Live Earth vs. Dead Earth

[nolawitch58]

The music has been going on for hours now. I haven't caught all of it, but others have been paying closer attention than I have. So far nobody has mentioned overpopulation.

Yeah, you can recycle. You can personally cut back on consumption. You can buy locally manufactured goods. You can drive a fuel efficient hybrid (the Prius has been shown to be able to hit speeds up to 100 mph). You can do a number of things, but once you've had offspring, all that is nullified by the exponential consumption of your progeny and its progeny.

Oops. Nobody likes to hear that. Your kids are the problem. The more kids you have, the more you are personally responsible for killing the planet. Worse than that, if you bug the shit out of your kids to give you grandkids, you're increasing your share of the burden of guilt. Unless you are actively dissuading your kids from ever spawning themselves, the coming dystopia is your fault.

To all my friends who are childfree: a HUGE shout out thanking you for not adding to Mother Nature's misery.

Comments

Given that philosophy....

[cowchris.livejournal.com]

Suicide people are Earth-Friendly?

Re: Given that philosophy....

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

I really don't know how you make that leap of logic. No, actually a childfree person can have a hell of a decent lifestyle and still make less of an impact on the planet than the average family with their brood of brats. Can you guess why?

Say the childfree person is a program. It runs, uses system resources, completes its computations and then halts releasing system resources for other programs. The breeders are programs too. They run, using system resources, and call other programs to run, using more system resources. Some of the other called programs also call other programs. Without a system crash, which is what the planet is starting to do, those programs will go on ad infinitum until the system is choked and halts taking down all other processes with it.

The only suicides who really help the planet are those frothing fundie whack jobs who kill their families first and then themselves.

Re: Given that philosophy....

[cowchris.livejournal.com]

Ok, we are programs. Wouldn't a program that terminates early and releases system resources be 'more efficient' than one that runs its full course?

Personally, I enjoy children. I can't wait the 8 weeks until I have one in my arms. That's all I want though, just the one to continue my line on. I'm not a fan of the people having 8+ kids just to have them. Or, even worse is the woman having more kids to increase her welfare payment. No, I'm rational. I only wanted the one. Does that make me such a terrible person? Am I out to destroy the Earth because I wanted a child?

Re: Given that philosophy....

[kelli217.livejournal.com]

Stories of women who have more children in order to increase their welfare payments are by and large apocryphal, and at best anecdotal (i.e., not representative).

One of Susan's biggest qualms about others who undertake procreation is that they do it blindly, without any other thoughts than "wanna BABY!" Thoughts of how they're going to provide for it, how they're going to take care of it, how they're going to raise it -- nothing; they just want basically a flesh doll. If you are not going into it blindly, if you understand that parenting is a full-time job and not something you can palm off on someone else when it gets inconvenient or even downright unpleasant, and you're not on some simplified biological quest to spread your genes (despite your mention that you wanted to "continue ]your] line on"), then I think she'll be okay with it.

Re: Given that philosophy....

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but if it was just the amorphous concept of children that you loved, you'd be quite happy parenting your stepchild or adopting one that's already here. You're not rational because you're working on the premise that you can only love your own line. That's a huge burden to place on a child, even moreso knowing the medical history surrounding it. You have unfortunately bought into the rubbish society dishes out that blood is thicker than water. I find that really sad.

There are people I'm not related to who are more important to me than blood relations. There is a treasure in the person with an utter lack of obligation who remains devoted. More often than not, kids are merely obligated by their circumstances to be devoted to their parents. How else do you explain the ones who still love mommy or daddy even after the wretches abuse and neglect them? Children are hostages to the whims and vanities of the parents. The stupidest thing I hear refrained from generation to generation is, "I hate my mother/father. I'm going to have a baby so that I'll have someone to love me for me." Such meager minds rarely detect any irony in that sentiment.

Just accept your complicity in the planet's destruction. Yes, you're part of the problem. I'll respect it if you'll just admit your selfishness and be stoic when you're shoved into a scoop before they whisk you off to turn you into Soylent Green.

Re: Given that philosophy....

[cowchris.livejournal.com]

I won't admit my selfishness. We planned, thought it through, and waited before even trying to have a child. Furthermore, I do love my step-daughter and would die for her if needed. I won't fault you for having your opinions or beliefs. That's not my place. The only place I have a problem with your philosophy is that it directly insults me. I am willing to agree to disagree, but only because I respect your point of view and hope you do mine as well.

Re: Given that philosophy....

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Planning doesn't necessarily beget good things. Look at how long the PNAC planned for the Iraq War and what a fucked up venture that's been. Go ahead and be insulted if that relieves you of guilt over your selfish desires. Forget I ever said anything even when the draconian measures that will be needed to abate overpopulation are being instituted into law. The USA will be no better than China and there will be forced abortions, sterilizations, infanticide, assisted suicides for the elderly and chronically ill. If I'm alive to see it, I'll laugh bitterly knowing that I tried to warn people and, like Cassandra, was scorned.

