Gays are born gay, I'm convinced of it.

[MrFun]

Fvck you -- who are you to judge for that person, whether they have lived a complete life or not, based purely on this exclusive determinant if they have reproduced or not???

Talk about NARROW-MINDED.

[Ben Kenobi]

Funny to find myself agreeing with Mr. Fun.

Reproducing or not reproducing has nothing to do with living a complete life. That being said,

Ramo:

1. Importing people is good! It's better for the economy than high birth rates. If a person doesn't have many kids, it's more likely that he has a substantial pension. Furthermore, the kids that he have would likely be more highly educated. The influx of immigrants doesn't at all detract from this phenomena, whereas a high birth rate does.

'K. Why does a high birth rate in a developed country reduce people from being educated? Surely in a developed country they will receive a good education regardless of the size of their family.

2. We have a moral duty to liberate people from these oppressive societies by allowing them into our countries.

No, we do not. They have a moral duty to leave if they feel their society is oppressive. We have no obligation to accept them.

3. High birth rates in third world countries are very, very bad things (since, as I pointed out earlier, resources would be divided up more in families). Clearly they have to learn from us.

Why can't they develop, and keep the high birth rates? Why are high birth rates such a bad thing?

[Ramo]

'K. Why does a high birth rate in a developed country reduce people from being educated? Surely in a developed country they will receive a good education regardless of the size of their family.

Certainly not in the US. One of the primary determinants of quality of life is family size (since from a fixed income, it gets divided more with more kids), and working class people with large families tend to be unable to give their kids proper education, health care, etc. It might be less important a factor in Canada and other Western states with more comprehensive social services, but the effect is still ultimately there.

No, we do not. They have a moral duty to leave if they feel their society is oppressive. We have no obligation to accept them.

Yes we do. When we, who proclaim we believe in freedom, prohibit them from entering our states, that is an unacceptably act of hypocrisy.

Why can't they develop, and keep the high birth rates? Why are high birth rates such a bad thing?

The high birth rates primarily arise from lack of freedom for women, in particular with regards to contraceptives and abortion, as well as professional opportunities. Development and with it education gives women liberty and therefore less kids to deal with.

Why are high birth rates such a bad thing?

Once again, finite resources of a parent would be more divided.

[Ramo]

no, of course they're not. Since they don't hamper a person from having a complete life.

Why does a complete life involve having kids?

They effectively don't. since we can all agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, they rarely will.

They can adopt kids, which I don't see as any less complete than biological kids.

CAN be, under very peculiar sircumstances.

Why must the circumstances be very peculiar?

[Az]

I am glad that Ramo has explained why having too much kids is wrong.

Just as having too much kids is wrong, so is not having those at all.

Why does a complete life involve having kids?

What DOES a complete life involve in your opinion?

consider this: today, we're living in a world that is almost unnaturally unbalanced. These days, modern society can survive by 'importing' people. But what if all of the world modernizes? what then?

They can adopt kids, which I don't see as any less complete than biological kids.

One isn't a hindrance to the other, and I think that this is a great solution for childless couples ( as well as a huge responsibility of the biological parents ). But I find it wierd that people wouldn't like to pass a small legacy of their biological selves as well as their intellectual selves.

Why must the circumstances be very peculiar?

In a society with a time-bomb demographic, for example. It is clear that any person that will be born will contribute to the impoverishing of the entire society, and usually will live a miserable life of poverty.

In countries like Russia, for example, OTOH, society is in a state of decay, esp in the ruralities, since people aren't reproducing, as well as the drain of immigration, taking society's finest away, and turning it into a snowball effect.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Funny to find myself agreeing with Mr. Fun.

It's Apolyton moments like these that cause me to reexamine myself, and ask, "Who the fvck am I?"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

There are heterosexuals and homosexuals that live complete, healthy, stable lives without reproducing -- does this mean that these heterosexuals and homosexuals are defective??

I guess we differ on the definition of complete. a person who hasn't reproduced, certainly didn't live a complete life.

Ah, yes, a life with children is so complete. What after all, can people such as Isaac Newton (a few theories, no children) put on their balance sheet to compensate for their abject failure in the progeny popping stakes?

People like Prince Eugene of Savoy, for instance, can only save Vienna from the Turks and defeat the armies of Louis XIV. Didn’t sire any children though.

Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci? Well, a bit of painting and decorating and inventing scissors hardly makes up for not begetting bedwetters and squealers, does it?

Botticelli? A few daubs here and there. No bambinos, though. Hopeless.

Jane Austen? Scribbled a bit, no kids. Nuls points. Tchaikovsky? Wrote a few tunes, neglected to father kids. 0/10 on the Azazel child producing success scale.

The Bronte sisters, all three of them? Well they may be responsible for some of the most popular novels in the English language, but could they crank out brats? Nope.

Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas? Hah. Jean Cocteau? Non, non, non, pas des enfants, terribles ou autrement.

Poor George Orwell- so busy scribbling away at ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’, ‘Down and Out In Paris and London’ and ‘Homage to Catalonia’ (as well as fighting for Republican Spain) that he found time only to adopt a son, rather than than produce one of his own.

Other well-known childless failures: Immanuel Kant, Dorothy Parker, Dolly Parton, Christopher Walken, Andre Gide, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Seuss, Helen Mirren, Maurice Sendak, Nanci Griffith, Albert Einstein, Bonnie Raitt, Greta Garbo, John Waters, Alan Turing, Elizabeth I of England, Rimbaud, David Hockney, Francis Bacon the painter, Francis Bacon the essayist and politician, Pope Gregory the Great, Janis Joplin, George Washington, Leni Riefenstahl, Edith Wharton, Emily Dickinson, George Bernard Shaw, Nikola Tesla, Laurie Anderson and her husband Lou Reed, .........



Pathetic progeny-less losers, all of them.

What have they contributed to the human race, other than inverse square laws, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, calculus, ‘Wuthering Heights’, ‘Swan Lake’, ‘Jane Eyre’, ‘Les Enfants Terribles’, ‘La Belle et la Bete’, the 1812 Overture, the Sistine Chapel, the Madonna of the Rocks, scissors, the Last Supper, La Primavera, ‘Les Faux Monnayeurs’ the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, the Cat in the Hat, ‘Three Lives’ and ‘Four Saints in Three Acts’, ‘United States I-IV’ ‘Transformer’, cracking the enigma code and virtually inventing computing science single-handedly, creating the Gregorian calendar, writing ‘Pygmalion’ and ‘Man and Superman’, et cetera, et cetera.

How much more fulfilling their lives would have been (especially the women) if they had instead been cranking out a child every year of their lives.

[Master Zen]

3. High birth rates in third world countries are very, very bad things (since, as I pointed out earlier, resources would be divided up more in families). Clearly they have to learn from us.

How little you know about the third world.

You think these people who have 10-12 children have any other choice? You think they just wake up one day and think, "hey, we're poor, let's start a kid factory"? If a famaily living in misery had one kid, the result would be simple: That family would starve. Children is labor. Labor is money. Money is food. Also consider that the health problems in these countries makes it pretty obvious that a big chunk of all kids procreated will die. It was not uncommon for more than half of all pregnancies to result in a dead child or a child who would die shortly after. Call it risk mitigation, but high-birth rates have a sad but effective logic behind them.

"Clearly they have to learn from us". That's even more idiotic than your views on birth rates.

[Straybow]

Yes, they do basically say, "Hey, let's start a kid factory." Kids do not add to the labor or money of a poor 3rd world family, they provide the parents with many potential sources of support in their old age.

It is also a usually cultural rejection of birth control, for any of a number of reasons.

Decreasing family size is usually a result of the increasing investment required in developed countries to raise those children. In the US the average cost of raising a child is something like $250k. That might not include college!

In the US it is possible to raise kids far more cheaply, but in this culture we want to spend on "unnecessary" things that we think are important for our childrens' development.

[Straybow]

Very eloquent molly b, but irrelevant. Being incomplete is not equivalent to being worthless. Parenthood is part of the "complete" human experience, without which there would be no human experience.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ben -

Quote:

Romans 1:26-7 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

Ben, because of what? Isn't it a bit strange for God to condemn behaviors he intentionally "gave them over to"?

Because they rejected God he "gave them over" (as in, no longer protected them from the consequences of sin in the ranks) to whatever they chose instead of God.

Originally posted by Ned
I expect that proof that being gay is genetic will cause a revolution in religious doctrine and a significant increase in both legal and de facto acceptance of gays.

That might depend on whether the genetic aspects are defective mutation or unusual variations in combination.

Originally posted by Mr. Fun

Homosexuality is NOT a defect!

You say that because you do not want to consider yourself defective. Yet, what if it could be proven that genetic defects are influential to homosexuality… how then would you argue that homosexuality itself is not defective?

Discuss

[Ramo]

How little you know about the third world.

Uh huh.

You think these people who have 10-12 children have any other choice? You think they just wake up one day and think, "hey, we're poor, let's start a kid factory"?

In most cases, it has to do with lack of freedom for women. Both of my parents have 10 siblings eacg, and they were both in middle class families (no danger of starving) in Bangladesh.

If a famaily living in misery had one kid, the result would be simple: That family would starve. Children is labor. Labor is money. Money is food.

And more children means more food used up. There are obviously other dynamics involved, since teenage children in some third world countries tend to bring in more than they consume, and are able to provide support to the elderly. But more often than not, this is mitigated by many years of total dependency.

And I didn't say that one kid is optimal. But neither is 12 kids.

Also consider that the health problems in these countries makes it pretty obvious that a big chunk of all kids procreated will die.

Not over 50%.

It was not uncommon for more than half of all pregnancies to result in a dead child or a child who would die shortly after. Call it risk mitigation, but high-birth rates have a sad but effective logic behind them.

I call bullshit on that. No country has an infant mortality over 50%. The maximum in the world is around 15 or 20% last time I checked, and only a handful of places are that bad. This isn't the 16th century.

"Clearly they have to learn from us". That's even more idiotic than your views on birth rates.

The only thing that's idiotic is your self-reighteousness.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ramo

In most cases, it has to do with lack of freedom for women. Both of my parents have 10 siblings eacg, and they were both in middle class families (no danger of starving) in Bangladesh.

I do not deny that cultural factors play a role here, but you cannot deny that there weren't any economic incentives to have a familiy of that size. One of my grandmothers had 9 kids of which 5 died either during birth or shortly after. This coming from an urban working-class (i.e. borderline poor) household.

And more children means more food used up. There are obviously other dynamics involved, since teenage children in some third world countries tend to bring in more than they consume, and are able to provide support to the elderly. But more often than not, this is mitigated by many years of total dependency.

And I didn't say that one kid is optimal. But neither is 12 kids.

Neither is 12 because there is a degree of uncertainty attached to the number of kids. When a child is born, what is the assurance that he will live old enough to be economically viable and to support his parents? There are three main reasons for this:

1) Support the family in old age due to lack of pensions
2) Assurance that at least some of them will reach adulthood
3) Labor, especially farm labor where more hands are better than a few.

That being said, the risk attached to a high infant mortality rate makes an "optimal" number of children impossible to determine beforehand. Perhaps the optimal number is 4 yet half might die before being adults, hence 8 children are born.

Not over 50%.

I call bullshit on that. No country has an infant mortality over 50%. The maximum in the world is around 15 or 20% last time I checked, and only a handful of places are that bad. This isn't the 16th century.

Oh no? The child mortality rate (under 5) in many african countries is around 250 per 1,000 live births. That does not include those who die during birth. And that is, obviously averaged, much different among the lower parts of the income inequality chain. You can bet that the lower 10-20% on the income scale in these countries has a much higher than 250 x 1,000 death rate. And furthermore this does not take into account death rates after 5 years. There is absolutley no guarantee that these people will survive up to adulthood under the constant threat of infectious diseases, political violence, crime and malnutrion.

The only thing that's idiotic is your self-reighteousness.

well, next time at least get your facts straight

[Az]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Ah, yes, a life with children is so complete. What after all, can people such as Isaac Newton (a few theories, no children) put on their balance sheet to compensate for their abject failure in the progeny popping stakes?

People like Prince Eugene of Savoy, for instance, can only save Vienna from the Turks and defeat the armies of Louis XIV. Didn’t sire any children though.

Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci? Well, a bit of painting and decorating and inventing scissors hardly makes up for not begetting bedwetters and squealers, does it?

Botticelli? A few daubs here and there. No bambinos, though. Hopeless.

Jane Austen? Scribbled a bit, no kids. Nuls points. Tchaikovsky? Wrote a few tunes, neglected to father kids. 0/10 on the Azazel child producing success scale.

The Bronte sisters, all three of them? Well they may be responsible for some of the most popular novels in the English language, but could they crank out brats? Nope.

Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas? Hah. Jean Cocteau? Non, non, non, pas des enfants, terribles ou autrement.

Poor George Orwell- so busy scribbling away at ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’, ‘Down and Out In Paris and London’ and ‘Homage to Catalonia’ (as well as fighting for Republican Spain) that he found time only to adopt a son, rather than than produce one of his own.

Other well-known childless failures: Immanuel Kant, Dorothy Parker, Dolly Parton, Christopher Walken, Andre Gide, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Seuss, Helen Mirren, Maurice Sendak, Nanci Griffith, Albert Einstein, Bonnie Raitt, Greta Garbo, John Waters, Alan Turing, Elizabeth I of England, Rimbaud, David Hockney, Francis Bacon the painter, Francis Bacon the essayist and politician, Pope Gregory the Great, Janis Joplin, George Washington, Leni Riefenstahl, Edith Wharton, Emily Dickinson, George Bernard Shaw, Nikola Tesla, Laurie Anderson and her husband Lou Reed, .........



Pathetic progeny-less losers, all of them.

What have they contributed to the human race, other than inverse square laws, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, calculus, ‘Wuthering Heights’, ‘Swan Lake’, ‘Jane Eyre’, ‘Les Enfants Terribles’, ‘La Belle et la Bete’, the 1812 Overture, the Sistine Chapel, the Madonna of the Rocks, scissors, the Last Supper, La Primavera, ‘Les Faux Monnayeurs’ the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, the Cat in the Hat, ‘Three Lives’ and ‘Four Saints in Three Acts’, ‘United States I-IV’ ‘Transformer’, cracking the enigma code and virtually inventing computing science single-handedly, creating the Gregorian calendar, writing ‘Pygmalion’ and ‘Man and Superman’, et cetera, et cetera.

How much more fulfilling their lives would have been (especially the women) if they had instead been cranking out a child every year of their lives.

Did I say their lives were meaningless? did I say that their lives had no value?

didn't think so. stop humping that strawman.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Azazel




Did I say their lives were meaningless? did I say that their lives had no value?

didn't think so. stop humping that strawman.

I think his point was simply that the definition of "complete" is in the eyes of the beholder and that many of these people have contributed more to the advancement of the human race than people who have simply procreated.

[Az]

DUH! I also believe that! But:

a) Having kids is a whole aspect of life. An aspect of life that these people didn't enjoy, as well as didn't contribute their share in.
b) While these great people had, there is also an enormous number of regular people, that could have kids, but don't, not because they're busy developing the cure for cancer, or fusion power, but because they can't be arsed to. and That's wrong.

[Ned]

There seems to be a corollary between wealth and family size and also between Social Security (or its equivalent) and family size. Larger families correlate with poverty and with lack of means for supporting oneself and old-age.

During the time of Augustus, the population of the relatively wealthy Roman Empire began to decline. The population Europe not only has stabilized but is declining. The population of European Russia was declining even during time of the Soviet Union.

It appears that the solution to over-population is Social Security or its equivalent. However, Social Security also seems to create a secondary problem: declining population. This inherently places a greater burden on the young to take care of the elderly as the population demographics shift.

This also indicates that states with good Social Security systems should encourage families and procreation, just as Augustus did during his reign.

On the whole, I think Azazel is right in that people who do not produce children are harming society under circumstances where the population is declining.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
"have a brain structure that is clearly different than the vast majority of the human population that leads to sexual behavior that is clearly different than the vast majority of the human population" argument. Seems like a pretty clear case of a developmental defect (...)

Why should "different sexual behavior" = "defective"? Just because something differs from the majority it is "defective"? Too bad bees are stuck with those "defective" queens, so different from the vast majority.

you must be able to see the difference between a brain structure that influences a person's reproductive behavior and a trait that has no real effect on a person's life, like blue eyes or lefthandedness.

Southpaws lead shorter lives than right-handed people. And you're saying that someone who chooses not to reproduce is somehow more "defective"?

That was never my criteria. According to my criteria, a defect is something that differs from the norm and also has obvious negative effects on the sufferer.

Well, aside from the fact that you just changed your criteria, (see top of post), what exactly are the "obviously negative" effects of homosexuality? As I pointed out earlier, it may well confer an evolutionary advantage to a community, which would help explain it's widespread prevalence in nature and humanity.

You think not being able to reproduce is a positive effect?

I wonder what Oscar Wilde's sons would have made of the notion of homosexuals not being able to reproduce.

I know lots of gay people (both genders) who made babies. Personally, I suspect homosexuals typically reproduced until the historically recent emergence of gay culture, which has led to large numbers of homosexual people living more sexually segregated lives than before. At any rate, you show that you have confused "unable to reproduce" with "choosing not to reproduce", further crippling your already foundering "defective" argument.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Azazel
Since they don't hamper a person from having a complete life.

Not reproducing means an "incomplete" life. Got it. You could equally argue that never having sex with someone of the same gender results in an incomplete life.

Originally posted by Azazel
(By not having kids they) didn't contribute their share (...)and That's wrong.

You need to spend an hour in China.

Originally posted by Ned
On the whole, I think Azazel is right in that people who do not produce children are harming society under circumstances where the population is declining.

Even if they are disproportionately assisting with defence, food-gathering, child-rearing, etc.?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Straybow
Yet, what if it could be proven that genetic defects are influential to homosexuality… how then would you argue that homosexuality itself is not defective?

Basing "defectiveness" on the cause rather than the result seems a rather odd way to go about things. Would a virtuoso violinist produced in this manner be judged "defective"?

By that crazy argument, every mutation that successfully advanced evolution actually produced some sort of "defect"!

[Ned]

mindseye, the procreation issue does not relate to how people actually contribute to society otherwise. The issue is limited to demographics only and thus is concerned with averages, etc. Obviously the way one manages this from a governmental level is to adjust tax policies, etc., to encourage families and procreation.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I love the way Azazel has taken the miracle of childbirth and made it sound likesome sort of grim public service. Like jury duty, or something.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Azazel
DUH! I also believe that! But:

a) Having kids is a whole aspect of life. An aspect of life that these people didn't enjoy, as well as didn't contribute their share in.

That, my friend, is hardly a universal value. Not everyone shares this view on having children which is the reason many couples don't have them. Why? Simply because they don't want to.

b) While these great people had, there is also an enormous number of regular people, that could have kids, but don't, not because they're busy developing the cure for cancer, or fusion power, but because they can't be arsed to. and That's wrong.

Again, you might think that it's wrong, but there is no law, be it biological or political that says that having children is the "right thing to do".

Picture this, if every couple on earth has just one child, the population will dwindle to 0 eventually. So, if it's your moral duty to advance the human race by procreation then it should also be "wrong" to only have one child since you are doing the exact same thing as not having them, the only difference being that you are delaying the unavoidable.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow
Very eloquent molly b, but irrelevant. Being incomplete is not equivalent to being worthless. Parenthood is part of the "complete" human experience, without which there would be no human experience.

[

Hogwash.

It is part of some human beings' experience of life. To be fully 'human' does not require the production of children- the potential is there in most humans to participate in the creation of new humans. It is a choice, not a necessity for all.

How exactly was Isaac Newton 'incomplete'? Oh, yes, sorry Isaac, you revolutionized physics, optics, mathematics but, you didn't have any kids. Unlike say, the complete Dr. Goebbels. Or Idi Amin. Both outstanding contributors to humanity due to their, ah, 'completeness' which they attained by fathering children. Hoorah.

And Azazel- you said the lives of people who did not reproduce were somehow 'incomplete'. I would argue that rather than simply fathering a few brats who might easily have died in infancy, Michelangelo 'fathered' the David in Florence, the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, the Tomb of the Medici, the Dying Slave, the Doni Tondo, and posterity, humanity and Italy are much the better off for them. Given the choice between writing, say, 'The Portrait of a Lady' or dealing with soiled nappies, prams, childhood illnesses sleepless nights and ungrateful children I choose option a, the novel writing.

Similarly with all those other creators, inventors, scientists, writers, theoreticians- reproduction is a choice, not part of some imaginary list of boxes to be ticked to qualify for full humanity. Human experience is a spectrum rather than a series of hoops to be jumped through like trained circus animals. I receive and give love to my relatives' and friends' children- I do not envisage having any, nor would I want to. Luckily the Office of the Fatherland and Motherland in Australia has yet to get on my case about not spreading my semen far and wide. Really, it's like something out of '1984' or Stalinist Russia.

