regarding: Children 'bad for planet' article on SOTT 05/07/07

[Fifth Way]

Regarding: http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/131514-Children+'bad+for+planet'

Well, thankfully not everybody holds this opinion. As am matter of fact sincere research (as so often) paints a very different picture:

Frank Schirrmacher: Minimum- vom Vergehen und Neuentstehen unserer Gemeinschaft. (Minimum – The Fading and Re-emergence of Our Community) Non-fiction. Publisher: Blessing


Germany’s birth rate is lower than ever before. Newspaper editor and best-seller author Frank Schirrmacher's new book «Minimum» analyses the consequences of this trend: an irreversibly shrinking population will make personal relationships as precious as scarce natural resources. Schirrmacher’s main thesis is that the family will play an indispensable role as a "survival factory". He believes that in human society the family is the only place where people routinely work for others without being paid to do so, where altruism and plain selflessness can still be found. In times where more and more families are breaking up and the welfare systems are getting threadbare Schirrmacher believes that only women, whom he considers the stronger sex, will be able to fill the social vacuum that will be tearing holes in the very fabric of our society. He argues that nature has equipped women with the necessary skills and emotional intelligence to provide the warmth and build the networks society will so badly need. Frank Schirrmacher's scare-mongering rallying cry for women to save the day may be simplistic and male chauvinist, but his book «Minimum», has got Germans talking about children again. In this society that even has a word for hostility to children (Kinderfeindlichkeit) people are finally waking up to the fact that without young people Germany won't have much of a future

Come to think of it. Maybe his bestselling book is what prompted this preemptive media campaign (as I believe it is not translated yet)!

 

[anart]

I don't really see the correlation. The article on the SotT page specifically uses the example of having one less child - instead of three, have two, instead of six, have five, and so on. Your German example is of having no children versus having children - at least from the excerpt you provided here.

Over population is an enormous problem, although one that will likely be taken care of by other means soon enough. I don't see how having two children instead of three would be 'tearing holes in the fabric of our society'. Our society is already ripped to shreds by the effects of ponerization - the effects of a psychopathic template to which normal people feel they must abide - I don't see how bringing less children into such a world is a bad thing. fwiw.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I don't see how having two children instead of three would be 'tearing holes in the fabric of our society'.

Yeah I think "depopulation" as a concept is a very important and a good idea, but the devil is in the details and it depends on how it is done. No one can argue that the population cannot grow infinitely - there is only so far we can push the planet. Having less children I think is a reasonable request - it's the killing of the children/adults who are already alive as a means to depopulate that is psychopathic, osit.

 

[Fifth Way]

I don't really see the correlation. The article on the SotT page specifically uses the example of having one less child - instead of three, have two, instead of six, have five, and so on. Your German example is of having no children versus having children - at least from the excerpt you provided here.

Yeah - that is the short coming of that excerpt. I tried to find more in english but without success but I admit I was not diligent .
Basically it is all about the disappearance of altruism and plain selflessness in our western society. Germany, England, US, France - what's the difference.
Maybe you see more of a point when you look at having one child only instead of two or zero child instead of one? In Germany (and I can tell you that here in New York I am personally seeing similar attitudes) people don't want to 'deal' with their children, so better have less or none. You don't have to jeopardize your career, going out with friends, you don't have to spend so much on them and can keep the money for yourself etc.
Don't you see the psychopathic agenda/influense, behind pushing such heavily STS attitudes?

Over population is an enormous problem, although one that will likely be taken care of by other means soon enough. I don't see how having two children instead of three would be 'tearing holes in the fabric of our society'. Our society is already ripped to shreds by the effects of ponerization - the effects of a psychopathic template to which normal people feel they must abide - I don't see how bringing less children into such a world is a bad thing. fwiw.

Okay. Here is what I really missed to point out (again: admittingly because I was lazy and in a hurry):
In his book Frank Schirrmacher shows data that proves (!) that in times of upheaval (war, famine, natural disaster...) families and family members survive in MUCH greater numbers than single people, child less people, loaners. Why? because they lack the motivation. They have not learned to take care of each other, just because that is what you are supposed to do when you are an human and not a psychopath.

Over population is an enormous problem

Says who?
Right now we have more overweight people on the planet than starving people! Maybe overpopulation is not the problem, maybe it is distribution, education, politics, availability of knowledge, outdated energy technology and psychopathic agendas.
In the forward of SHotW Laura points out that here motivation to relentlessly look for truth grew out of raising her five children!!!

Schirrmacher pointed out something nobody had considered because common sense is so uncommon. And sure enough he finds hard data to prove his point.

And now you have: "Have less children for the environment" ...coming from England (psycho-cenntral) - come on!

Its doublespeak for: "Have less children so when the s**t hits the fan you all die better!"

Our society is already ripped to shreds by the effects of ponerization - the effects of a psychopathic template to which normal people feel they must abide - I don't see how bringing less children into such a world is a bad thing.

..because it IS directly related! I would hypothesize that a rounded family cell would also give greater protection again ponerazation (...that would be interesting to research)

Just out of curiosity: Do you have children?

 

[Fifth Way]

but the devil is in the details and it depends on how it is done. No one can argue that the population cannot grow infinitely

And nobody does.

- there is only so far we can push the planet. Having less children I think is a reasonable request

Do you now what is going on in China where such move is made law?

Because if you have to be selective you will be selective!
Brings to mind: "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. (forgot who said it).

 

[Joe]

Fifth way, you are missing the point. We are not talking about having less children in a way that leads to babies being dumped on the street, and I find your use of the above image to make such a "straw man" point more than a little disingenuous.

You wrote:

"Maybe overpopulation is not the problem, maybe it is distribution, education, politics, availability of knowledge, outdated energy technology and psychopathic agendas."

psychopaths are the problem, as we have gone to great lengths to detail. So until you solve that problem, there is no chance that large families would be protected in some way against ponerization. A majority of the people in this world are ponerized, large or small families, there is no difference.

As for no one being able to argue that the population cannot grow infinitely: of course the population cannot grow infinitely, the planet is limited in size. 1 trillion (or whatever "infinite number you chose) people would not fit on the surface!

Joe

 

[Keit]

In Germany (and I can tell you that here in New York I am personally seeing similar attitudes) people don't want to 'deal' with their children, so better have less or none. You don't have to jeopardize your career, going out with friends, you don't have to spend so much on them and can keep the money for yourself etc.

On the other hand, better to have no children or not wanting to "deal" with them, then to have them because it is "accepted", "expected" or because it's so lonely in the house during holidays or there is a family unit that has to be preserved.
The reason this world is in such dread state is because billions of wounded people (wounded by their parents, which were wounded by their parents..etc) are allowing psychopathic minority to rule their lifes.

Don't you see the psychopathic agenda/influense, behind pushing such heavily STS attitudes?

I think it's more narcissistic agenda then psychopathic (if any agenda at all). People realize that they don't HAVE to have children anymore (free to choose not to have one). They can be selfish and care only for them selfs without being criticized by parents or society. On the other hand, lot of people bring child into the world because of the same selfish ideas.

 

[anart]

I agree, that picture is incredibly manipulative and has nothing to do with the original discussion. I also think, at this point in history, that it is very selfish to have children - it is STS to have children right now - Keit is correct - the majority of people have children because they 'want' them - they 'want' a little reflection of themselves or little helpers, or little people devoted to them - or to not be alone - or grow old alone - it is all about their own desires.

As far as this author 'proving' the point that people in families survive more than 'loners' (manipulative) - because they lack the motivation - that's ludicrous. It is probably because they have the support of a group - not that 'loners' lack motivation to survive or to help others.

FifthWay, you are very emotionally charged on this issue - and taking the general disagreement here personally. It seems as if you have an emotionally vested interest in proving it is 'best' to have children - are you trying to convince yourself?

 

[Keit]

I agree, that picture is incredibly manipulative and has nothing to do with the original discussion. I also think, at this point in history, that it is very selfish to have children - it is STS to have children right now - Keit is correct - the majority of people have children because they 'want' them - they 'want' a little reflection of themselves or little helpers, or little people devoted to them - or to not be alone - or grow old alone - it is all about their own desires.

Actually, there are countless examples in the history where "loners" as he call them, had much more better chance to survive then those who had too much to lose - their close family.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Just to clarify, I don't agree with the article on the point that "The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.". The greatest problem is psychopathy and psychopaths, not overpopulation, so the real "greatest thing" would be to learn how psychopaths/pathocracy works and its effect on everything and everyone. But strictly in terms of how to deal with overpopulation itself, which will inevitably become a problem simply due to limited physical space and resources on a planet of limited size, I think the only humane way to deal with it is to ask people to have fewer children and to explain the very obvious reason for doing so which even a 5 year old could understand. Please note that I said "request", not to enforce it as law, and not to kill children of those who ignore the request. This of course would take self-control on behalf of the population (please note I said self-control, not government-control), which would be greatly enhanced if the population is educated and fully understands the consequences - AND if it is not under the iron grip of the pathocracy.

I think that the amount of people that the planet can support also largely depends on how we utilize its resources, how efficient and responsible we are with said resources. This can be greatly helped by technology - but only if the planet comes together in the goal of developing and using this technology with this goal, and that just just won't happen as long as the pathocracy exists. I don't think 6 billion people is "too much", and while I don't know just what the limit is, I do know that it depends on what the population does and how it treats the planet and itself. With the pathocracy in existence, a population of as little as 100 people can bring the planet to its knees because greed devoid of conscience has no limitation. Eventually those 100 people, even if they remained just 100, would develop technology that would rape this whole planet until there is nothing left. So "100" people could easily be considered overpopulated, as the devil really is in the details. Alternatively, 20 billion people who are extremely efficient and careful in how they treat the planet and each other, could theoretically survive very comfortably, and potentially the true physical limit could be much much higher. It all depends on what we do and how we do it, osit.

