TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Would you ever have children?
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And it is. That's why divorce rates are higher, there's more fat people around, and so on... makes perfect sense to me: it's easy to do the right thing, and it's also simple to do the stuff we don't really find laudable.

Yea good point.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Have we become so politically correct and study focused that we've actually headed backwards?

No? The problem doesn't lie with actually, you know, conducting scientific studies. Most people aren't sitting around reading the results from studies, they're learning about them from a media source which messes everything up. Studies cannot be applied outside of their designated population (i.e., a study done on male adolescents with ADD cannot be applied to all adolescents). Media outlets do not seem to realise and/or care about this and then they sensationalize to gather interest. Those conducting the studies understand that they may be contradicted at a later date.

I think it is extremely important that people make informed decisions about raising children and going about their daily lives. Instinct and recommendations come from a good place, but they're not consistently reliable.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I half regret saying that each time I see it. I'm not sure if I believe it anymore after reading it so many times. It's kind of a paradox in the first place - perhaps the world really is getting worse because it's becoming more televised.

I think if you'd said "society" then the phrase would have been more paradoxical, but as "the world" it becomes an almost epistemological statement. I'm increasingly concerned with the cognitive biases of nostalgia that have led to our generation having this wistful yearning for an idealised fictional past just out of memory.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Regardless of whether it's 100 or 200, I don't recall our forebearers of the 1800s as being in possession of nuclear arsenals with the capacity to fly over to their target of invasion in a number of hours, nor do I recall them having the technology to do near-irreparable damage to the environments of the countries whose resources they chose to exploit. With that in mind, along with skyrocketing population rates (world population was under a billion for 1800 years, yet somehow we've done that seven times over in the past 200) and documented environmental changes (desertification, toxic watersystems, et al), I'd venture it's safe to say that the playing field has changed considerably over the past couple of hundred years.

You realise mankind has been wiping out species since we invented the spear, that large parts of America were deforested by native Americans and are now deserts (in fact, the EB has it that up to 9/10ths of all deforestation happened before 1950), that genocide, invasion and endless war is almost as old as humanity, and that those nuclear arsenals are probably the only thing that have forced our species to sober up and pick our fights more carefully?

The playing field has changed, but it's an utterly ludicrous view of the past to say it was better to be a child in the pre-industrial era, especially if you were unlucky enough to be born with health problems.

The main reason the "nature / nurture" debate is still going on is that it disappoints parents (or those who want to become parents) to think that, short of abuse or some other extreme situation, their kids would probably turn out much the same even if they were raised by someone else. People want to think that they are the shapers of their kids' souls, when in fact they are mostly just the providers of raw material that is then tempered a little by peer environment.

If not for that sentimental factor, things would be nicely wrapped up in favor of genetics.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You realise mankind has been wiping out species since we invented the spear

But we've never done so in an attempt to sustain the needs of nearly 7 billion people.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J large parts of America were deforested by native Americans and are now deserts (in fact, the EB has it that up to 9/10ths of all deforestation happened before 1950)

You forgot to mention this part of the article:

quote:

All that has changed since the mid-twentieth century is that an ancient process has accelerated, and that, compared to previous ages, environments more sensitive and irreversibly damaged have been affected.

Native Americans might have contributed to some NA deforestation, but the map tells me that it's accelerated considerably in the past 150 years.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The playing field has changed, but it's an utterly ludicrous view of the past to say it was better to be a child in the pre-industrial era, especially if you were unlucky enough to be born with health problems

Skewed Western vantage aside, how about whether it's better to be a human in the era in which we currently reside?

If you really want the old ways, stop posting mere rants on the Internet, move somewhere that has a lot less technology, and make friends with the local communities.

what the hell is wrong with you, of course yes.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles If you really want the old ways, stop posting mere rants on the Internet, move somewhere that has a lot less technology, and make friends with the local communities.

Who said anything about pining for the old ways? How about an increased focus on sustainability, taking the place of our current, locust-like habits?

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Who said anything about pining for the old ways? How about an increased focus on sustainability, taking the place of our current, locust-like habits?

Isn't it something people have been trying to achieve anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree what the hell is wrong with you, of course yes.

"Skewed Western vantage aside"

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Isn't it something people have been trying to achieve anyway?

I don't know, let's take a survery...

Have you been trying?

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Who said anything about pining for the old ways? How about an increased focus on sustainability, taking the place of our current, locust-like habits?

Guess I misinterpreted you, what with all your wailing about modernity.

"Locust-like habits" have been the rule, not the exception. Species were often hunted to death before they vanished due to habitat destruction. It is mostly because of technology that we are finally able to recognize the full extent of what our practices have done to the environment, and to start putting a stop to it. New ways are more efficient anyway: they have to be, in order to feed our bigger population.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno I don't know, let's take a survery... Have you been trying?

