http://www.onlychild.com/home.html

As I grew older I started to wonder what siblings might have to offer. I enjoyed spending time with families, just to watch the complex dynamics, and I observed the differences between having a younger brother and being one, or being the oldest of 3, or the youngest girl, etc. I got the sense that siblings, as annoying or inconvenient as they could be, also had some positive aspects. Even friends who seemed to hate their siblings seemed to love them all the same.

Now I don't think of being an only as necessarily better, but still not necessarily worse either. I think it's like asking 'would you rather be a boy or a girl?'. Nobody I've ever asked that of would switch, yet both men and women have their advantages and their burdens. There's not a sense that it would be better "the other way" - just different, and not different enough that anyone wants to change. Same with me and being an only. I don't think I'd be happier with siblings, nor do I think that friends with siblings are any happier than me because of them.

As an adult, I'm finally unravelling all the subtle ways that being an only affected me - possibly at the same time as friends with siblings are unravelling the ways that having siblings affected them.

I know that being an only has made me less sympathetic to others and less empathetic, and I've had to work on being aware of how I affect people around me.

I know that I don't fit the usual "only child" stereotype of being unable to share; if I have an apple you're welcome to half, for example. On the other hand, don't ever rearrange my stuff! I'll share things readily, but I'm still protective of my space and my privacy.

I'll also happily help you if I can, but I'll probably never ask for your help & if I do, it's only because a friend taught me that everyone needs to be needed sometimes. As a child this would have made no sense to me, but as an adult it's sinking in that I have to actively create some of the bonds that are natural to people who grow up in a larger family.

On the plus side, I'm still independent and capable. I do most of the cooking for my wife and me, and more than half of the housework simply because I've always taken care of myself. It doesn't bother me to do dishes because in my way of thinking, I'd be doing them anyway.

I don't require entertaining, I don't always feel a need to talk, and I don't sweat the little stuff. I think that being an only taught me to be comfortable and at peace inside my own head from an early age.

My advice to you would be to do as DrConway suggests: make your choice on its own merits and don't think too hard about how this will or won't affect your daughter. People seem to regard onlies as something of an oddity or special case but I don't think it's all that different... while at the same time being entirely different

When I was 3 and 4, apparently I had an imaginary brother named "David" that I made cards for at nursery school. A couple of times in the primary grades, seeing that friends had siblings, I asked my mother why I don't have any. But I wasn't particularly heartbroken about it, just curious.

I grew up somewhat spoiled, I guess. My parents managed to avoid turning me into a total little princess, but like most kids, I had my foibles. However, the empathy thing you hear about (that only children don't have any) is false in my opinion - I had lots of empathy. In fact, apparently if anyone ever picked on me at school, I would recoil in horror at something so alien - apparently I didn't do stuff like that to other children. Maybe that's a function of being an "only" as well - no siblings to "toughen me up" and get me used to kid politics.

I grew up as a rather messy child - the type of person to leave things lying around, etc. I don't know if that would have been different if I had siblings. Maybe if I'd had siblings I wouldn't have had so much "stuff" to leave lying around, but I doubt it - I have cousins who are a brother and sister, and both are as messy as, if not more messy than, me.

I learned how to entertain myself as a child. I mostly had adults around me at home instead of other children, and that likely forced me to communicate at a "mature" level at a younger age. I think one of the ways that being an only child has affected me is that I need a lot more "space" and alone time than a lot of my friends do. I like spending long periods of time alone. I like solitary activities like reading, or even just daydreaming. Although being single can be lonely, I don't find it that terrible living by myself. I'm very independent. That's not to say I'm a hermit. I love spending time with others, I'm a very extroverted and social person, and when I'm in love, I want to spend lots and lots of time with the person I'm in love with. But that alone time is important too because I've always had it.

I'm glad I'm an only child. Ever since I was a kid (once I got over that brief "I want a brother" thing when I was 5 or 6) I have realized the benefits of being an only. I watched my cousins fight like cat and dog growing up. You couldn't put them in the same room together. I'm happy not to have experienced that.

On the other hand, I see some of my girlfriends now who are best friends with at least one of their siblings. I've never experienced that either. My parents and I are extremely close though - my mother and father are two of my best friends. My relationships with them are similar to those I see of my friends with their closest siblings.

