Can we move on and end this weary conversation? There's enough finger-pointing to go around re: the environmental state of our world. We can all be proud of some of our actions and efforts, even knowing every single one of us can do better. To be frank, the electricity we all use on our computers to weigh in on this argument is not helping the environment -- I hope no one believes there are any innocents in this comical argument.
Although I taught most of my life, I never had children. It was not a high-minded decision -- just happened. Yet I've never begrudged others their families. Indeed, some of the students I taught have the capacity -- I believe largely because of how they were raised -- to effect tremendous positive changes in the world -- and many already have -- for the betterment of the environment. I've seen adults' visions stretch well beyond their own generation once they have children. I am pleased that some people choose not to have children to try to decrease the number of "consumers". I believe it's a noble decision. But chastising others for different choices is not noble. Among other things, it's just plain wearisome. Is moral superiority really where it's at? Please, let's move on. Teresa Teresa M. Woods CORES Program Coordinator 25A Seaton Hall Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66506-2905 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 785-532-9834--cell Quoting joseph gathman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I simply cannot understand how anyone > > could think that childbearing and childrearing are > > selfish at any level. > > I should clarify what I meant by "selfish". I'm not > talking about a mother sacrificing for her child (it's > what she SHOULD do, and, after all, it is perpetuating > her own alleles). > > People who (choose to) have babies do so because they > want to, so they are serving their own self interest. > > Similarly, people who don't (choose to) have babies > are also serving their own self interest. > > So is there any difference? Maybe not much, but the > reproducers are creating more consumers simply because > they want the satisfaction of having children. This > could be considered a problem given our present > planetary predicament. Furthermore, "educated" people > who understand this are also a bit arrogant to think > that they should reproduce, while understanding that > overall reproduction needs to decline. > > Then there's the tendency of quite a few reproducers > to assume that everybody else should cut them slack > (e.g. in the workplace) or consider their > child-rearing a noble sacrifice. > > So, no, I don't accept that I am being preposterous. > > Joe > > > > > To be selfish is to be 1) concerned excessively or > > exclusively with = > > oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own > > advantage, pleasure, or = > > well-being without regard for others; and 2: arising > > from concern with = > > one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of > > others*. The mother of a = > > child sacrifices her personal comfort, risks her > > life, changes her = > > social involvement, yields her will to her child, > > incurs additional and = > > substantial healthcare costs, and this all before > > she gives birth! You = > > may say it is selfish at a society level (how dare > > we have children to = > > compete for resources with other's?), but > > perpetuation of society = > > requires perpetuation of the species. You may say > > it is selfish at the = > > biosphere level; we should cease reproducing > > altogether, for the good of = > > all other lifeforms? No, self-preservation is not > > selfishness. =20 > > > > Much more selfish than a mother is a woman who > > engages in sexual = > > activity for her pleasure alone (don't misread this > > please), desires her = > > comfort above anything else, maintains her social > > involvement for the = > > sake of her ego, leeches personal benefit from the > > societal structure = > > consequent from others having children, travels off > > to fur-flung exotica = > > because she has no children to cramp her style, etc. > > Not that we = > > shouldn't respect those who make those choices...the > > choices are just = > > more selfish. > > > > As long as we are pointing fingers preposterously, > > consider the elderly. = > > They have expendable income and have time to travel > > (expending fossil = > > fuel!). They are living longer than ever before > > (taking up precious = > > food and shelter resources). They are the primary > > beneficiaries of = > > Social Security. Yes, they contributed, but how > > selfish of them to not = > > donate it to the greater cause! They require more > > health intervention = > > and medication and increase the costs for the rest > > of us, and increase = > > the synthetic chemical load in our groundwater. And > > what benefit do = > > they give to the population? They are not necessary > > for any biological = > > population, other than fodder for the predators, > > allowing the young to = > > reach reproductive age. Geronticide is more > > sustainable than = > > spermicide. Like I said, preposterous! > > > > *Merriam-Webster > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > >
