Re: you know...
in reply to a message by Ludwig
The problem I have isn't that it's rude, or inappropriate, to criticize random people. I don't think people should be protected from legitimate political criticism of their personal choices. I'm saying the particular criticism is as negative and destructive as the problem it tries to oppose, and can do nothing good. So random attacks on breeders aren't just uncomfortable, they're canting and perverse.
Of course you technically can say that more kids = more resource use. Of course it's okay to point that out. But what's the agenda you're supporting when you do? And who, exactly, are you suffering for, when you self-flagellate over having five kids? Um, is it for the kids' own future? If you did have five kids and felt pangs of guilt, your attention might be sharply drawn to those parties who have a great deal more ability to take responsibility for conservation than you do, who neglect it with impunity. And you'd wonder if maybe, being a cause of positive change is not even as simple as sacrificing your personal fulfillment.
We all do so much more right, when we treat ourselves and our fellow citizens humanely and with dignity in the first place. If you want to see change and you're going to go about it in a negative way, motivated by fear and loathing - you might as well just kill yourself, because that'd be an environmentally responsible choice. Are you anti-people-breathing, or anti-exploitation-and-ignorance? Turning on each other or considering our own fertility as an evil doesn't save the planet, it only further manifests deathworship that we would naturally hate.
I'm inclined to link to this yet again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJAlIHsXcLY
ETA: About being off topic ... I know what the board is for, and you know better than to read posts that aren't interesting to you. =)
Of course you technically can say that more kids = more resource use. Of course it's okay to point that out. But what's the agenda you're supporting when you do? And who, exactly, are you suffering for, when you self-flagellate over having five kids? Um, is it for the kids' own future? If you did have five kids and felt pangs of guilt, your attention might be sharply drawn to those parties who have a great deal more ability to take responsibility for conservation than you do, who neglect it with impunity. And you'd wonder if maybe, being a cause of positive change is not even as simple as sacrificing your personal fulfillment.
We all do so much more right, when we treat ourselves and our fellow citizens humanely and with dignity in the first place. If you want to see change and you're going to go about it in a negative way, motivated by fear and loathing - you might as well just kill yourself, because that'd be an environmentally responsible choice. Are you anti-people-breathing, or anti-exploitation-and-ignorance? Turning on each other or considering our own fertility as an evil doesn't save the planet, it only further manifests deathworship that we would naturally hate.
I'm inclined to link to this yet again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJAlIHsXcLY
ETA: About being off topic ... I know what the board is for, and you know better than to read posts that aren't interesting to you. =)
This message was edited 3/31/2012, 10:57 AM
Replies
Well this topic is off the board now so I'll keep it short. My own feelings about this issue are pretty mixed, as I've said. I feel like there wouldn't have been a place to have this conversation at all - your attention might be sharply drawn to those parties who have a great deal more ability to take responsibility for conservation than you do, who neglect it with impunity. - if Brandon had politely quashed his sanctimonious feelings. And I think it's okay for this conversation to happen, even though it's veered off-topic.
lol. I've read most of the on-topic replies to this, I just don't have much to say in response to them
lol. I've read most of the on-topic replies to this, I just don't have much to say in response to them
Mirfak, I must say I am a little surprised at your lack of reason regarding this thread. I expected more from you, but you have lost that respect from me. Drop the emotion and look at the data. Research natural capital, overpopulation, and ecological footprints. Take a class on environmental science instead of accusing me of being a deathworshipper (really?)--on the contrary, I am advocating sustainability, not death. I do not care about maintaining consensus with anyone on this forum--a hotbed of defective and unstable personalities. What would maintaining consensus achieve? I can't for the life of me understand why you'd think I'd benefit from any of your approval, or why I should self-censor beliefs about which I feel strongly.
This thread alone has displayed every possible symptom of groupthink--a phenomenon which hinders progressive and critical rethinking (you could also research groupthink). I have no need nor use for cohesion with any of you, and am by now quite used to your pointy hats.
Also (one last thing), in what way is spreading awareness NOT activism?
This thread alone has displayed every possible symptom of groupthink--a phenomenon which hinders progressive and critical rethinking (you could also research groupthink). I have no need nor use for cohesion with any of you, and am by now quite used to your pointy hats.
Also (one last thing), in what way is spreading awareness NOT activism?
Oh, an ad hominem! How nice!
It appears that you missed my point. I don't need more education to know that sustainability does not have to depend on curtailing reproduction directly on an individual basis. That is very simplistic. A small reduction in the number of consumers does not necessarily mean less exploitation. It might even lead to more, considering all the incentives for exploitation. (I'm not insisting that it would, just trying to suggest that there is complexity to consider)
I don't think you should self-censor your beliefs at all. I think you should reconsider them, or at least reconsider your own emotional commitment to them. There is the possibility that it's you whose critical faculty is impaired by groupthink. Who are you thinking for, and who taught you what you think you know? Answer carefully. Have you ever really wondered, from where does the authority come, of the narrators of the researches that you invoke? Have you examined the meanings of the word "footprint," and do they all jibe perfectly with your values?
Accusing people of doing harm by having large families doesn't spread awareness, it's just an expression of your fear and loathing. I share your fear and loathing about environmental destruction - I just don't think that blaming my fellow citizens and their families is a positive action in any way whatsoever.
It appears that you missed my point. I don't need more education to know that sustainability does not have to depend on curtailing reproduction directly on an individual basis. That is very simplistic. A small reduction in the number of consumers does not necessarily mean less exploitation. It might even lead to more, considering all the incentives for exploitation. (I'm not insisting that it would, just trying to suggest that there is complexity to consider)
I don't think you should self-censor your beliefs at all. I think you should reconsider them, or at least reconsider your own emotional commitment to them. There is the possibility that it's you whose critical faculty is impaired by groupthink. Who are you thinking for, and who taught you what you think you know? Answer carefully. Have you ever really wondered, from where does the authority come, of the narrators of the researches that you invoke? Have you examined the meanings of the word "footprint," and do they all jibe perfectly with your values?
Accusing people of doing harm by having large families doesn't spread awareness, it's just an expression of your fear and loathing. I share your fear and loathing about environmental destruction - I just don't think that blaming my fellow citizens and their families is a positive action in any way whatsoever.
This message was edited 3/31/2012, 1:58 PM