Are Kids Necessary? (prob. controversial)

[Amadeus]

Asking why people are motivated to have kids would be like asking why does the Earth keep rotating around the sun. It is in every fiber of human nature to multiply. Some (very few) don't have this desire. Maybe they can evolve the human race in other ways without having kids.

I'm speaking as a dad that just had a baby girl 3 months ago. Let me tell you, nothing and I mean nothing, compares the love that you have for your own child. There is no other joy I have experienced in my life than holding her and taking care of her. I don't care if it will cost me $300,000 to raise her because I wouldn't take a billion for her. All this love I have for her didn't come on the first day she was born. Everyday that goes by I fall more in love with her. You would too if you had one!

Secondly, people like sex too darn much. 1 in 3 kids in the US are born out of wedlock now. People will continue to have planned and unplanned babies.

Why do people say the world is overpopulated. There is no such thing. If the world was overpopulated than millions of people would be dying because the World would not be generating enough food. You can fit all the people of the World in the state of Texas and it would only be as dense as NY city. The World is rich in resources and we have only tapped into a pea's worth of it. We can drill twice as much oil than 50 years ago because of technology. We will be able to drill 10 times more in another 50 years. However, we will not need to because of better energy sources. Global warning is happening but not in large part because of man but because of nature. Volcanos cause more polution than man has every thought to cause.

Earth is a dying planet just because it is in nature (man, stars, etc.) for everything to have a beginning and an end. We will probably be able to commute off Earth in another few hundred years and have access to a myriad of more resources...........and life goes on, with kids.

[Angela]

Congratulations, Amadeus, on your new daughter. She's lucky to have a parent who loves her so thoroughly!

I thought your two statements were interesting: that to procreate is in every fiber of human nature (with a very few exceptions), and that people like sex too darn much! I recognize that lust and baby urge are not the same thing, but in this case you'll have to take the good with the bad, since both drives are pretty much hard-wired (again, with those exceptions).

I myself have way too darn much of one urge, and not much of the other.

[Amadeus]

Unfortunately, most women feel the same way you do. Lol

[Angela]

You sure you know which urge I'm talking about?

[Hsiang-Lin]

Hi Amadeus,

My question wasn't why are people motivated to have kids. Rather, it's why SHOULD people have kids? So far, I've seen several perspectives, but I haven't found one that really clicks with me.

Also, to clarify, by overpopulation I meant limiting resources. I'd be hard pressed to believe that we have an overabundance of resources on this Earth and that we have no need to worry about it. I'm also thinking about future generations and not just within my lifetime. Yes, I can imagine we'd still be doing well within my lifetime if we were to ignore our usage of resources, but certainly generations down the line will feel the impact at some point.

Heck, I know I'm programmed to mate and spread my genes. I already KNOW I can do it, if I want to. Yet, I'm not ready to just accept that I HAVE to do it just because my body wants to. I understand the logical, scientific, and loving aspects of creating babies. What I'm looking for is the spiritual aspect.

[belugagirl]

KevinG, my reason for posting was partly to come to the defense of Hsiang-Lin, whose comments I believe you took to mean something that I do not think they were intended to mean (correct me if I'm wrong, Hsiang-Lin). In your reply you said that you can't reason with such a person. On the contrary, I believe Hsiang-Lin is questioning and exploring ideas in a way that demonstrates that she is very much a reasoning person--and furthermore can use multiple ways of reasoning. You may disagree and believe there is only one kind of "logic." If that's so, allow me to rephrase: Hsiang-Lin in this thread has applied the rules of logic to different sets of assumptions in order to produce, for all our consideration, differing possible viewpoints. To suggest that she is not right in the head because she is questioning something from an unusual point of view (such as questioning the impact of terrorism from an evolutionary point of view) inhibits discussion of some interesting ideas. Questioning our assumptions that we base many of our beliefs on (such as the assumption that humans are innately more valuable than animals) is healthy. It doesn't mean that we outright reject those assumptions, just that we can take a step back long enough to examine them. This can help us all avoid the blind spots we might otherwise be prone to.