Mom and I were talking about that the other day. I was telling her that since leaving my husband, I've learned to really appreciate some of the closer friendships I've developed with women friends since then. She was happy to hear that, and told me that being an only child in a small family without many cousins, that I should take care to develop at least a few very close friendships with people (particularly women) my own age since I don't have siblings to stay close to for the rest of my life after my parents have passed away. I see her point - once my parents are gone, that will be it for me for family if I'm not remarried by then, except for my son.

I have decided not to have any more children myself. Unless his father remarries and has more children (which could happen - I think he would like more), or unless I remarry and that person has children of his own, my little guy will remain an only child. Actually, he does have a half-sibling on the other side of the world, but will likely never see her, at least until he is much, much older, and he's never met her or talked to her.

I'm okay with my decision to only have one child. I feel that my baby years are now behind me, and I've moved to a new stage in my life. I have enjoyed every stage of my son's life so far, but I have no desire to do them over again. I can't imagine going back to diapers again, although I greatly respect women who decide to do so.

Anyhow. I'm overall a very happy, content only child. I don't feel deprived in any way.

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]

On the other hand I'm thrilled at the independence my little one is showing (being a big girl as she puts it), and having just her is pretty much a breeze, and talk about an easy kid, after the first 6 months she was sleeping through the night, rarely ever cried. Overall the kid is light, travels really well, folds up neatly into my backpack. One woman I know hasn't slept through the night in 3 years. It's these stories that scare me - can I afford not to sleep the night for 3 years?

I guess even though I'm not thrilled about pregnancy and a the demands of an infant, I feel guilty about not providing her (existing child) with someone else to love, someone that will be with her after us. Someone like my sister.

My sister is 9 years younger than me, and I didn't really get to know her until she was an adult (I moved out when she was 9 years old, and barely paid attention to her when I was there). Now she is my best friend and creative partner, we spend weekends plotting out new little projects, talk every day, she is my assistant when I have to shoot a dreaded wedding. She comes into my home as if she lived here, spending days at a time, we don't even notice ... that is to say it is never an imposition.

My husband is an only child, and he is the most self-reliant person I have ever met. One thing I had to get through my head early in our relationship is that this guy will never need me, he wants me around but he never needs me. Describing him would be redundant since Magoo pretty much summed it up in his own description of himself.

Zoot, thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: angela N ]

My brother and I have never fought, never argued. And yes, we're close.

It's not prepared me very well for having three daughters, 14, 17 and 18. Their arguments over wearing each other's clothes, or taking things from each other, or who gets to sprawl on the couch or who gets to watch what on T.V. just blows my mind.

On the other hand, I envy/admire the emotional and practicle support they enjoy from each other.

My brother moved out to college when I was about nine or ten, and then got married. So I didn't have that kind of support.

I'm not sure about the solitude thing. I enjoy the couple of hours alone I get in the morning, before bed, during the school year. The alternate weekends I have to myself while my daughters at with their mom are strange. I can't wait for Friday night to arrive. Saturday is okay-- it's nice to be out and about without demands, only myself to please.

But by Sunday I'm not myself. I need them home.

The solitude has a wrong feeling about it.

Is there some hypothesis that only kids don't learn empathy? I can't see that. Most of my peers who had siblings treated them, or got treated by them, without much empathy most of the time, from what I saw.

Like Mr. Magoo, I find myself ready to help. For example, I never have a problem giving a co-worker a ride home when they ask, cheerfully going out of my way. But, I'm loathe to ask for a ride. I took the bus in today, howling wind and all. But the morning's a bit different. I broke with tradition and secured a lift home.

How many kids......

You know, in this time on "Babble" I've gone through a transformation of sorts. Two years ago-- and you could, if you wanted, dig up the posts-- I couldn't see why a guy would take on the responsibilities of being a parent of a young toddler, again, at my age, and not only that, a child that isn't "mine" in a Darwinian sense.

But here I am, hoping that circumstance will allow me to do just that, and being not just okay with it, but looking forward to the possibility.

Mind you, by that time my two eldest will be independant, as will the eldest of my pookie kins. It might just be my youngest and the one who knows what birds do ('fla fla fla fla fla'-- and she flaps her little hands when she says it) so it's hardly overwhelming. It feels natural. It feels important. And it might be that my youngest will choose to live with her mom. That'll hurt like nothing else.

ah, ramble alert.

Only child? Many children? It seems an important question... in a field of many, more important questions.

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]

[ 05 February 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]

I grew up with siblings - two brothers and a sister nine years my senior. I'm the youngest. I didn't really know my sister until I was an adult, and my brothers and I weren't close, but my siblings always seemed to me to be a buffer against my parents' awful dysfunction. I think part of the reason we all turned out okay (sorta) is because we had each other. We became closer as adults, all of us, and in some ways have parented each other.

I have an extremely independent "princess" type in my older kid (5 yrs old), and she is 3 1/2 years older than her sister. I don't think it has anything to do with being in a 2 kid family or having been an only for the first 3+ yrs, I just think that's her.

My personal belief is that you shouldn't decide to have a child based on how it will affect the child you already have -- 'cause she'll be fine. It'll be different, but as long as you are a loving and responsible parent, they'll do great. The only good reason for having a second baby is because YOU want one.

quote:

---

We're currently struggling, off and on, with the idea of having a third baby... For us, it's the lifestyle things that are more getting in the way -- the pregnancy stuff is actually one of the motivators to have one, I had terrific pregnancies and would love to do it again. But traveling with 2 is harder than with one, and with 3, it could prove a real challenge. And more expensive. There are holidays we'd like to take someday that we'd have to put off longer.

---

You think there would be some kind of "economy of scale" at work when having kids, that the third child should be "less expensive" than the first two.

That hasn't been my experience. At my wage level, a third child wasn't, in financial terms, a good idea. I've found it really set things back, and yes, things like holidays, and a lot of things my kids "only children" peers take for granted are missing here.

But. My youngest-- particularly since my separation-- is a person of great depth intellectually and emotionally, who shows a clarity of mind and stalwart courage that has been, and continues to be an inspiration to me, that I cannot conceive of life without her.

You might also want to put the decision in a larger frame.
What kind of world are you bringing a new person into? (Imagine: the child will never be safe walking in the sun bare-headed, without dark glasses; it will never be safe drinking fresh, wild water; it may never be safe, eating fruit off a tree or swimming in a lake.)
Even if you assume that the world will not change too much for the worse (like the shitload of shiny new carcinogens that are gonna waft over from Iraq in the next few years), how sure are you of your own ability to offer it security in the next 20 years?

Next, this not just any new person you're considering adding to to the human race; it's a North American consumer - its ecological footprints will be roughly equivelant to that of 100 third-world babies. More, if it grows up to be successful.

And then... look at all the people you know. How many are happy? How many have the kind of life and character you wish for your child? All new parents intend - and expect - to raise competent, fulfilled, contented people, yet most of us fail.

I really think it is important to believe we can cause changes.

I still think we could. I just don't believe we will.

quote:

---

Next, this not just any new person you're considering adding to to the human race; it's a North American consumer - its ecological footprints will be roughly equivelant to that of 100 third-world babies. More, if it grows up to be successful.

---

I didn't want to get into this, because population growth is a fairly explosive issue in more ways than one - but I tend to argue against more pregancies in general on the principle of curbing population growth lest war or disease do the job for us.

I reminded her that most people who'd been born on this planet, thoughout the ages, had been born into less than ideal circumstances. My daughter considered this, and decided that people were hopelessly selfish.

I agreed, mostly. But I also pointed out that people tended to have children under difficult circumstances not entirely for selfish reasons, or because they had no access to reproductive health services, but because children represent hope. Hope for a better future. Parents generally want their children to have better lives, more opportunities, and to be better people than they are.

To have or not have children is (or should be) everyone's individual choice. But to say that we shouldn't have children at all because, the world is (and always has been) a precarious and frightening place, is to give up on humanity entirely. To wish that the human species die out (because it would fairly quickly without any procreation), to have no hope that we can overcome the worst of our selves and embelish the best, to not acknowledge how far we have come thus far (despite how far we have to go) is to have no hope for the future whatsoever.

How bleak that is.

[ 10 February 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

I reminded her that most people who'd been born on this planet, thoughout the ages, had been born into less than ideal circumstances. My daughter considered this, and decided that people were hopelessly selfish.

---

With all that's going in the world these days, what with people torturing children in some places, using them as soldiers and to clear mines in other places, not to mention the everyday routine of malnutrition, abuse, exploitation and neglect... well, the mate and I discussed this exact topic as we watched our gorgeous little primates playing, wondering by what self-indulgent arrogance we presumed to bring them into a world tottering on the edge of ecological disaster etc., etc...

