Should we exercise restraint in our breeding practices?
Should there be a limit on how many children we should each have?
Should we follow the policies of China with their one child per household limit? Two if you are from a single female bloodline...
Yes. Probably. Possibly.
I am well aware that many humans feel that the only reason we are here on earth is to procreate - to ensure that the human race survives.
I am also aware that most humans have a need to protect their genetic immortality - which is why the need to breed is so powerful.
Women who do NOT wish to breed often tell me that they are scorned when they express this view - as if they are wasting their time on this planet by not ensuring the survival of the species.
From where I stand, it appears that the best way for us to destroy this species is to keep on breeding at the rate we are.
I have often expressed my view that humans are the most efficient bacteria on this planet - and like any good bacteria we are destroying our host without regard for the consequences.
In fact, I would go so far as to argue that the best thing that could happen to this planet would be the destruction of human beings all together - if you were Mother Nature, you would agree, but as a human being you might think that this view is a little extreme... until you think about it. I did not say it would be the best thing for you, I said it would be the best thing for this planet.
Looking at this subject objectively, it is easy to see that the biggest problem the earth faces is over-population - it is also the biggest problem that humans face because the rapid growth of our species is not only destroying the environment, the water supply, the climate, the animals and the overall pattern of nature; it is destroying our ability to actually think about what we are doing and why we are doing it.
As much as we scorn China for imposing a one child per household rule, if we step back a little we can see that this idea is not so bad after all - it is just the consequences that have proven to be so devastating and disastrous.
With a population of over a billion, China has to do something to slow population growth - this is their duty.
The sad part of this rule is that most families want boys, not girls, in order that the 'family heritage' is preserved - and because of this, many baby girls are murdered or abandoned to provide the parents with the option to try again and hopefully 'procure' a baby boy.
As disgusting as this is, there is an explanation for this horrific behavior - the stupidity of society.
The stupidity of society can be further diminished into one word - marriage.
For, it is marriage that causes these families to murder and abandon their children - if it was not for the fact that marriage is what we base our heritage upon, if it was not for the fact that most women change their last name to their husband's last name thereby losing their identity and their ancestry, then these babies would not be so disposable.
It is marriage that creates the problem of needing a boy rather than wanting a girl.
If humans were not so hell-bent on their own importance, then the gender of a child would not matter.
Unfortunately, society teaches that a male heir continues the family tree and a female is only the transportation for that family name, heritage and importance - we have children being murdered to protect the ancestry of one family over another.
But if we actually took a moment to think about it, we would realize that a child is inherently more a part of its mother than of its father - the child is carried in the mother's belly, attached to an umbilical cord and dependent upon her for survival even after birth... The logic of a child taking it's father's name is illogical at best.
In the end, all of this boils down to ego, and stupidity.
It is not only stupid, it is sick.
If the children of the Chinese did not carry one name over another, then it would not matter whether the child was a boy or a girl.
If, for example, the child's name was an amalgamation of each parent's name, then the child would be a combination of each partner, not just a limb on the family tree of the male side of the family.
Nobody cares about your ancestry apart from your family - unless you are the member of a royal family, in which case some historians might care, along with some other people who refuse to live in the present and continue to look backwards for answers to current problems.
Do you care about my family history? I hope not. Because I do not care about yours (in the nicest way possible).
With this massive problem facing the human race which the human race is creating, perhaps we should have some limit on how many children each family is permitted - perhaps we should take action and deal with the reality of over-population rather than the fantasy, the history, and the fallacy of a family tree.
Whether we like it or not, each one of us, and every family unit is as messed up as the other - take your pick on which brand of lunacy you prefer...
Bearing in mind that every child born is an environmental disaster on its own, let's have a scenario where we put a limit on how many kids we can each have (especially if you claim to be an environmentalist).
Let's say the limit is 2.
In my experimental scenario, each family is allowed to breed twice - seems fair to me (of course it would, it's my scenario).
We do not really need more than 2 children in this day and age, it's not like the mortality rate is as high as it once was...
Now, stick with me here -
Let's say a couple has 2 children, both boys; and yet they want a girl (an understandable desire).
What's the solution when this couple has used up their 'quota'?
Solution - adopt.
If you already have 2 kids and you want more, then you have to adopt - you have to help a child in need without adding to the population problem.
Now this should not be a problem to any rational human - after all, parenthood is about raising a child, and raising a child is about nature and nurture. Every child on this planet is effected by its genetic make-up, but it is also severely effected by its upbringing, surroundings, opportunities and possibilities.
So, before you use the argument that you don't want to raise some kid whose parents you do not know - stop and ask yourself, "What's so great about me that I need to keep reproducing?" And then ask yourself, "If I am so great, then shouldn't I offer those benefits to a child in need, a child without parents, a child that is already here, before I create another environmental disaster?"
Think about that for a second, would you?
We have a massive environmental problem.
We have an enormous population problem.
We have millions of children without parents, homes, food and shelter.
Should we not deal with the problem at hand rather than reproduce, and thereby produce more problems we cannot handle?
Although I am not much of a fan of communism, and I do believe in freedom of choice, I am a proponent of insisting that the choices we make are made with an eye on the bigger picture - not just on the individual's point of view, wants, or stupidity.
Choices we make should always be made in consideration of others - if you are causing harm to others with your choices then you should reconsider your actions.
Should there be a limit on how many children we should each have?
Should we follow the policies of China with their one child per household limit? Two if you are from a single female bloodline...
Yes. Probably. Possibly.
I am well aware that many humans feel that the only reason we are here on earth is to procreate - to ensure that the human race survives.
I am also aware that most humans have a need to protect their genetic immortality - which is why the need to breed is so powerful.
Women who do NOT wish to breed often tell me that they are scorned when they express this view - as if they are wasting their time on this planet by not ensuring the survival of the species.
From where I stand, it appears that the best way for us to destroy this species is to keep on breeding at the rate we are.
I have often expressed my view that humans are the most efficient bacteria on this planet - and like any good bacteria we are destroying our host without regard for the consequences.
In fact, I would go so far as to argue that the best thing that could happen to this planet would be the destruction of human beings all together - if you were Mother Nature, you would agree, but as a human being you might think that this view is a little extreme... until you think about it. I did not say it would be the best thing for you, I said it would be the best thing for this planet.
Looking at this subject objectively, it is easy to see that the biggest problem the earth faces is over-population - it is also the biggest problem that humans face because the rapid growth of our species is not only destroying the environment, the water supply, the climate, the animals and the overall pattern of nature; it is destroying our ability to actually think about what we are doing and why we are doing it.
As much as we scorn China for imposing a one child per household rule, if we step back a little we can see that this idea is not so bad after all - it is just the consequences that have proven to be so devastating and disastrous.
With a population of over a billion, China has to do something to slow population growth - this is their duty.
The sad part of this rule is that most families want boys, not girls, in order that the 'family heritage' is preserved - and because of this, many baby girls are murdered or abandoned to provide the parents with the option to try again and hopefully 'procure' a baby boy.
As disgusting as this is, there is an explanation for this horrific behavior - the stupidity of society.
The stupidity of society can be further diminished into one word - marriage.
For, it is marriage that causes these families to murder and abandon their children - if it was not for the fact that marriage is what we base our heritage upon, if it was not for the fact that most women change their last name to their husband's last name thereby losing their identity and their ancestry, then these babies would not be so disposable.
It is marriage that creates the problem of needing a boy rather than wanting a girl.
If humans were not so hell-bent on their own importance, then the gender of a child would not matter.
Unfortunately, society teaches that a male heir continues the family tree and a female is only the transportation for that family name, heritage and importance - we have children being murdered to protect the ancestry of one family over another.
But if we actually took a moment to think about it, we would realize that a child is inherently more a part of its mother than of its father - the child is carried in the mother's belly, attached to an umbilical cord and dependent upon her for survival even after birth... The logic of a child taking it's father's name is illogical at best.
In the end, all of this boils down to ego, and stupidity.
It is not only stupid, it is sick.
If the children of the Chinese did not carry one name over another, then it would not matter whether the child was a boy or a girl.
If, for example, the child's name was an amalgamation of each parent's name, then the child would be a combination of each partner, not just a limb on the family tree of the male side of the family.
Nobody cares about your ancestry apart from your family - unless you are the member of a royal family, in which case some historians might care, along with some other people who refuse to live in the present and continue to look backwards for answers to current problems.
Do you care about my family history? I hope not. Because I do not care about yours (in the nicest way possible).
With this massive problem facing the human race which the human race is creating, perhaps we should have some limit on how many children each family is permitted - perhaps we should take action and deal with the reality of over-population rather than the fantasy, the history, and the fallacy of a family tree.
Whether we like it or not, each one of us, and every family unit is as messed up as the other - take your pick on which brand of lunacy you prefer...
Bearing in mind that every child born is an environmental disaster on its own, let's have a scenario where we put a limit on how many kids we can each have (especially if you claim to be an environmentalist).
Let's say the limit is 2.
In my experimental scenario, each family is allowed to breed twice - seems fair to me (of course it would, it's my scenario).
We do not really need more than 2 children in this day and age, it's not like the mortality rate is as high as it once was...
Now, stick with me here -
Let's say a couple has 2 children, both boys; and yet they want a girl (an understandable desire).
What's the solution when this couple has used up their 'quota'?
Solution - adopt.
If you already have 2 kids and you want more, then you have to adopt - you have to help a child in need without adding to the population problem.
Now this should not be a problem to any rational human - after all, parenthood is about raising a child, and raising a child is about nature and nurture. Every child on this planet is effected by its genetic make-up, but it is also severely effected by its upbringing, surroundings, opportunities and possibilities.
So, before you use the argument that you don't want to raise some kid whose parents you do not know - stop and ask yourself, "What's so great about me that I need to keep reproducing?" And then ask yourself, "If I am so great, then shouldn't I offer those benefits to a child in need, a child without parents, a child that is already here, before I create another environmental disaster?"
Think about that for a second, would you?
We have a massive environmental problem.
We have an enormous population problem.
We have millions of children without parents, homes, food and shelter.
Should we not deal with the problem at hand rather than reproduce, and thereby produce more problems we cannot handle?
Although I am not much of a fan of communism, and I do believe in freedom of choice, I am a proponent of insisting that the choices we make are made with an eye on the bigger picture - not just on the individual's point of view, wants, or stupidity.
Choices we make should always be made in consideration of others - if you are causing harm to others with your choices then you should reconsider your actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment