I'm extra smart. Shouldn't I pass on my genes?

by **The_Virginian** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 03:49:35

WTF do you care about my spelling? You understood the concept enough to grasp what I ment. (I'm also currently 7 hours ahead of EST so you could cut me some slack if I fudge a word or two).

Read some old English and come back to me when your headache goes down, then try and criticize on spelling...And you do now so because you have NO Original/Creative reply!

by **Falconoffury** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 04:16:26

In my opinion, anyone who wants to have children at this time doesn't understand how bad quality of life is going to get. Why would anyone want their child to live in a world of suffering?

Children are a good thing, but you can have too much of a good thing. You just have to accept that this planet has too many people.

by **linlithgowoil** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 08:29:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'l')inlithgowoil claims to NOT TRUST PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T HAD CHILDREN, so that means he must HATE ALL THE POPES AND PRIESTS IN HISTORY (aside from those who are not pederasts).

linlithgowoil tries to come off as a self-less, generous parent concerned about the future of humanity, but let's look at what the bastard really says:

linlithgowoil wrote:
im afraid that by implementing population control etc. and policies like it, you are becoming non-human and treating people as nothing but animals who consume resources.

its not nice. i say bring on the crash and everything will take care of itself

LINLITHGOWOIL IS ON RECORD ADVOCATING MASS DEATH.

Try to control our numbers, and we're "non-human." Breed like animals and we're human. linlithgowoil has a brain malfunction.

by **Falconoffury** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 17:15:32

Lin, you are confusing two concepts. There is a difference between killing people and preventing them from even being born. I think most of us want to reduce birth rates to ultimately reduce death rates. Your vision will create more death than my vision. You seem heavily indoctrinated into the concept of growth, but that concept is dead. We have to come into equilibrium with our environment. The room for growth is over.

Not everyone decides not to have children for selfish reasons. I decided not to pursue breeding not so that I can consume more for my own benefit. I chose it so that I could reduce consumption across the board. I am trying to power down. If I have children, they will require fossil fuels in various direct and indirect ways and make the dieoff problem worse when it finally arrives. I don't want my children to be part of the dieoff. How could you say you don't trust me just because I don't want my children to be subject to dark ages-like slavery and starvation? How could anyone of morals want children to go through that?

And Lin, you said nothing about the destruction to the planet. Civilization is displacing animals and causing mass extinctions, and climate change for the worse. Your ideals are so short-sighted, that you would rather have children today than a better world for future generations.

by **k_semler** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 20:03:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', 'T')he day I reproduce is the day aliens come from Uranus, .

by **k_semler** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 20:10:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Virginian', 'W')OW A "tripple tag team" On K-Semler.

I hope he Squizes out of this tight spot. :lol:

I would tag to be IN but would rather be OUT of this ring. :lol:

______

Really now, the lauguage and manerisims of American culture are so influenced by Homosexual inuendo (especialy in comedy an "witty" sayings, it is no wonder much of the world thinks we are all latent Homosexuals.

Think Batman and Robin, Team Amerika, South Park, Marshal Mathers's new hit...little boys included, M. Jackson, Hollywood etc.

We ARE preverse, face it. We are shaped to be "changed" on a dime...on que (like in prison).

Can we change and talk about Fecal matter, Anuses and Homosexulaity less?
THAT IS THE FRUEDIAN- and Adlerian- QUESTION.

by **linlithgowoil** » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 06:43:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lin, you are confusing two concepts. There is a difference between killing people and preventing them from even being born. I think most of us want to reduce birth rates to ultimately reduce death rates. Your vision will create more death than my vision. You seem heavily indoctrinated into the concept of growth, but that concept is dead. We have to come into equilibrium with our environment. The room for growth is over.

Not everyone decides not to have children for selfish reasons. I decided not to pursue breeding not so that I can consume more for my own benefit. I chose it so that I could reduce consumption across the board. I am trying to power down. If I have children, they will require fossil fuels in various direct and indirect ways and make the dieoff problem worse when it finally arrives. I don't want my children to be part of the dieoff. How could you say you don't trust me just because I don't want my children to be subject to dark ages-like slavery and starvation? How could anyone of morals want children to go through that?