What were Martin Luther King's great-great grandparents thinking?

Or,check this out.

quote:

---

How about a cat?

---

got a cat, but it's not the same, she refuses to breastfeed

quote:

---

If one really wants kids, I'm sure any number of foster kids or orphans would be ecstatic to find a home.

---

Right you are. We've been discussing the issue for a few years now, and I think we've decided to not have any more of our own. If for whatever reason we come into a bit more money, we will adopt a little sweetie later.

quote:

---

no offense to all you parents, but having a kid is the most selfish act anyone can do

---

The decision to have a child is selfish. The process of raising that child to be a good human is not. Morally rationalizing one's decision not to have children, at the expense of those who do have them, is nothing more than a prop for arrogance and ignorance. There is no moral imperative to have children any more than there is one to remain childless. It's an individual choice.

quote:

---

There is no moral imperative to have children any more than there is one to remain childless. It's an individual choice.

---

I would disagree. The choice is not like choosing to wear only black or become a vegitarian. The decision to have children has a huge impact, not only for the family, but for society as a whole and the natural world. Kids (especially N. American) grow up to become destructive, wasteful, and consuming adults, no matter how aware you teach them to be. To ignore this aspect because one really wants kids is quite selfish.

I can argue that remaining childless (of one's own genetic material) can have a moral imperative, to try and reduce the impact of the human species on the world.

quote:

---

Why is it those who can't respect the choices of others feel the greatest need to pillory those who differ from themselves?

---

Isn't that what smokers say to justify their habit?

If, on the other hand, you're arguing that you're morally superior for not having children (and I hope you've gotten yourself sterilized just in case), it doesn't wash. You're the same destructive monster of consumerist gluttony that every child of every person who gave birth to them is. Therefore you shouldn't exist.

Jingles, save your soul. Kill yourself before it's too late!

[ 11 February 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Morally rationalizing one's decision not to have children, at the expense of those who do have them

---

How so?
What does someone else's decision to refrain from reproducing cost those who have reproduced? Quite the contrary, i should think: there will be more of everything for the children already here. If you weigh that against the momentary hurt of any implied or inferred criticism, you're not getting such a bad deal.

quote:

---

If everyone remains childless, then there is no human impact on the world. No people period. Are you suggesting that humanity should become extinct?

---

I honestly don't think the human race is in imminent danger of extinction. Well, it is, but not from lack of reinforcements. And it certainly won't die out if each North American family has only one baby for a while.

[ 11 February 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

And it certainly won't die out if each North American family has only one baby for a while.

---

[ 11 February 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

How many children does one have to have had in order to be considered personally responsible for the further destruction of the planet?

---

Ummmm...two??? three?? two? It's two, isn't it?

[dawning realization}

*sob*

It's me, ME!!!!

I'm responsible for the destruction of the planet.

quote:

---

And i wonder how many of those women having a fifth or ninth baby in some refugee camp are doing it as a gesture of hope, and how many wish they had a choice; how many would prefer birth-control or husband-control or something

---

No nonesuch, you didn't specifically tell people not to have any children. Jingles suggested that. You just painted a grim and depressing picture of what any child brought into this world would face.

quote:

---

I'm responsible for the destruction of the planet.

---

way to go Sys!

nonesuch, you're being overly daramatic here, or you're watching too much xfiles ... the truth is out there?

quote:

---

every new person has the potential to contribute great things to both the species and the world we live in.

---

I wouldn't argue potentialities, since the opposite would most likely occur, judging by present and past behaviour of our species. Look at libertarians for crissakes!

I never suggested forced sterilization, abortion, or any coercive reproductive measures. As you said, it is an individual choice. But that choice is seldom made taking into account every consequence. Like good consumers we are, we will always come up with creative ways to justify what we want, regardless of the consequences.

Yeah, I too am responsible for the destruction of our little planet. Even though I consciously try to limit my impact, just the fact that I exist in this society has a magnified effect on the world.

- no guilt over bringing them into the world
- no pain (to Vera) of giving birth
- feeling good about making the world a better place
- all the love I can imagine any parent feel
- all the challenge of shaping myself while shaping them
- pride and gratitude when looking at the result

Who can ever want more than that? My brother once said: “if you had your own, you would know the difference -- but he never adopted any, so how would he know the difference?