On the bright side, you could be lucky and your kid will be gay.

[ms-issicran.livejournal.com]

I had watched a show on PBS which interviewed a number of experts on Philosophy, Climatology, Biology - those type folks and I recall one saying that, unfortunately, intelligent people understand your message and have either stopped or drastically reduced the number of children they're having. It's the sheeple continuing to have large families. In other words it'll be the Marching Morons theory come true.

[ms-issicran.livejournal.com]

No no, it's just that they won't manage to kill themselves. We'll have to do that for them. It will be called self-defense.

[gyrbyl.livejournal.com]

Nope. Theory was that traits more likely to lead to survival and reproduction will be favored through natural selection and therefore increase in frequency in future generations. If stupid people are more likely to reproduce, then stupidity becomes a beneficial trait from an evolutionary perspective.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but that's too simplistic. As a society, we've made it easier for stupid people to live to adulthood and reproduce perpetuating their stupidity through the generations. We've forced people to buckle up in cars and strap their larvae in as well. Society has padded the playground equipment and taken the choking danger out of toys.

To even the odds, we should all throw some plastic bags into cribs and get both the seat-belt and speed limit laws repealed.

[gyrbyl.livejournal.com]

Agreed -- always more than one factor in play in the real world. Stupidity is like sickle cell anemia -- natural selection can work both for and against it.

And you're right -- we've removed too many of the "against"s.

[gyrbyl.livejournal.com]

Agreed -- always more than one factor in play in the real world. Stupidity is like sickle cell anemia -- natural selection can work both for and against it.

And you're right -- we've removed too many of the "against"s for stupidity.

[ozanbaba.livejournal.com]

i saw north of Europe, the don't have kid, unless they got to 40s and tney have only one child. so far their population don not change much.

and The Witch, adope a child :)

[icewyche.livejournal.com]

So far nobody has mentioned overpopulation.

Of course not! Because Jeebus wants you to have lots of BAYYBEEZ, doncha know. BAYYBEEZ are a Pweshus Gift From God! How dare you refuse that gift! Humanity would die out! Besides, your 14th child might cure cancer or broker world peace or eliminate static cling or something. [/sarcasm]

I just don't get why people will happily mulch their grass clippings and use water-saving showerheads and buy organic and recycle their newspapers and whatnot, but cavil when it comes to not spawning. Recycling doesn't give one a license to consume more.

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

A couple of months back, we had a discussion about that in the child-free web forum I participate in. It's an Israeli site.

Most of the members of the forum are child-free or still considering it. But there are a few members who are mothers, who usually participate because the subject is interesting and challenging to them.

When this issue was brought up, it caused real outrage among the mothers. The reactions were near-hysterical. One of them claimed that she'll teach her children to also be careful about the environment as she is, recycle, use less electricity. Yeah, right, as if you can expect your children to adopt your belief systems. Anyway, I explained the math to her. She refused to accept it.

After that, I didn't dare to bring the subject up in front of my friend who recently became a mother. She is really environmentally fanatic, runs her husband through hoops to recycle paper (it's not easy to recycle in Israel), tries to keep down on electronic equipment and stuff. But she is so obsessed with motherhood, that if I tell her that having two children is worse than owning two SUVs and running a wash cycle for every shirt, she'll probably never talk to me again.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

What a shame about your friend. That just reinforces what my friend Pete says about motherhood: "Their brains must come out with the placenta." Of course, he was speaking of his ex-wife and how she was a smart person until she had their kid. I gave him the business for getting her pregnant; he's not without blame.

What kind of delusional idiot refuses to accept math or science? And they wonder why we have so little respect for their intelligence.

[nightwind292.livejournal.com]

I belive in the volentary human extinction project

I had thoughts once of three children with my first fiance, but these days it's a reasonable 'one, maybe' even if I don't have a relationship to have it in.

If I do settle down, one child to replace two humans strikes me as reasonable.

Though if the smart have one or zero and the rest have hoards, i shudder in fear.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

If you must have a child, adopt one. Why add to the population problem? Be part of the solution instead of the problem. And truly, don't become the stereotypical crap-assed single parent. Why the hell would you choose that? That's like saying, "I want to have a miserable life and bring a child up in poverty or near poverty." Do you know any single parents? Do they recommend it as the best way to raise children? None of the ones I know do. They got stuck with the kids after divorce or miscalculated that they sperm donor would marry them. What is reasonable about that?

[nightwind292.livejournal.com]

erm, not quite

I mean that my prefrance (out of a relationship) is for a single child. In a relationship it would be negotiated with her between zero and one. I know it's selfish to want my own genetics to propagate dirrectly instead of mearly my teachings via adoption, but it's not as bad as two children, or a growtrh inducing three

No need to thank me...

[saminz.livejournal.com]

I am childless out of purely egoistical reasons ;-P.

But of course, the problem remains.
Education for women and social security - in countries where kids are the only means to something remotely like it - would help, of course. But let's not get our hopes up, here...
In way too many corners of the world - and some fiercely religious corners right next door! - the only way for a woman to prove her "worth" is still child-bearing and little else.

Re: No need to thank me...

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Yes, there is. I don't care what your motives are, the end result is that because of your choice, there are several fewer people running around the planet. Thank you for that.

Part of the religious crap is that some women are too timid to do what they want or what's best for them despite the society around them. It's not easy to go against the flow. I did it and though it was miserable in the short term while I was among the yahoos, it was preferable in the long term in that I can live more happily with my decisions.

Re: No need to thank me...

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

It has been proven time and again that educated women have fewer kids because education empowers them. Patriarchical cultures resist this, because they cannot fathom that women could be assets. And so they keep their women tied up pumping out swarms of kids, and wonder why they are going nowhere economically or culturally.

Re: No need to thank me...

[saminz.livejournal.com]

In principle, yes....
I do find it a bit hard to call them "too timid", though. Imagine a young indian or turkish girl, hardly able to read, let alone english, who when leaving her family isn't only alone in the world but also possibly followed by a murderous pack of brothers and uncles...?

And: In many parts of the world today, it is hard for a woman alone - even one of our knowledge and assurance - to lead an autonomous life. I, for one, would certainly be "too timid" to try this in, say, Egypt, I confess ;-).

Re: No need to thank me...

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

I'll grant that in India or Egypt or other Third World countries, the timidity charge doesn't apply. In this country and in Europe where women have opportunities and education, the ones who don't take their lives as more than gestational vessels are timid twats who don't deserve my respect at all.

Re: No need to thank me...

[saminz.livejournal.com]

Okay. That, I'll subscribe ;-).

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

I'll admit that my 'militant' phase of being childfree passed about 7 or 8 years ago, but I do appreciate your sentiment and the spirit in which it was given.

I gave long thought to both marriage and children, and rejected both- marriage because I could not picture myself as a 'helpmeet' (whatever the hell that is) and because I do not believe that children are assets in this overpopulated day and age.

I know what is happening to this world is going to get exponentially worse in the next century, and the kids born today are doomed to a living hell -even if we stop our nasty habits tomorrow. We are spawning a generation that will be less healthy, less wealthy, and much less wise (if the religious extremists have their way)- and they'll have to compete with far too many other people for everything from jobs to drinking water.

I chose not to have children because I did not want to leave them that legacy. I chose not to have children because I did not want to add to the mess being made of the planet. I chose not to have children, because I did not want to be exposed to the horrific religious, educational, medical and regulatory impositions that parents today have to deal with- where one wrong word, one wrong move in the wrong place or time could get my children snatched from me and my life exposed to soulless bureaucrats examining it in detail. That happened to another LJ friend of mine, and it was a nightmare for her. Her beliefs and lifestyle clashed with the 'conventional' method of parenting, and she nearly lost her kids because of it. And I chose not to have children because I did not want to pass to them my genetic legacy or mutations- I am not certain that my albinism is heritable, and there is no guarantee that my intelligence is, either. I preferred not to make that gamble.

My Path precludes having children- which is why there are so few females who follow it. I cannot have the free time for my projects, my writing, travel, or introspection if I were on Mommy Patrol. Some might say that I am missing a major chunk of life by not having kids, but I do not believe that. A lot of pressure to have kids by others is simply that misery loves company.

I know that I am doing the right thing when I take my trash out on Thursday evening. There's my container, often less than half full, sitting beside my neighbor's, who has two small children- who has two bins which often overflow.

I win. And so does the future. People say that 'children are our future'- but I always counter with 'the future is now'. They don't get it: We are all our future. A future with fewer people in it will not be a bad thing. And we can either start doing it ourselves by not having more kids, or watch our kids die in the next pandemic. Nature will do what we will not, and what she's done for millennia: pare back the excess. Nature seeks the balance. And she will not be merciful.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Word to the nth power.

[ex-whitepho.livejournal.com]

You mentioned a Path...I remember the most agonising argument I was ever given against being childfree was directly related to my vodou practice. It involved reverence for ancestors and continuing their service into the future. "Your people are an unbroken line up to you - how can you say you revere family when you're willingly choosing not to continue it? Not in any way, not adopting or anything? Who's going to give service to your ancestors when you're gone?"

Like you, I made the realisation that I couldn't "choose" what traits of mine a child would inherit (or have in common/emulate, in the case of adoption), and there was no guarantee my kid(s) would serve the spirits. Further, I realised with dawning horror that I was basically being told to have a child as a religious 'slave' of sorts. My family, past and present, would respect my decisions and, out of love, would understand if I didn't want children - so the only reason to have a child would be something along the lines of, "Well, honey, I didn't actually want you...but you see these altars? Here's the dustrag. You'd better start justifying your existence!"

I'll add to your argument that parenting is a huge job. I have respect for people who truly want to do it, and raise their children with love and kindness (environmental issues aside - I'm speaking strictly of care/upbringing issues). Parenting requires gigantic sacrifices of time, energy, a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, and it fundamentally changes the way you live your life. And I don't want it. I appreciate my silence, peace, the freedom to hop in a car or onto a plane and travel where I will, and I won't give that up for anyone.

The original post and this comment: very cogent and well-written, both of you. I'm always so proud to be childfree when I see such logical and thoughtful arguments presented, and I think, "Hoorah, it's not just me! Other people agree!!"

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

You know who will honor your ancestors? People like us who honor ours and the ancestors of others, not because we are selfish. I honor those worthy of being honored, not necessarily of my own bloodline. I honor Susan B. Anthony and Katharine Hepburn who had no children, but who did great things worthy of honor.

That whole fertility trip is one thing that Paganism could do without. It makes us no better than the mindless Christians who do as their leaders tell them without though. We should honor the fertility of the plants and animals well before our own, which has been shown to be detrimental to the ecosystem.

[ex-whitepho.livejournal.com]

As a mostly-irrelevant aside:

Most of the time, when there's something environmental going on, people gather for festivals or concerts, which usually involves eating non-organic food served in disposable containers and watching bands play that are hooked up to the latest sound equipment. In other words, enjoying all of the conveniences of our wasteful society while talking about how horrible waste is. :P

I always thought it would make a far greater impact if someone organised a concert on a single premise: All of the oil is gone, and we have nothing to replace it for energy use.

Any bands invited would have to be solely acoustic. Food would be more limited and scarce. There'd be no parking because hey, what's the point when you can't run cars on-site? Any presentation materials, signs, etc. would have to be made of recycled-type stuff and hand-lettered. Etc., etc., etc.

Maybe this is just because I'm mean, and I enjoy the thought of bugging people? :P

[entheos93.livejournal.com]

I personally think you can attribute everything that's wrong with the world to one simple thing- too many fucking people.
Really- everything. One example? The scary rate of violence that seems to be getting worse. A totally natural and expected primate reaction to being crowded in with too many other ompeting and consuming primates. We're monkeys. Don't crowd us in- we get dangerous.

[patrixa.livejournal.com]

I believe there are too many people with too many wants disguised as needs. Sadly, I disagree about the increase in population causing increasing violence. History tells us there has always been, in recorded history, much violence and cruelty. More people may seem to mean more violence, but percentage-wise, it has probably been unchanged.

The reason for the seeming difference betwen past and present amounts of violence is two-fold:
---1. horrifc weapons capable of widespread destruction
---2. widespread dissemination of horrific events

[entheos93.livejournal.com]

I'd tend to agree with you, but I think much of the violence of both past and present is over territory and resources, so with less of both to go around, I do think we'll see quite an escalation- I think we already are seeing that.

[patrixa.livejournal.com]

hmm, I have to think about this, i.e., if what we see is actually more (by percent of population) or seems more because the...well, I think that's nitpicky and sort of pointless, isn't it...

I'd only been thinking of country v. country. Sadly, though, the amount of homicide and suicide reports, the violent crimes we read of in papers, magazines and see on TV are becoming less shocking with each report...working their way into the commonplace.

Early man didn't have it easy, nor the citizenry of the Dark Ages. Their daily lives were infused with violence, too. Is this the human conditon? Was there ever a golden age of peaceful existence? Are humans just another species of animal life on earth, subject to the laws of nature?

I agree that overpopulation will hasten the human demise/downfall. I think natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- whatever one wishes to call it-- is always going on.
As with all forms of life, we cannot stop it; we are not gods.

I expect I will put these thoughts away as they are frighteningly foreboding.

The hypocrisy of Live Earth

[wisedonkey.livejournal.com]

What was the "carbon footprint" of that awful concert? How much power was consumed by those lights? How many gallons of gas powered the vehicles to get everyone to that concert? How many tons of trash were generated? Yeah, great way to tell us common folk we need to live like medieval peasants: by using up every last resource in the world to tell us that.

Want to reduce global warming and curb greenhouse gas emissions? How about turning off a few hundred 3000 watt spotlights? Ride a horse to the concert instead of an 8 gallons per mile limo. Take a regular commercial flight with 300 other common folk instead of a private jet. Get rid of the over-privileged hypocrites and we'd cut global greenhouse emissions by at least 50%.