My other reason for critiquing some things that you've posted recently is that I found them to be more ad-hominem attack than logical argument, and I'd like to see discussion stay on the up-and-up here. Hasty conclusions (such as assuming that because Hsiang-Lin questioned the Really Big Picture impact of terrorism that she is a "liberal," and concluding that "liberalism" is a mental disorder) I believe degrades the quality of discussion.

I'm not implying that you are not capable of reason, or that you're not a reasoning person. I'm not saying anything about _you_ or your abilities at all. I'm merely voicing my belief that some of the _statements_ that you had recently made were counterproductive to the discussion--and reflective of a type of statement that I find counterproductive to public discourse generally. Liberals are __________! Conservatives are ____________! Muslims are the problem! Such overgeneralizations push people apart.

I believe that what Hsiang-Lin was getting at is that _from a planetary or an evolutionary perspective_ death by terrorism is not all that different from death by plague, or cancer, or whatever. I don't think she implied that terrorism doesn't matter to her or to us or to humans. I think she was implying that it doesn't make much difference to the planet or the ecosystem. Since the discussion began with her questioning what the effect of having children would be on the state of the environment (including its potential to produce enough food for the remaining humans), looking at terrorism from a similar perspective (its effect on the environment via depopulation) or re-examining the nature of the difference between innocent humans being killed and innocent animals being killed--is consistent with the type of questioning going on here.

Of course--and she even stated this immediately after raising the hypothetical evolutionary point of view in the post in question--she does not espouse this view (I believe she phrased it "take that perspective to heart"). Similarly, my failure to criticize terrorists in my post does not imply that I do not have anything to criticize about terrorism, but simply that it was not the purpose of my post. The point of my post was to discourage you or others from engaging in statements that have a merely divisive effect or that encourage pigeonholing or overgeneralizations.

I am definitely interested in you "show[ing] everyone why their views are absolutely dangerous and completely out of line," as you put it in your post. However, your urging Hsiang-Lin to seek counseling for her liberal "mental disorder" is not "showing why" anything. It's just name-calling. I find these forums so interesting and worthwhile--usually at a much higher level of reasoning than other blogs and forums that I've read--that I'd like to see it stay that way and not stoop to the label-hurling and stereotyping that pervades much of the discourse on the internet. I do not think that the posts of yours I criticized go quite that far, but they were gesturing in that direction. Thus, I am urging you to shift course a bit, back to the making points and giving reasons for them that you were doing earlier in this thread.

I would particularly be interested in hearing your reasons why, as you say, you "don't list terrorists as the problem, [but] list Islam and the Muslim culture as a problem." This is the other statement I was referring to when I wrote that your comments had "attacked groups." Without you explaining your reasons for this statement, it seems to me that this is an example of the type of religious prejudice that serves to increase hatred and mistrust between groups of people. That is what _I_ find absolutely dangerous and out of line. Please do explain your reasons. What specifically is it about Islam and Muslim cuture that is a problem? Such an answer would be very productive because I'm sure many of us have wondered about it. I'm sure we've all wondered if it just _happens_ to be _Muslim_ extremists that are so visible _right now_ in history, or whether there is something about Islam that lends itself to being twisted or exaggerated. We know that Christianity has been twisted and exaggerated, too, and to very destructive ends (Crusades, Inquisition, witch trials, KKK, people who protest at the funerals of soldiers saying they deserved to die because they fight for a country that "supports the homosexual agenda"). Why is it _Islam_ that is a problem and not, say, extremist religiosity, or the corruption of religion in order to maintain power over others?

As I understand it, it is not Islam that endorses terrorist violence, but extremist perversions of Islam. Islamic terrorists, in my view, are no more representative of Islam generally than members of the KKK are representative of Christianity. I'm interested to know why you would, apparently, disagree. I'll be watching for your reply.

[b5fish]

Originally Posted by KevinG

If you were driving down a two lane freeway with cement medians on both sides and a baby was laying in the road in the lane you were driving in, and a hedgehog was sitting in the other lane, would you swerve to protect the baby, killing the hedgehog, or would you stay in your lane and kill the baby, sparing the hedgehog?

