• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

No more procreation

Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky

Frumious Bandersnatch
Joined
Nov 3, 1999
Messages
1,297
Location
Looking-Glass Land
How would the idea of at least 2-3 generations making the sacrifice every x generations of not reproducing at all sound? like giving up the idea of having children.

I know that not all the people would take it lightly, but just imagine it. would this be an answer to the overpopulation? how would making reproduction a tool instead of acting on it like an instinct;/necessity would be?

like let's say my plan goes as I said, generation number 5304,5305 and 5306 stops making children. generation number 5307 instead of mass breeding does selective breeding, every race could be allowed a x amount of children, all the genes tested and approved by profesional scientists, those children trained their whole lifetime just to help the future generations inherit some super genes?

this is all a theory so please don't jump on me with some snowflake reactions, I know that it's not possible, but just imagine it and try to figure out even better ways going on this premise
 
If there's a war like WWII I can say with certainty that God will make a1945 baby boom again....We lost so many lives in that war....I promise you that we will never go extent, but there will be a great time of either punishment or revival.
 
I feel like the generations prohibited from having children wouldnt accept it.

Something similar to China's one child policy would be easier for people to cope with.

Or you could provide financial incentives to people who only have one child or something.

Something does need to be done about overpopulation though as its increasing exponentially and in a few hundred years we'll just have too many people
 
I agree that telling people they can't have any kids won't work, especially an entire generation. Human nature will win out. However if you provided strong incentive to only have 1 child, for example, it might actually make an impact. Of course, in the western nations that have been industrialized the longest, population has held steady or even slightly declined over the last few decades. The problem is in developing nations where birth rates are high and survival rates are increasing.
 
@morpheuspapaverus I'll not hide it & I think I've said before I'm a big fan of Ecofascism & if you want to read something by a genius that backs up your 1st post look up Can Life Prevail? by Pentti Linkola, this is one of the most smart things I've ever heard right here.




I was only saying to my mom earlier today about the baby my brothers wife is expecting that ANYONE having a child in this day & age is a idiot, they have expressed their ego & condemned their future child to a horrific eco-collapse death in 30 years, she wasn't happy with my view but it is true.

Huamnity over the last 10 years has been a PLAGUE upon the planet & should be removed, the only hope we have is if people stop having children & the blacks in places like Africia should be left to die too just as how linkola says in that video above.


“The coming years will prove increasingly cynical and cruel. People will definitely not slip into oblivion while hugging each other. The final stages in the life of humanity will be marked by the monstrous war of all against all: the amount of suffering will be maximal.”
― Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail?


“...the chief cause for the impending collapse of the world - the cause sufficient in and by itself - is the enormous growth of the human population: the human flood. The worst enemy of life is too much life: the excess of human life.”
― Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail? - A Radical Approach To The Environmental Crisis

Turn the sustitles on as the language is Finnish but yeah his 100% right in what he says, failing that just watch the images & yes we have ALL caused this & we are all to blame, humanity sucks.

 
Xorkoth said:
I agree that telling people they can't have any kids won't work, especially an entire generation. Human nature will win out. However if you provided strong incentive to only have 1 child, for example, it might actually make an impact. Of course, in the western nations that have been industrialized the longest, population has held steady or even slightly declined over the last few decades. The problem is in developing nations where birth rates are high and survival rates are increasing.
Click to expand...

Force them to do it imo.

Human nature my friend is foul ,every nation on earth has collapsed & died due to stupid things they have done. Humanity thinks they are well above basic animals but sadly we're not, we are just a monkey that learned a few tricks. People needed to stop having children many years ago but now it is too late, we as a race have polluted the sea, burned the forest, poured Monsanto chemical death into the soil & sea then it rains upon our heads. Maybe if people the globe over had kept their legs closed the world may be a better place today. If we could go back a few hundred years a brutal population control system should have been brought in but it is too late now, fuck it in 30 years time we will have no planet left.
 
He says it 1,000,000 times better & more clear than I ever could (I guess that is why he writes books) @Xorkoth

:love:(y):love:(y)
“What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.”
― Pentti Linkola
 
yeah, for a brighter future we should really get the number of peoples living down to a smaller size. so since we can't kill half of them, preventing them from reproducing so in the future after we die they are less than half of how many peeps we were is better
 
polymath said:
Linkola is quite a determined person, as he's been living his neo-luddite way of life since the 1960s and is still doing that at over 80 years old...
Click to expand...

That guy really changed the way I view people, the planet, the way we raise animals for food, people in Africia, Global aid for disaster zones etc etc but I get the feeling you know his works equal or maybe even better than I do as sadly I cannot speak or read Finnish but I have many PDF's from forums that have been do into English & a book of his too.

I admit the message he puts over to some folks will be brutal but his true in what he says, he talks the talk & walks the walk. The people in Finalnd seem to love him too.
 
It would certainly benefit the planet for the whole world to have a one child policy at this point, along with the wealthy states reforming their welfare systems to not award baby bonuses for having children. Unfortunately, population control is not the only factor, but consumption level. Most humans on planet earth are vying for an American standard of living, and following the western model of "development" that organizations like the UN are espousing to "developing" societies. We would need several Earths if all humans had the U.S. standard of living, and we only have one. Globalization of western capitalism has exported a very skewed idea what development end goals should be, when there is no evidence that the apex countries are even operating in a sustainable way. All signs point to this being a house of cards, rather than a target that everyone should be reaching for.

The growth model of economy has to stop, and part of that growth model is the promotion of human reproduction. Human numbers are a factor in productivity which is why so many nations care so much about birth rates and "meeting replacement". Heaven forbid that the economy actually contract or downsize as human numbers decline.

We are in for a very rude awakening. Eventually the collapse of our ecosystems will make our populations drop and our economies fail anyway. The Green Revolution has deluded so many into thinking that we are providing for humanity, when really most humans are eating a substandard diet and living highly stressful lives, both of which have deleterious effects on quality of life. All anyone cares about is how long humans live until, and now how they are living, or at what level of wellness. As the environment is not really considered a variable in economic input factors, the collapse of the environment is going to trump the entire economic system. Once that happens, millions and possibly billions of humans reliant on this system will suffer horribly or die. My hope is that this happens sooner or later so that at least the world's ecology has a chance to recover. If it happens too late, then the balance could be tipped to total annihilation.

The places where humans thrive and have a higher happiness quotient continue to be in areas with smaller populations, natural wildlife reserves surrounding them, access to food that is derived from traditional farming techniques, and robust communal attachments with relevant supports. The majority of humanity is not living that way. So not only is the planet being totally trashed by rabid consumption, most humans are not any happier for it.

Maybe when the baby boomer generation dies we will come to our senses a little more. They can't die soon enough.
 
Foreigner said:
We are in for a very rude awakening. Eventually the collapse of our ecosystems will make our populations drop and our economies fail anyway. The Green Revolution has deluded so many into thinking that we are providing for humanity, when really most humans are eating a substandard diet and living highly stressful lives, both of which have deleterious effects on quality of life. All anyone cares about is how long humans live until, and now how they are living, or at what level of wellness. As the environment is not really considered a variable in economic input factors, the collapse of the environment is going to trump the entire economic system. Once that happens, millions and possibly billions of humans reliant on this system will suffer horribly or die. My hope is that this happens sooner or later so that at least the world's ecology has a chance to recover. If it happens too late, then the balance could be tipped to total annihilation.
Click to expand...

If I have read something online that rings my bell 100% it is this, you have hit the nail on the head right there 100%.
That is the most true thing I have seen online in ages right there, I wish I could put my point across equal to how you do it there, I always come across as being harsh etc & seem tp put people off but what you said there is saying collapse is coming due to factors humans have caused & the end is going to be horrific but it is so well put it doesn't sound so savage.

I for one salute that post, so glad my view isn't alone as I find a lot of folks seem to dislike the way I see stuff but the truth this time for folks is quite bitter.
 
Zopiclone bandit said:
If I have read something online that rings my bell 100% it is this, you have hit the nail on the head right there 100%.
That is the most true thing I have seen online in ages right there, I wish I could put my point across equal to how you do it there, I always come across as being harsh etc & seem tp put people off but what you said there is saying collapse is coming due to factors humans have caused & the end is going to be horrific but it is so well put it doesn't sound so savage.

I for one salute that post, so glad my view isn't alone as I find a lot of folks seem to dislike the way I see stuff but the truth this time for folks is quite bitter.
Click to expand...

Human myopia is a natural product of our evolution. We are not meant to think in terms of complex systems that are beyond our localities. Besides which, the majority of us have very little power to affect changes beyond our personal lives. Correction, we have a lot of power, but we are taught that we have no agency. So we defer to psychopathic leaders who continue to lie to us for their benefit. These same people will be hiding out in bunkers with artificial resources when everyone else is dying.

Even so, humans have a difficult time seeing how small scale implementation can lead to aggregate global change, mostly because people fail to see how individual choice creates this aggregate. It's kind of like how someone keeps buying things that are $5.00 because, "Well, it's only 5 dollars." But if they do that 10,000 times over a lifetime, they have spent $50,000. When every individual on the planet does that, this amounts to the economy of billions of dollars.

