Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    21st Century Ideas: Procreating: Good or bad for improving our chances of survival?

    In light of the superthreats, will having more children make us more or less likely to go extinct?

    Started by: Ocyris Raves:8 Badge Winner! Influency

    Subscribe » RSS

    If the human race is only "projected" to have 38 years till extinction, having children could either be the height of self-centeredness or visionary hopefulness. What do you think?

    Having children would probably increase our extinction date. It feels cold to say this, but until maybe their 12th year, children are very dependent while not contributing much back. It's sad, but It's sort of true. That said, I think it would be better to adopt. these children are suffering, and are already out in the world. it would be the best thing to help them. but that may be a bit off-topic

    Although it is true that children are dependent...they can be taught to be independent. I think that children could benefit the human species because we can teach them what needs to be done in order to eliminate the superthreats.

    procreation should be suspended until this global crisis has stabilized. we already have enough people to solve these problems and children would not help; they would make things worse. the suspension could be lifted in a world that could support them.

    I can't imagine what sort of person might let the threat of human extinction influence their decision to have a child. Maybe the robots have already won. "Would my child's life be miserable?" might be a reasonable question, but human extinction? Jesus, try to live a little.

    You can only "suspend procreation" once you've "suspended nationalism" Long before a population notices that it is lacking the physical vigour of young people, long before people face old age without a generation of younger people willing to look after them, communities and states, and nations will notice that nature abhors a vacuum and the spaces left empty by nonexistant children will be filled with people from away. If you can suspend nationalism, xenophobia, etc then that works just fine. But people generally are afraid and angered by such change in the face of their society.

    Each day over 220,000 NET additional humans compete for a slice of the shrinking (and increasingly toxic) natural pie. Is it any wonder that violent conflict, chronic illnesses, and irrational religious activities increase as well? Look at a chart of human population levels for 200 years; then look at the NASDAQ chart before the 2000 crash. The top award in this project should be for the emergence of a sterility virus which seeks out superstitious and irrational humans.

    Well, I figured this topic might evoke strong feelings. :) re: Nitenurse's critique, I think the concept of superstructing is to take the superthreats as seriously as possible given the limitations of simultaneously living in two decades. re: QuietDoe's comment, I think adoption is something that would be important to superstruct around, regardless of whether you are pro- or anti-procreation. We need to consider "agile adoption" structures that would place children orphaned by ReDS or other disasters into nurturing families. We might also consider "parent location" services for children who have been separated from their families in the mass migrations. (We'll also need to be ready for the heartbreaking task of giving children back to parents who seem ill-provisioned or -equipped to raise them.)

    With regards to adoption - Look to the way Africa handled the AIDS orphan crisis with international granny to granny support of grandmothers raising their grandchildren - AIDS orphans. You want people to stop having children? Make sure they feel they'll be looked after in their old age. A deadline for human extinction isn't going to wipe out that fear or drive.

    I am putting my money SQUARELY on not having children - and making sure *with any means available, even outright repression* that all children born receive the best possible education and parenting. Furthermore we should move to democratic and ethically acceptable means to change the human genome - as soon as possible. While everyone and his bleating donkey will scream "nitzsche" and "nazi" and "eugenics" I don't care. We need to turn out the best possible people we can, and reduce the flow of people that are unable to contribute.

    Education and access to safe and affordable health care is key, just as it was in the post World War 2 society in the West. People should be allowed to make the choice whether or not to procreate, and one of the roles of government is to equip them with tools that will help in this choice. Prohibiting any group(s) from reproduction frames the issue of overpopulation in a new light (that of eugenics) and takes us away from the superthreats of famine, displaced persons and pandemic.

    Ocrysis, i like that mobile adoption idea, specially the senior care part. It would also help blend nationalities, not just with children and adults of different nationalities coming together, but with the communities adopting these situations. I'm going to check if this is a superstruct, then maybe start one, if that's alright with you Ocyris

    I agree that not having children could lengthen our survival time. But here's the "Idiocracy" argument: The most enlightened and self-sacrificing among us will refrain from having children. The selfish - by definition high consumers of resources, destructively-behaving types in general - will not. Is that really going to increase our chances for survival? With a 23-year window to turn things around, we could have a world dominated by teenaged gangs - the children of the selfish - at the very time our fight for survival is at its height.

    adopting would definately be one of the best options. With the multitudes of parentless children in the world, creating more will just add to the problem.

    I live near a historically preserved Shaker village. The Shakers were a religious sect (ok, there were only several left in Maine in late 2008) who formed wonderful celebratory communes where having sex was not tolerated. They got members by having the disenfranchised join them (usually in winter when the going got tough). They got started in the mid 1880's and by 2008 there were just a two old ladies and a questionable thirtish young man left. Is procreation good? Bad? If you don''t do some of it, your population will dwindle. How about 1 man 1 woman, 1 child? Soon, by halves each generation - viola! Lower pop. Oh, I know, I know - how do you regulate it.




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL