Ok, ok, leave out your own personal emotional gunk. Try to be objective. Sure, kids can be cute, etc. But given that the average American's ecological footprint is almost 10 times that of the average African's. isn't having kids here really, really bad for the planet and thus all the other living people currently in it?
2007-03-20 08:51:15 · 18 answers · asked by cheryl m 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
keep in mind, if you are worried about losing population, (as if that is a bad thing) given that there are about 5 billion other people living in poor, overcrowded nations, I'm sure we'd have no problems at all filling in any population 'gaps' here....
2007-03-20 09:32:01 · update #1
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,1691359,00.html
2007-03-20 09:33:12 · update #2
Westerners, like anyone on this planet, should have children. Stop having kids and societies and cultures die. Children are our hope, not our curse!
What should be done is western countries must diminish their negative impact on the planet by using less. I have always been appalled at the statistic (that is proven to be accurate over and over) that shows North Americans - U.S. and Canada mainly - make up approximately 2.5% of the world's population but uses 20% of the world's resources consumed on any given day.
What would I do here in the West if I could make radical changes? I would put limits on the size of homes being built. It is obscene what people build today. I would set clear targets representing deep cuts that reduce emissions. Oil dependence would be phased out within a decade. I would legislate that 10% of our GNP be used to fund environmentally sound and community based projects around the world, so their negative impact on the planet would be lessened.
I would target illiteracy and disease in all countries, Western or other, as being the true scourages of humanity. Every child would learn to read, write and do basic math in their own language. And most important! I would assemble a group of about a dozen women from around the world, provide daycare for their meetings, and give them the power to change what needed to be changed. Two moms and their kids would come from each continent.
George Bush, Tony Blair and Osama bin Laden would be left in charge of the daycare. Their job would be to change diapers and read stories to the kids. They would be under the supervision and direction of a fifteen year old girl from South Africa. She could reprimand them as she wishes. If they really pissed her off they would be dropped off, naked, with a bag over their head in downtown Baghdad after an explosion in a market place, or in a refugee camp in Darfur, or Ward 9 in New Orleans. It would be George's, Tony's or Osama's choice. This might be the only time when they would stick together . . . after all, there is safety in numbers, right?
2007-03-20 09:16:36 · answer #1 · answered by kennyj 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why don't you ask the chinese, there are over 1 billion of them. Then ask the people of India, the second most populous country on the planet.
If anybody shouldn't have kids it's people that live in 3rd and 4th world countries, that live well below the poverty line. Sort of like all those kids you see living in dung heaps on t.v. you can sponsor for less than a day. These are people that have no right to give birth.
Most American's can afford to provide for thier kids, so what's the problem. BTW what are your sources anyway?
2007-03-20 09:23:13 · answer #2 · answered by evil_paul 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So, why can't those other nations exercise some self-control? India and China are gaining in ecological impact with the US, annually, so why not them? They are the most populous nations, anyway.
My point of view is that to be quite equitable, we need to look at everybody. You can't just penalize one in all of this. To do so is dangerous in the extreme. Also in terms of genetic heritage, I'm not about to willfully terminate my line so someone else can have a legacy that benefits from my work. Sorry. It doesn't work like that.
2007-03-20 09:38:35 · answer #3 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I find that horribly ridiculous. Anthropologically speaking, man must have kids, and those kids must have kids for him to be a success. That mean no grandbabies, no success.
As for your ethics, well they are just that, YOUR ethics. Something that is seen to be ethical by one person maybe completely unethical by another, its kind of like morals. Now as far as this ecological footprint, I'd love to know what the hell that means and where your data comes from. And hell no having kids isn't bad for the planet. Having kids and not caring about them is bad for the planet. Having kids who are 400lbs because you take them to McDonalds all the time is bad for the planet. And as far as the rest of the people living on this planet, well they have absolutely no right to tell me to have kids or not to have kids so just shove that whole bunch of BS right up the poop-shoot because I'll have as many damn kids as I want. Thanks and have a nice day.
2007-03-20 09:00:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Is this a serious question? lol. If you truly believe what you wrote, you're really naive. What you're proposing is that no Americans procreate and thus have America just die off. Are you from North Korea by chance? lol. Seriously though, if you want to help the world's population and ecosystem you should be focusing on reducing procreation in the starving and diseased nations in Africa, and the overpopulated China, not in the U.S.
2007-03-20 09:07:28 · answer #5 · answered by ClayMeow 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's HILARIOUS! Keeping abortion safe & legal is a good start. I would like to see a law that does not allow more than 2 children per Family, but since most of America seems to be a single parent family, then I guess we'd need to limit the 2 children to the females who give birth. Then all of the males would complain & sooner or later the adoptions would be greater than the live births, so E-GADS what should we do ??? Hopefully, a virus will be introduced that will render us unable to reproduce & we can die a happy peaceful death without the worries of the world!
2007-03-20 09:46:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I have a very beautiful and smart friend named Kate, and she says license to breed.
Not only do Americans trash the environment.... They also blame everyone else for doing so. There should only be a select amount of people able to breed. Either that or breed in a Brave New World type fashion.
No it's not ethical in many senses. Especially when I'd like to say at least a good 50% of children are an accident, and then at least 40% of the people who want kids are far from prepared to have them.
Oh, and this is not just a Western world problem.
2007-03-20 08:59:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Another dumb American that cannot see that poverty in Africa is the cause of the difference!
How many life saving drugs were invented outside of the West? How many life saving medical procedures? Where are all the aid agencies based?
Oh yes stop having kids in the west and within a few decades you could wipe out the rest of the world with ignorance!
2007-03-20 08:56:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You have to look beyond only one facet.
Please realize that the US citizen is also a very productive user of energy - measured in output per unit of energy - while little Aboo-tic-tic Djithadjawa in Africa produces nothing for the rest of the world.
But maybe you eco-freaks should not have children. You should also stop using any non-renewable energy, stop using any material produced or transported using non-renewable energy, stop eating food that was seeded, harvested or transported using non-renewable energy, etc. Then you wouldn't be a hypocrite.
2007-03-20 09:06:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You'd need to factor in the NET effect. People aren't merely consumers.
Maybe a child born here will come up with a solution to the problems!
I don't want to cast it in racial/cultural terms. I believe every civilization has a right to perpetuate its existence.
And Western civilization has made huge contributions.
2007-03-20 08:53:42 · answer #10 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