PS. It is true: talking about something other than Iraq is a bliss.

[ 11 February 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

nonesuch, you're being overly daramatic here,

---

quote:

---

or you're watching too much xfiles ... the truth is out there?

---

We use far fewer resources with all our kids than a lot DINKS do.

Many large monstrously sized homes go up and guess who is buying them? NOt the famlies like us whose money goes on food and clothing for kids, it's the singles that are buying. Did any fewer resources go into that home because a couple bought it? Does it take less to heat? Who is creating more garbage when as a family of six we put out one bag of garbage per week and the DINKS put out one or buy tags and put out two or three?
Who is causing more pollution when we walk everywhere we need to go while the couples have a car each? Often an SUV or other large guzzler.

PS. For the purpose of comparison: the world is bigger than North America. If we want to be realistic, we have to put things in perspective. Is our loyalty/empathy/compassion primarily to our own privileged NA/western culture (yes, even the poorest of us is richer than most of the world) or to humanity at large?

I am sure I will have triggered another of those fwords with the above, but what the heck, we live only once!

[ 12 February 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

And nobody knows what kind of adults their children will turn into. I doubt if any parents, anywhere, ever, set out to raise monsters, yet monsters exist… and occasionally their children grow into good people. Irresponsible, violent, ignorant slobs sometimes produce fine citizens; honest, bright, decent parents sometimes raise criminals. Because parents are not the sole determining factor in a child’s predispositions, nor the only influence on the child’s character.

The moral question, for me, is not who has babies and how many, but what the family and the society does with those babies once they’re here. The species has not, over all, been very kind to its young (or its old, or its women, or its men, or other animals, or rocks). This free and affluent society is not doing nearly as well by its young as it could. Maybe, if only those people who really love and understand children had any, there would be fewer children; then each society would cherish them more. Maybe.

quote:

---

Nature doesn’t care. Nature doesn’t think. Nature doesn’t plan. It can’t. We can, but it’s not always easy or pleasant.

---

dude, what are you saying? .. how can you talk about nature as if we are not a part of it? how can we have qualities that that nature doesn't if we are part of all that is nature. You give us way too much credit, we are animals... remember?

We need to educate. When you educate women, they have fewer babies. More education, fewer babies... very simple. Now I'm betting that it would be a hell of a lot easier to teach women a few things about birth control than it would be to get them to not have sex ... but I'm just guessing.

[ 13 February 2003: Message edited by: angela N ]

quote:

---

dude, what are you saying? .. how can you talk about nature as if we are not a part of it? how can we have qualities that that nature doesn't if we are part of all that is nature. You give us way too much credit, we are animals... remember?

---

quote:

---

We need to educate. When you educate women, they have fewer babies. More education, fewer babies... very simple. Now I'm betting that it would be a hell of a lot easier to teach women a few things about birth control than it would be to get them to not have sex ... but I'm just guessing.

---

quote:

---

There really should be an international moratorium on childbirth for at least 50 years, that would just about clean up the mess we have made of the earth

---

That would answer the prayers of the elephants, anyway. 50 years is just long enough for this morning's crop of female babies to reach menopause.
Of course, there's always cloning...

[ 13 February 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

But the more I hear the bullshit the less respectful I feel.

---

I think our only real hope for a better future comes from just making one. It's our responsibility as aware and thoughtful, earth-friendly adults to pass on our knowledge and concern to the generations coming after us. Granted, we don't have to procreate ourselves to do this, but it is one way--and it's a pretty effective one, I'd think.

My mom raised my sister and I to be aware of how plants grow, how water moves around the earth, how the air and the soil and the rain and the sun are all working together to provide for the needs of all the plants and animals. She was concerned about composting and the three r's (remember them?) long before it became vogue (and then went out of vogue again) and she passed these concerns on to us in a really personally meaningful way and I've lived with them close to my heart all my life.

I only hope I can do as good a job when I've got little ones to nurture and teach.

[ 13 February 2003: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

quote:

---

angela: how can we have qualities that that nature doesn't if we are part of all that is nature?

---

quote:

---

To read some of the posts here, you'd think that everyone should live in fear of procreating, lest they produce an SUV-driving, strip mining, GAP-wearing serial killer.

---

Noooooooooooo! (runs screaming, holding his head between his hands, eyse closed, shaking with terror)

nonesuch, we all wish they had done something else, but the possibility of producing a Bernardo, or a Hitler or Manson or a Stalin is every bit as good as producing a Michelangelo or a Mozart or a Martin Luther King or a Che. You are talking about extremes which may be interesting to consider, but has little to do with the reality of things. I think people ARE doing a better and better job raising kids, and they are definitely having fewer. We will never reach the astronomical numbers they had predicted in the past because the rate of increase is dropping.

quote:

---

nonesuch, we all wish they had done something else, but the possibility of producing a Bernardo, or a Hitler or Manson or a Stalin is every bit as good as producing a Michelangelo or a Mozart or a Martin Luther King or a Che. You are talking about extremes which may be interesting to consider, but has little to do with the reality of things.

---

Quite so. In fact, i said the same thing, a little way up; to whit: that most people will be ordinary. On the other hand, how do you know that people, globally, are doing a better job of raising children than they used to? Maybe they are - i just don't see it proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

If someone questions the validity of a statement, the typical reaction is: "you represent the exact opposite". If someone says: "maybe we should consider the wisdom of bringing more people into this world", the typical reaction is:

"You are trying to be superior to me, sitting on a moral high horse and think that all children grow up to be homicidal maniacs!"

This overreaction may be good to the ego of the 'overreactor' but it is a lousy form of communication which will not, can not, lead anywhere (other than acrimony).

Now I am not talking about you specifically, nor anyone specifically, but about the majority generally.

Do I think this post will make a difference? No, I do not. So why did I bother to make it? Partly because you asked me to make a point, partly because it needed to be said.

I got to the point where the only thing that seems possible for me to do is tell it the way I see it as clearly as I know how. In this world of ours, slowly drowning in stupidity, violence and destruction, it is almost a moral duty to stand up for what we believe in and follow our conviction, both in speech and in action.

So, I will continue doing it, and if it gets on Rebecca's nerve, I suggest she examine her own attitude and see whether she, in fact, is actually doing the same (speak her mind whenever, however she pleases).

I hope this was a clear enough point.

PS. I try very hard not to be rude to anyone and the sarcasm I use once in a while is no more (and often way less) than what I receive in return (or what triggered it in the first place).

[ 13 February 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

You might also want to put the decision in a larger frame.
What kind of world are you bringing a new person into? (Imagine: the child will never be safe walking in the sun bare-headed, without dark glasses; it will never be safe drinking fresh, wild water; it may never be safe, eating fruit off a tree or swimming in a lake.)

---

quote:

---

, but statistically it has been shown that when a population is better educated and enjoys economic stability, people have fewer children. So it would be better to improve people's lives by offering them a better standard of living than to try to shame them into having fewer children.

---

We can. I don't think we will.

I think it is every animal's nature to reproduce. Loving a baby is quite a different love than towards an adult. Every adult that I know kisses kittens and puppies. This obviously does not apply to those with allergies.

This is a good thread and sometimes I get bugged by some of the bickering which is nit-picking. You people are really bloody good posters.

I still believe that is true but there are other things, money and power that we feel are primary.
It is something we must strive for.

[ 14 February 2003: Message edited by: clersal ]

[ 14 February 2003: Message edited by: clersal ]

[ 14 February 2003: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

As long as the optimists are the ones having the majority of the babies, and raising them as well as they can to be more optimists, we'll be better off in the long run.

And the suggestion that we can help the planet but we probably won't is a really frustrating sentiment to contend with. If we can, we should. Those of us who believe it is possible should just do everything within our collective and individual power to DO SOMETHING, because if we let ourselves think for even a moment that it's not going to make a difference, it won't.

[ 14 February 2003: Message edited by: dale cooper ]

The realist approach is, by necessity, balanced and is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, the world is neither doomed nor not doomed. Unless you are prescient, there is no way of knowing for sure how it will all end. Realistically, if we do nothing, then we are probably doomed. If we work towards improving the quality of existence for all living things on the planet, we have a chance.