And Lin, you said nothing about the destruction to the planet. Civilization is displacing animals and causing mass extinctions, and climate change for the worse. Your ideals are so short-sighted, that you would rather have children today than a better world for future generations.

by **turmoil** » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 07:40:25

linlithgowoil, ironically (yet predictable), i think we have found some common ground now that we have laid out our differences.

We should help people in need and not cause unnecessary suffering, but suffering will always be there, simply because we are mortal and have emotions.

It seems we agree on the goal above but have different ways of achieving it. I don't want to try to prevent the inevitable unnecessary suffering of another life that I have helped create, whether it makes the person stronger or not. You would like to prevent suffering by meeting the needs of that life, using minimal suffering as a means of passing on strength, without much regard for the conditions that that life will bear.

Vicious cycle of the topic at hand: Each generation feels that their and their offspring's generation are the generations that deserve the resources.

In this thread we have exposed the root cause of exponential growth within a finite system: life labors to carry on life due to the uncertainty of life itself.

by **Falconoffury** » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 08:04:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ''')hmm, he's going to be paralysed and have a poor quality of life, lets just murder him in the womb and save him some suffering'.

by **linlithgowoil** » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 08:30:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd you call people like me selfish, when I am sitting here and caring about everyone!

by **mgibbons19** » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 11:03:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd you call people like me selfish, when I am sitting here and caring about everyone!

by **Falconoffury** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 00:33:52

Do you honestly believe that this population graph isn't going to swing down hard in the decades following peak oil?

Have you ever starved close to death? If I was certain to die, I would ask that it's quick, not slow and painful that starvation or dehydration is. Sometimes murdering people is the humane thing to do. Just like putting animals to sleep in the kennels. If you are certain to die, make it fast.

And I do believe in a lot of freedoms, like the freedom of speech and expression. I would have no problem giving up freedom to breed if I got more freedoms in other ways. I think it's possible to build a civilization that takes away breeding freedoms but promotes most other freedoms. The freedom of as many children as you want can hurt everyone, just as we are about to see over the next few decades. When there's no surplus, you put food in one mouth, it has to get taken from another.

by **Falconoffury** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 00:39:33

Gibbons, don't confuse my posts with religious agendas. Also, I never said sterilization. I don't know how the world could turn into my vision, but I think my vision will be a better world to live in.

by **mgibbons19** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 00:56:53

But that's exactlly what I am saying. Belief in PeakOil on these boards (perhaps not surprisingly) borders on religious.

And it becomes even more apparently so when the discussion turns to the future, and ppl's prescriptions for that future.

"If only they all would do what I say..." "If only they knew what I knew..." And "Kill them humanely and quickly..."

Either a pope, and evangelical, or a fascist would be comfortable saying such things. I am not.

by **linlithgowoil** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 05:59:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ave you ever starved close to death? If I was certain to die, I would ask that it's quick, not slow and painful that starvation or dehydration is. Sometimes murdering people is the humane thing to do. Just like putting animals to sleep in the kennels. If you are certain to die, make it fast.

And I do believe in a lot of freedoms, like the freedom of speech and expression. I would have no problem giving up freedom to breed if I got more freedoms in other ways. I think it's possible to build a civilization that takes away breeding freedoms but promotes most other freedoms. The freedom of as many children as you want can hurt everyone, just as we are about to see over the next few decades. When there's no surplus, you put food in one mouth, it has to get taken from another.

by **Doly** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 07:26:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '
')Murdering people is humane if they face a slow death? What if the person concerned doesnt want to be murdered?

by **linlithgowoil** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 08:04:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or all your talk about the vast superiority of humans over animals, you don't seem to notice the most glaring difference between humans and animals: our behaviour isn't determined by our genes

by **sklump** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 09:04:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Someone who wants to murder people clearly has a genetic disorder, it cant be blamed on upbringing as many people have horrific upbringings and do not become criminals etc.

by **Raxozanne** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 09:08:20

There was a UK doctor on the lunchtime news that said he knew of cases in the UK where people had called up some helpline complaining that hospitals were denying their terminally ill (very ill) relatives food or water even when they were screaming out for them

I don't think that is right. People should not be denyed food/water if they are asking for some even if they will die soon.

by **killJOY** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 09:26:25

Reading this thread, it's clear you all should put your genes on the ground and stomp them to death.

I'm extra smart. Shouldn't I pass on my genes?

Who is online