 

[anart]

Just to clarify, I don't agree with the article on the point that "The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.". The greatest problem is psychopathy and psychopaths, not overpopulation, so the real "greatest thing" would be to learn how psychopaths/pathocracy works and its effect on everything and everyone.

Yep, I agree. The problems on the planet today are due to psychopaths - including the starving nations and obese nations - it all goes back to psychopaths and their influence which has turned this planet into the disaster area it is. As far as over-population, this planet can only hold so many - period - although, as I mentioned earlier, I think the population issue (which I know is a complicated one) very well may be taken care of by other factors.

Just to clarify my earlier comments on people's desires guiding having children and it being STS - well, we are all STS in this world - and I'm sure there are exceptions to what I've said, so apologies if it sounded a bit harsh. It is not a simple situation, or is it a black and white one, thus the value of such discussions.

 

[Fifth Way]

As for no one being able to argue that the population cannot grow infinitely: of course the population cannot grow infinitely, the planet is limited in size. 1 trillion (or whatever "infinite number you chose) people would not fit on the surface!

Exactly! And that is why I say "And nobody does" which includes me. That means: Also I am NOT arguing the point. Get it?

psychopaths are the problem, as we have gone to great lengths to detail.

And that is exactly my point. "Have less children for the environment" is a BS argument created by psychopath to forward their inhuman agenda. So with other words; I am pointing out another psychopath scheme ( "Have less children for the environment") , which is rather important to consider as we have gone to great lengths to detail to show that it is indeed psychopaths and their agendas and lies and false programmings, that are the problem.

Fifth way, you are missing the point. We are not talking about having less children in a way that leads to babies being dumped on the street,

No? In what way are you talking about having less children? So you don't learn so well how to take care of others? So you better not experience true STS impulse?

It is always little steps. I thought we went trough that:

1. It is the over-population - Stupid.
2. We need less people.
3. We need less children.
4. Have 4 instead of 5.
5. Have 3 instead of 4.
6. Have 2 instead of 3.
7. Have 1 instead of 2.
8. Give tax cuts for less children
9. Make it mandatory law
10. Give a death sentence for violations
11. 7. Have 0 instead of 1. unless of course your genetic imprint has been approved for proliferation.
Hey, we have too many people. Its all because of those damned masses of people. But don't look over there (distribution, politics, hidden agendas, ... fill in the blank).

Joe, you've got to read the signs of the times!

Or which point is it that I am not getting?

 

[Fifth Way]

I agree, that picture is incredibly manipulative and has nothing to do with the original discussion. I also think, at this point in history, that it is very selfish to have children - it is STS to have children right now - Keit is correct - the majority of people have children because they 'want' them - they 'want' a little reflection of themselves or little helpers, or little people devoted to them - or to not be alone - or grow old alone - it is all about their own desires.

As far as this author 'proving' the point that people in families survive more than 'loners' (manipulative) - because they lack the motivation - that's ludicrous. It is probably because they have the support of a group - not that 'loners' lack motivation to survive or to help others.

FifthWay, you are very emotionally charged on this issue - and taking the general disagreement here personally. It seems as if you have an emotionally vested interest in proving it is 'best' to have children - are you trying to convince yourself?

Your entire post is a complete projection, I am sorry to tell you.
You now even reject data of hand calling it ludicrous AND without supplying data to refute it. I think you may want to look at your vested interest of having no children (which I assume as you did not answer my simple question). Major denial I see. (Hey its good for the environment, right)
BTW The word "ludicrous" alone, gives away your emotional charge.

 

[Fifth Way]

I agree, that picture is incredibly manipulative and has nothing to do with the original discussion. I also think, at this point in history, that it is very selfish to have children - it is STS to have children right now - Keit is correct - the majority of people have children because they 'want' them - they 'want' a little reflection of themselves or little helpers, or little people devoted to them - or to not be alone - or grow old alone - it is all about their own desires.

Actually, there are countless examples in the history where "loners" as he call them, had much more better chance to survive then those who had too much to lose - their close family.

Feel free to give examples.

 

[Cyre2067]

Fifth - it seems to me you are emotionally charged on this issue and are abusing that energy with justifications from yer intellectual center. Reading the article and the subsequent posts in order you hop around the issue, starting off very opposed to the article itself, and then getting into a debate when you agree with what the other side has presented.

Personally I won't have children. I'm gay, so that makes it easier for me, however I don't want to bring a child into this world as it is. I'm not trying to sound lofty, or moral, or anything, that's just how i feel about it. I'd love to have a son, and I've been told I'd make a great dad, but it's a responsibility towards another being which I am just learning to acquire towards myself.

Until psychopaths are removed from power, and I have developed true individuality i feel there's no point in me reproducing.

edit: dude ya posted twice while i typed that /\, come'on, take a break and work on the external consideration bit, you're letting yer horses run the cart all over the place while the driver is completely passed out and there's no one even inside the carriage!