"Only 13 children and 5 miscarriages, Mrs. Shevchenko? Letting the side down aren't we? Wouldn't want to be considered one of those childless cosmopolitan intellectuals, would we?"

Perhaps it has something to do with your residing in Israel- the notion that there are all those Arabs out there, busily breeding away...

By the way- you shoudl also consider in nature where animals live in groups, like lions, or the wld dogs of Africa, or some wolf packs- the dominant males and females routienly kill any offspring not of their lineage, effectively 'neutering' the reproductive process in non-alpha males and females, or deposed alpha male and female lines. Equally, in other parts of the animal world, males and females that do not reproduce contribute in terms of protecting young, procuring food, and rearing the young- like meerkats, bees, ants, termites, chimpanzees, baboons, et cetera, et cetera.

Do you think nature knows what it's doing in allowing all these incomplete lives to carry on consuming precious resources?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned
mindseye, the procreation issue does not relate to how people actually contribute to society otherwise.

Why this arbitrary restriction? Evolution operates primarily at the gene pool level, not the individual.

Non-reproducers can and do play a part (sometimes a crucial one) in survival of various species, for example hive insects (e.g. ants) and herd mammals (e.g. buffalo).

[Az]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I love the way Azazel has taken the miracle of childbirth and made it sound likesome sort of grim public service. Like jury duty, or something.

I aim to please, Laz.

Seriously, You've got to think big for a second. The fact that modern humans don't reproduce enough is a fact: Europe, USA, Japan, the pattern is the same. I think that the preservation of the modern way of life is important enough that we think of this condition as a problem.

And Azazel- you said the lives of people who did not reproduce were somehow 'incomplete'. I would argue that rather than simply fathering a few brats who might easily have died in infancy, Michelangelo 'fathered' the David in Florence, the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, the Tomb of the Medici, the Dying Slave, the Doni Tondo, and posterity, humanity and Italy are much the better off for them. Given the choice between writing, say, 'The Portrait of a Lady' or dealing with soiled nappies, prams, childhood illnesses sleepless nights and ungrateful children I choose option a, the novel writing

That's all very nice, but how many of the childless people are Michelangelos? Humility is rather important here.

Similarly with all those other creators, inventors, scientists, writers, theoreticians- reproduction is a choice, not part of some imaginary list of boxes to be ticked to qualify for full humanity. Human experience is a spectrum rather than a series of hoops to be jumped through like trained circus animals. I receive and give love to my relatives' and friends' children- I do not envisage having any, nor would I want to. Luckily the Office of the Fatherland and Motherland in Australia has yet to get on my case about not spreading my semen far and wide. Really, it's like something out of '1984' or Stalinist Russia.

I guess I gave out the wrong impression: I am not "more kids more kids!" I am actually heavily against this. But I do think that the "Having no kids whatsoever is fine!" attitude is just as lethal on the long run.

Your examples from the animal world are wrong as well, since we're talking about pack leaders killing off genetic competition. In our society, the father/mother ratio is much closer to 1. This obviously leads to that the population is still reproducing. This is not the case with us.

o you think nature knows what it's doing in allowing all these incomplete lives to carry on consuming precious resources?

Nature doesn't "know" ****. It just is there. and the result in the end is still the same birthrates, even if only one male "gets some", if you know what I mena.

[Az]

Again, you might think that it's wrong, but there is no law, be it biological or political that says that having children is the "right thing to do".
Picture this, if every couple on earth has just one child, the population will dwindle to 0 eventually. So, if it's your moral duty to advance the human race by procreation then it should also be "wrong" to only have one child since you are doing the exact same thing as not having them, the only difference being that you are delaying the unavoidable.

I am really saddened that you so light-heartly talk about your species' demise.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Azazel


I aim to please, Laz.

Really? Are your eyes open?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Azazel

Seriously, You've got to think big for a second. The fact that modern humans don't reproduce enough is a fact: Europe, USA, Japan, the pattern is the same. I think that the preservation of the modern way of life is important enough that we think of this condition as a problem.

With 6 billion people worldwide, where's the problem? Import a million Indians or so- they've got plenty to spare.

[Az]

And when the Indians modernize? what then?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Why do you equate "modernise" with "stop breeding"?

Why aren't you taking into consideration the fact that one side-effect of modernisation is a longer lifespan in which we can work?