Why, yes!

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno But we've never done so in an attempt to sustain the needs of nearly 7 billion people.

No, we did it to sustain a few million people instead, which presumably makes it much better.

quote:

Native Americans might have contributed to some NA deforestation, but the map tells me that it's accelerated considerably in the past 150 years.

Again, this is merely a matter of scale. It's not as though human nature has changed very much in a couple of centuries. Which leads me onto:

quote:

Skewed Western vantage aside, how about whether it's better to be a human in the era in which we currently reside?

You see, unless you'd said this, I'd have understood your argument as a straightforward "A natural disaster/dystopian future/collapse of civilisation is going to happen soon" doomsday prediction, but I knew you were gunning for some faux-spiritual angle on the whole thing: that somehow for all the prejudice, oppression, ignorance, superstition and old fashioned backbreaking labour and horrible diseases, somehow pre-industrial people were just happier and more spiritually satisfied with their humble existences. The whole point is that humans have always been destructive, consumptive, unsustainable, selfish, nasty and flawed beings who waged wars and destroyed the environment.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You see, unless you'd said this, I'd have understood your argument as a straightforward "A natural disaster/dystopian future/collapse of civilisation is going to happen soon" doomsday prediction, but I knew you were gunning for some faux-spiritual angle on the whole thing: that somehow for all the prejudice, oppression, ignorance, superstition and old fashioned backbreaking labour and horrible diseases, somehow pre-industrial people were just happier and more spiritually satisfied with their humble existences.

Again, I'm not pining for the old days, I'm more concerned with what we do from this point on.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The whole point is that humans have always been destructive, consumptive, unsustainable, selfish, nasty and flawed beings who waged wars and destroyed the environment.

Moreso than ever, given our ever-increasing population. Makes the conscious choice to bear young sound really enticing, and is about as valid an argument, as "that couple has 7 kids, so what difference does it make if I have one or two?"

It's interesting that you always hear(ok, I always hear) a lot of self-proclaimed intelligent people saying they don't want to have kids, citing reasons like focusing on career and the pursuit of independence, thinking that they've evolved beyond the "need" to procreate. But if you think about it, that's a pretty bad move - because if all of these intelligent people don't have kids, the only people left populating the Earth are the stupid/ignorant.

I'd spread my seed as far as the eye could see were it not for things like legality and responsibility, etc. I fucking jerked off in that glass of water you're drinking right now. I noticed you didn't flinch.

I'm glad you noticed.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie It's interesting that you always hear(ok, I always hear) a lot of self-proclaimed intelligent people saying they don't want to have kids, citing reasons like focusing on career and the pursuit of independence, thinking that they've evolved beyond the "need" to procreate. But if you think about it, that's a pretty bad move - because if all of these intelligent people don't have kids, the only people left populating the Earth are the stupid/ignorant.

It's all right, they won't be around to see the rise of the idiotcracy! Either they'll die of old age or the stupidity of others will take care of that

Goooood. Gooooooooooooood.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie It's interesting that you always hear(ok, I always hear) a lot of self-proclaimed intelligent people saying they don't want to have kids, citing reasons like focusing on career and the pursuit of independence, thinking that they've evolved beyond the "need" to procreate. But if you think about it, that's a pretty bad move - because if all of these intelligent people don't have kids, the only people left populating the Earth are the stupid/ignorant.

Well the stupid people are too stupid to stop procreating like horny rabbits... so that leaves the burden on the intelligent people to do something about the serious over-population issues we're going to face. It's unfortunate, and I am sure Darwin is spinning in his grave (assuming he too would like the smarter to thrive), but... such is life. The stupid people win.

Yes i want kids, love them. No more than 2 though.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno "Skewed Western vantage aside"

try "Global" cockfag.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The main reason the "nature / nurture" debate is still going on is that it disappoints parents (or those who want to become parents) to think that, short of abuse or some other extreme situation, their kids would probably turn out much the same even if they were raised by someone else. People want to think that they are the shapers of their kids' souls, when in fact they are mostly just the providers of raw material that is then tempered a little by peer environment. If not for that sentimental factor, things would be nicely wrapped up in favor of genetics.

That's wrong on so many levels. It is NOT in favor of one side or the other. Have you read studies like the Minnesota Twin Studies? Yes, genetics are very, very important, but so is the environment and the parents. The environment shapes what the genetics have predisposed. Parents do have a very important role - just not as important as most parents would like to believe. Both nature and nurture are important and it's impossible to say that one is supremely more important than the other.

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree try "Global" cockfag.

Yes, now you can live in abject poverty until age 60 in a lot of countries, and with lower infant mortality rates, already overpopulated nations with diminishing resources are free to continue to blossom unabated - viva globalisation!

And it's Mr. Cockfag to you, cvntknuckle.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.