The way that we affect the environment is exactly the same. People don't stop to think how their one precious offspring can contribute to this aggregate. They just think, "What's one more person?" If even 5% of humanity didn't reproduce during peak reproductive years, we could solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately, capitalism encourages breeding. It wants the growth model to continue unabated, with minor adjustments to prevent inflation. It doesn't want there to be fewer humans, it wants there to be more so that the economic agriculture of harvesting human life and product can continue to enrich a select few.

People don't want to hear about how their micro level choices have macro impacts across aggregates. Even those who are willing to hear are not really implementing proper solutions. For example it has taken the better part of 40 years to introduce recycling programs into the U.S. and Canada. Now, the recycling depots are maxed out and we are sending recycling straight to land fills. People are still recycling thinking that it makes a difference because this behaviour has been installed into society. It took 40 years to instill this one behaviour, and now the behaviour is virtually worthless.

I think we are doomed, honestly. Humanity only changes when there is calamity. My main fear is that an ecological calamity may not be recoverable and it's really unfortunate that countless threatened species have to bear the burden of our hard learned lessons. Other than depopulation, I think the best thing we could do is find the names and addresses of the people running the show and form a mob to throw them into some bottomless pit somewhere. These psychopaths are to blame for virtually all of our problems, and they are mostly baby boomer leeches.
 
Foreigner said:
Other than depopulation, I think the best thing we could do is find the names and addresses of the people running the show and form a mob to throw them into some bottomless pit somewhere. These psychopaths are to blame for virtually all of our problems, and they are mostly baby boomer leeches.
Click to expand...

QFT

I'd actually vote for you if you ever ran I swear down.
 
Zopiclone bandit said:
That guy really changed the way I view people, the planet, the way we raise animals for food, people in Africia, Global aid for disaster zones etc etc but I get the feeling you know his works equal or maybe even better than I do as sadly I cannot speak or read Finnish but I have many PDF's from forums that have been do into English & a book of his too.

I admit the message he puts over to some folks will be brutal but his true in what he says, he talks the talk & walks the walk. The people in Finalnd seem to love him too.
Click to expand...

I know at least two Finnish movies or TV series where the story and the main character have been inspired by Linkola. Not many take all his ideas seriously, though.
 
polymath said:
I know at least two Finnish movies or TV series where the story and the main character have been inspired by Linkola. Not many take all his ideas seriously, though.
Click to expand...

His words on the German Baader–Meinhof group didn't sit well with me & some of his ideas I find a bit mad but I would say a good 90% of what I have read I agree with. The BBC in England would never dare to show stuff like YLE TV does sadly.

It never fails to make me laugh those that are new to his views & hear him for the first time always say the same thing "Why doesn't he kill himself first?" & I always reply with his famous quote "If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die."
 
I think the problem is how to, in one way or another, produce people who don't feel a need to consume large amounts of material goods to be "happy". It's not going to be possible without technology, anyway, so bringing the world back to stone age or medieval times wouldn't have any lasting effect.
 
polymath said:
I think the problem is how to, in one way or another, produce people who don't feel a need to consume large amounts of material goods to be "happy". It's not going to be possible without technology, anyway, so bringing the world back to stone age or medieval times wouldn't have any lasting effect.
Click to expand...

Technology doesn't solve the underlying social problem. If humans aren't willing to alter their behaviour, then the technology just leads to a general systems collapse. General systems collapse theory is one theory behind the Bronze Age Collapse. Other than right now, the pre-Bronze Collapse period was the most advanced period in the west. Every new complicated system used to maintain a high standard society requires more cost and complicated mechanisms to maintain, and once the society is reliant on those complex systems, you can't downgrade. So the general systems continue escalating until the whole thing implodes in on itself. Usually a single variable, like a new type of war, a famine, or one really bad year is all it takes to cause a devastating fracture.

Aside from the generalized greed of consumerism, people don't fully comprehend how much maintenance and constant resources are required just to passively maintain our static infrastructure; and the growth model wants to keep pushing us to add and add and add when there is no evidence that this is sustainable. Everyone just assumes we'll keep innovating technology so we can keep adding, but the problem isn't technological, it's social. We cap growth by controlling our behaviours, not by making new fancy tech.

This isn't the first time in history when humans had a relatively high technology society for their historical era. It has happened before and if the society does not use its technology to pursue enlightenment, then the tech just becomes a great amplifier for dysfunction that leads to civilization decay.

And now because of technology, we have made the social problems global. Most countries are consumer capitalist now. There is not enough economic diversity to stave off a calamity. If the current system fails then it will likely fail everywhere because there will be no reserve pockets of alternative economy to cushion the blow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top