, would probably be helped) by having, say, 1 billion people rather than 7 billion. But then, who's to say the continuation of the species is an overwheming priority?
At the far ends of the extremes in voluntary population control are VHEMT (the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement) and Quiverfull. I lean more towards the VHEMT side of things. I don't plan on having any kids, and if I do they'll be adopted, not born from a surrogate mother.
In terms of global sustainability, it would be better if each couple only had one surviving child for a couple of generations. Of course, it's the surviving part that lets us down. Even just a handful of generations ago you needed plenty of babies if you wanted some of them to survive. Some countries have moved on, others haven't, but we just keep having babies. I for one don't plan on adding to the problem... there are plenty of babies who need homes without making another one.
It's a natural instinct, which we've inherited from the first life-forms, and none of us would be here if that important instinct hadn't survived through all our ancestors going back through millennia. Humans though have developed reason and emotions so that we've learned to value life for much more than just reproduction. I'm an optimist on population growth, I think it will probably stabilize as developing countries become richer and that at the same time, food production and energy use will become more efficient.
Pensions... if there are less of the next generation than there are of the previous, then there aren't enough tax payers to provide pensions for the older generation. Of course, that could be worked around. In reality, we procreate because no one stops us. Because we're selfish. The planet will become incapable of sustaining us (already is, really, but the situation could become much worse). On the question of why we need to survive at all, thats a little more difficult. Certainly, the animal and plant populations of Earth would be better off if we ceased to reproduce and died off, but from the point of view of most humans, we have more of a right to survive than things without conscious thought. From a more objective POV, the strong dominate the weak, and we are essentially the strongest. I can, however, say why we feel the need to continue the species: dying feels a little less bad if something of ourselves lives on and remembers us. Basically, it would be better for all concerned if we were able to reduce our population to less than two billion. However, we surpassed that in about 1930, so it would be pretty hard to get back to that. I think we're supposed to hit 10 billion in about 2080.
Sorry but these fundamentalist Muslims can all go fuck themselves... The West should have let Libya self-destruct
[YOUTUBE]IM1-DQ2Wo_w[/YOUTUBE] I also feel like this is very again... very bleak, but pretty accurate at this point xD
well thats pretty accurate indeed, a cancer is a cell that does not co operate with the rest of the body, you see that pattern in society and humans as a collective on this planet
if humans do not procreate, then santorums will take over, forcing everyone to wear dorky sweatervests, speak purely in falsehoods and hyperbole, and never shut the fuck up.
Typical political strategy in third world countries. Scapegoat minorities to cover up their incompetence. It's a shame that all the Arab states aren't still the ottoman empire to reduce their effect in votes. That 23-19 vote was awfully close. ---------- Post added 16th Feb 2012 at 05:03 PM ---------- Yes, but there'll also be less children and teenagers which taxpayers also have to fund (education etc.).
I hardly think humanity needs to procreate more, we're so overpopulated as it is. But then again countries like Greece and Japan the birth rate is so low that old people are beginning to outnumber young people, and that can be hardly good for the economy. ---------- Post added 16th Feb 2012 at 01:39 AM ---------- I learned in bio classes that natural selection based on (differential) reproduction drives the organisms but sometimes I wonder if that necessarily applies to humans. I know some people- including myself- who have no wish to have kids.
