http://www.idkfa.com/v3 idkfa: syndicated http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1580 i would say that it is a privilege, rather than a right, just like all of the freedoms we are entitled to through the U.S. constitution. Admittedly, our courts and government have defined and enforced many freedoms we have as "rights," but to take the argument reductio ad absurdium, what's to stop the rest of the world's armies from toppling our government and instituting totalitarian rule? That being said, I think being a responsible, intellectual, educated adult calls for limiting yourself. that doesn't mean i know the right answer for how many kids you should have, but rather, how many kids do you think is responsible. personally, in my culture, families are traced through the fathers. as such, i am the last nicolai. yes, I have sisters, and cousins, but my dad was the only one of his brothers who had male children surviving beyond childhood. i feel a responsibility to my ancestors and to my culture to make sure my family continues. but before i do any of that, first i gotta find a girl. kitacek@idkfa.com (kitacek) Machiavellian Cocktail Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:41:56 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1580 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1574 wow... I have so many opinions on this I don't even know where to start. And I highly doubt anyone would want to read my pages of ranting. But I would like to respond by saying just that I believe that Duggar mom's uterus should be confiscated for misuse and abuse. Well, the tissue thin shell of a uterus that it is by now anyway... CapitolZebra@idkfa.com (CapitolZebra) Machiavellian Cocktail Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:11:27 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1574 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1539 The real shame is that too many people who have enough shit to live comfortable place a high value on life. They end up caring a whole hell of a lot when a shit ton of people who don't have it that great die off due to some disaster because of the lack of resources. It probably is also the case that any change foisted on us will end up coming from wealthy nations. I really don't see a place like Haite on its own saying "Damn cholera really sucks, we should clean up our water supply or we'll all shit ourselves to death." And then that actually happening. Though if allowed to run its course the population while somewhat decimated would of course come out much stronger and resistant to the disease. MrFood@idkfa.com (MrFood) Machiavellian Cocktail Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:39:50 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1539 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1530 This was addressed in a Calvin and Hobbes series: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6691670/Calvin-Hobbes-Time-Travel-Strip-Series kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Machiavellian Cocktail Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:57:13 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1530 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1529 Everything you're saying is really just support for my argument. First, quality of life changes will be "foisted upon us." By nature of the fact that resources have value, we'll be forced to pay for that which we consume, and if we can't pay for it, we don't get it. That's how capitalism works, and how capitalism generally protects scarce resources (I'm ignoring a lot here for the sake of brevity, but you get the idea). The "tipping point to inspire massive change" will have to be a change we have the technology to effect (affect?). If our air sucks but we don't have air purifiers, then we move to mars or something. It would be silly and inefficient to make a massive change until we reach said tipping point; that's why it is a tipping point. Lastly, I have trouble caring about things that will happen after my lifetime. This is especially compounded by the fact that I I'm not too interested in having children, giving me less reason to care about the world in 100 years. I'm not advocating foolhardiness, but there is a certain amount of screwing the earth and hoping for the best in the future that I'm willing to accept. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Machiavellian Cocktail Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:52:21 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1529 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1482 If Southpark has taught me anything, it's that you shouldn't tap into the moon or mars as you might release Cthulhu. Governator@idkfa.com (Governator) Machiavellian Cocktail Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:06:36 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1482 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1443 I'm pretty cynical when it comes to faith in humanity to save us from ourselves. We're too selfish to make sacrifices to our quality of life that are not foisted upon us. I really do hope for some magic bullet of clean energy that will solve our problems; the warp core and matter-replicators will remove humanity's scraping desire for material wealth and usher in a new age of enlightenment. /dream big! Rather, I think we're going to keep shitting into our water and atmosphere until we reach a tipping point to inspire massive change - probably long after our personal lifetime. Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Machiavellian Cocktail Sun, 12 Dec 2010 20:03:18 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1443 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1441 Why do you assume that our resources are limited to the extent that competition over them is a problem? It seems more likely that when we run out of fossil fuels that we'll either innovate new technologies which eliminate the need for them or that we'll find oil on Mars. Same goes for land, air, water, whatevs. I'm only being half facetious. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Machiavellian Cocktail Sun, 12 Dec 2010 19:07:42 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1441 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1439 I think Erik's question is beyond the present; beyond the ability for a family to provide for their offspring. The question is about finite resources for an ever expanding population who all demand a greater quality of life. The very idea of growth for growths sake is at the very least unsustainable, and at the worst disastrous. So sure, some family might be able to support their massive brood, but what happens when those X children procreate? Our society champions the growth of the family without understanding the global implications of a blossoming population. Competition for resources (petrochemicals - or rather, all carbon based energy, water, agriculture, land) will just continue to grow, and for what? Something Josh told me rings true - every indicator for a positive economy hinges on growth. Anything else is labeled with the negative connotation of stagnation or decline. As a species we have no objective aside from making our life easier... so we'll continue to breed uncontrollably and squabble over finite resources. Thus the question, is it a right or a privilege to procreate? Is it responsible to have more than 2 children per couple? Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Machiavellian Cocktail Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:17:32 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1439 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1438 If you can support them financially, or at least you could at the time you were having them, I'm okay with people popping out as many offspring as they want. But the people who have them knowing that they will be relying on government support for medical, food, childcare for the entirety of their kids' lives drive me a bit bonkers. Oh alright, a lot bonkers. J_Maru@idkfa.com (J_Maru) Machiavellian Cocktail Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:04:15 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1438 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1436 I usually cite the population problem as well. The other compelling reason I have is to ask "What do I really have to teach potential children? Or, what is something of true value that I have to pass along to the next generation, or that needs to be passed?" kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Machiavellian Cocktail Sun, 12 Dec 2010 06:19:33 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1436 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1424 Question: Is it a RIGHT to be able to have as many children as you want? I want to say no, but it's really difficult to come up with a valid argument one way or the other without just saying, "The planet's overpopulated, come on now." Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Machiavellian Cocktail Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:39:58 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=1424&msg_id=1424