[ 14 February 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

In this particular thread everything was OK until I posted my own (positive) experience with adoption (as an alternative) and nonesuch tried to put things in global perspective. Then the swearing and name calling started. If we aim to be realists, then intelligent, friendly, rational discussion is the best chance we have.

quote:

---

Rebecca: It would be realistic to say that the planet and its inhabitants may be doomed to destruction if we do not take measures to prevent said destruction.

---

quote:

---

Sisyphus: I think part of the wisdom of humility is to admit that we necessarily take actions whose consequences we will never be able to guess. If we take these decisions with love and courage, then that is all that can be asked of us.

---

I think it is of utmost importance that we collectively work towards ensuring that every child born is wanted and that every parent has the means to provide love, support, education, healthcare and economic stability. It goes without saying that a relatively small percentage of the world's children have these things, but that percentage is still greater than it has ever been.

quote:

---

There are a lot of things going on today that I wouldn’t want to expose a child to and I know it would break my heart if I could not protect him/her from these things. That is why, for me, adoption turned out to be such a guiltless and positive experience.

---

quote:

---

I say have as many kids as you can handle, and nature will take care of the rest.

---

[ 14 February 2003: Message edited by: dale cooper ]

quote:

---

Nature is self-regulatory. If their are too many people for the planet to handle, then lots of people will eventually die out, making room for more...
I say have as many kids as you can handle, and nature will take care of the rest.

---

quote:

---

and what's the difference between humans and hamsters?

---

Hamsters do not drive SUVs or study genetic modification or bomb eachother.

quote:

---

Lima Bean: While I have similar fears and anxieties, this seems to suggest that since the children you're raising aren't your biological progeny, you're less worried about their exposure to the ills of the world. Surely this is not what you intended?

---

Let me repeat from an earlier post:

[ 14 February 2003: Message edited by: satana ]

quote:

---

Science and medicine are not a part of nature. They are human constructs meant to help us deal with (and often control) nature

---

The earth is a body. The oceans are bodies. The forests, deserts, and mountains (and all the rest) are bodies. They work the same way that the human body does, but on a grander scale.

Cells are also bodies, but on a smaller scale.

Each and every living thing (including the whole of the earth) is a closed system that can be effected by things internal or external.

I liken our human existence on the planet to that of cancer cells in a human body. It's a natural phenomenon, but it's not the way things should go for optimal health and harmony.

Just as cancer can attack a particular organ or region of the body before crippling and ultimately killing the whole system, so are we too destroying only parts of the earth's body, but the whole system suffers, of course.

quote:

---

Satana:human beings, including their thoughts and inventions, are created by nature, we live according to its rules.

---

I'm sorry - this is such a weak arguement. You're essentially saying that since we exist, since at one point, humans were projected forth by nature, that we don't need to be responsible for our actions, because everything we do is natural. Humans stopped being natural a long, long time ago. Just because we are a part of nature does not mean we are behaving naturally.

quote:

---

There are billions of people on earth because there are enough free resources to support them

---

This is exactly the kind of thinking that will guarantee the end of the human race. We are burning up the "free resources" at an amazing speed and believe that just because they have always been around, they will continue to be so.

Let me try and explain it like this: take the greenhouse effect. It is a natural occurance that has made it possible for us to exist. However, humans are contributing to it in a way to make it grow unnaturally and become a threat to life, rather than an aid. This is unnatural because we are doing something which threatens our existence. I know a lot of species do things which are harmful to themselves, but not knowingly, on a global scale, threatening the existence of the entire planet.

Humans are this way on the earth. We're a body, the whole of humanity, and we are naturally part of the system altogether, indeed.

quote:

---

This idea that we are somehow separate or "above" nature is what has gotten us in shit with the planet. We, and our creations, are not separate from nature, and if we understand and respect this, then we'll do less damage to existing ecosystems and ourselves.

---

I think this is exactly right. We should be aiming for more symbiotic relationships with the Earth and her other inhabitants. Wouldn't it be nice if all the living things generally benefitted from everything all the other living things did? Or at least if everything we humans did wasn't to the detriment of all the other living things?

quote:

---

dale cooper: You're essentially saying that since we exist, since at one point, humans were projected forth by nature, that we don't need to be responsible for our actions, because everything we do is natural.

---

quote:

---

We are burning up the "free resources" at an amazing speed and believe that just because they have always been around, they will continue to be so.

---

quote:

---

When resourses are used up, we either find other resourses or starve to death, decreasing the demand for resources...

---

That's kind of what I was getting at. It's not just us who lose the resources, though. If we deplete the amount of drinkable water on the earth, who suffers? Everyone/thing. If we want to play Russian Roulette with the human populace, that's fine. But we're playing it with the whole damned planet, Jim!

quote:

---

Rebecca: Does this mean I'm no longer responsible for the destruction of the planet?

---

quote:

---

Rebecca: Be afraid. Be very afraid

---

quote:

---

She thinks it is for shopping, while it is about a surprise Valentine day concert

---

When Life was young there wasn't much oxygen in the atmosphere. For the dominant organisms at the time it was a poison, waste material. But these organisms (in their greed and stupidity) multiplied and spread across the earth all the while making more and more oxygen, till there was so much they changed the whole chemical composition of earth's oceans and atmosphere. They choked on their own shit. And so, Nature banished them to the most hellish and stinkiest corners of the earth.

But some organisms survived in this poisoned world, and we, their oxygen breathing decendents flourished.

True story.

[ 14 February 2003: Message edited by: satana ]

quote:

---

satana: Hey, how come everyone's nice allofasudden?

---

quote:

---

dale cooper: ...where would we be today?

---

[ 14 February 2003: Message edited by: satana ]

quote:

---

a real admirer (angela?)

---

you mistake my contempt for admiration Zat... why am I not surprised?

As for the discussion, I am totally pissed. I missed the whole thing! dammit!!

you guys got a bit sappy at the end, but it's valentine's day, so I guess it's OK.

quote:

---

Cuz somewhere along the lines we evolved a blas-femur? hehe

---

Glad to see the good feelings are running about.

My two cents:

Population growth is a real hot-button issue because it strikes at the heart of a complex intersection of a biological drive and the much-vaunted human intelligence and its capacity to override instincts.

I will never have children. Not only because I happen to be "oriented" in such a fashion as to make it impossible, but I'm just plain not good with children. Other peoples' children are fine, goes the aphorism.

So I can't understand or fathom the almost unstoppable urge on some peoples' parts to bear and have children. There's a guy I know about who's a bit of a recluse in Tennessee, and he regularly hits on another woman online, and it's pretty transparent to me that he's doing it. This fellow has spoken of his desire to raise a child, and he's somewhat of a loner, so he doesn't meet a lot of women in real life. Anyway, the short of it is that he has this desire to bring a child into the world that I just can't understand or fathom, yet it drives him and he's complained about his lack of success with women.

Maybe it's this lack of desire to have children that makes me naturally more sympathetic to the lines of argumentation used by groups like Zero Population Growth. A name like "Zero Population Growth" is pretty blunt, and ballsy, and it's not surprising that some people get their backs up when they hear about groups like this.

However, I leave you with this line of argumentation put forth by Dr. Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s:

Imagine that the USA's population doubled overnight.

The USA would all of a sudden need twice the roads, twice the schools, twice the sanitary facilities, twice the food production, twice the materials production and twice of a lot of everything else to maintain roughly the same standard of living as it does today.

Now, the USA, a wealthy nation by any standard, would have a great deal of difficulty meeting this, and would likely have to do it by pillaging the rest of the world for the resources to keep its own population in good stead.

Any other nation would find it an insurmountable task.

Population growth is a major driver of some of the problems we have in this planet - among them the inability to guarantee a decent standard of living to all 6 billion who live on this planet.

I once pointed out that were there but 2 billion people on this planet, every one of those two billion, with access to modern technology and the existing resource and manufacturing base, would be able to live like a king or a queen.

There's two ways we can get there. The hard way and the easy way.

The hard way is to let disease do the job for us. It's hard because humans won't have planned for the contingency and how to deal with it to minimize the dislocation.

The easy way is to lower the birth rate.

That is a humane, long-term, plannable alternative that harms no one.

I think nature has a great deal to do with our behaviour. Humans are able to verbalize and discuss this behaviour. I am not sure if we can control it. Also I am not sure we should try to control it.

It's our greed, plain and simple.

Interestingly, the phone-in segment turned into a battle with the childless couples pitted against those with children. The people representing this club were called greedy, selfish, etc. But, they parried in a rather interesting but effective manner.

They had conducted a poll (albeit a straw poll) in Vancouver. They had simply asked married couples with children if they could reverse time would they again choose to have a family. Seventy percent said no.