Doesn't your car have brakes?

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by b5fish

Doesn't your car have brakes?

If you're going to waste our time, please include a disclaimer.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by belugagirl

KevinG, my reason for posting was partly to come to the defense of Hsiang-Lin, whose comments I believe you took to mean something that I do not think they were intended to mean (correct me if I'm wrong, Hsiang-Lin). In your reply you said that you can't reason with such a person. On the contrary, I believe Hsiang-Lin is questioning and exploring ideas in a way that demonstrates that she is very much a reasoning person--and furthermore can use multiple ways of reasoning. You may disagree and believe there is only one kind of "logic." If that's so, allow me to rephrase: Hsiang-Lin in this thread has applied the rules of logic to different sets of assumptions in order to produce, for all our consideration, differing possible viewpoints. To suggest that she is not right in the head because she is questioning something from an unusual point of view (such as questioning the impact of terrorism from an evolutionary point of view) inhibits discussion of some interesting ideas. Questioning our assumptions that we base many of our beliefs on (such as the assumption that humans are innately more valuable than animals) is healthy. It doesn't mean that we outright reject those assumptions, just that we can take a step back long enough to examine them. This can help us all avoid the blind spots we might otherwise be prone to.

Suggesting that death from terrorism is meaningless and should be overlooked is fundamentally dishonest. There is no other logic. If your parents died on 9/11 you wouldn't share the same view; so you are taking a position of grandiosity and a lack of empathy.

My other reason for critiquing some things that you've posted recently is that I found them to be more ad-hominem attack than logical argument, and I'd like to see discussion stay on the up-and-up here. Hasty conclusions (such as assuming that because Hsiang-Lin questioned the Really Big Picture impact of terrorism that she is a "liberal," and concluding that "liberalism" is a mental disorder) I believe degrades the quality of discussion.

I am not in control of your feelings. I felt that I made a valid point based on what was said. Nothing of what I say is an attack, it is simply an observation based on the information I'm given. If you don't want to be observed as a rat you shouldn't be running in the wheel. Make sense?

I'm not implying that you are not capable of reason, or that you're not a reasoning person. I'm not saying anything about _you_ or your abilities at all. I'm merely voicing my belief that some of the _statements_ that you had recently made were counterproductive to the discussion--and reflective of a type of statement that I find counterproductive to public discourse generally. Liberals are __________! Conservatives are ____________! Muslims are the problem! Such overgeneralizations push people apart.

Labels help organize people. You have to speak in generalized terms most of the time because no one description can cover every single person or situation. It is a given that when I say something based on a large group that I am speaking in general terms and that I don't intend it to mean "all." If we tried to comment on every specific individuals characteristics we'd be wasting our time.

I believe that what Hsiang-Lin was getting at is that _from a planetary or an evolutionary perspective_ death by terrorism is not all that different from death by plague, or cancer, or whatever.

It most certainly is and there is no denying it. Plague and cancer are both something you either catch or develop. Terrorism is an action done to you. They are worlds apart. Saying they are not all that different from each other is like saying 2 - 2 is not zero.

I don't think she implied that terrorism doesn't matter to her or to us or to humans. I think she was implying that it doesn't make much difference to the planet or the ecosystem. Since the discussion began with her questioning what the effect of having children would be on the state of the environment (including its potential to produce enough food for the remaining humans), looking at terrorism from a similar perspective (its effect on the environment via depopulation) or re-examining the nature of the difference between innocent humans being killed and innocent animals being killed--is consistent with the type of questioning going on here.

Of course--and she even stated this immediately after raising the hypothetical evolutionary point of view in the post in question--she does not espouse this view (I believe she phrased it "take that perspective to heart"). Similarly, my failure to criticize terrorists in my post does not imply that I do not have anything to criticize about terrorism, but simply that it was not the purpose of my post. The point of my post was to discourage you or others from engaging in statements that have a merely divisive effect or that encourage pigeonholing or overgeneralizations.

I am definitely interested in you "show[ing] everyone why their views are absolutely dangerous and completely out of line," as you put it in your post. However, your urging Hsiang-Lin to seek counseling for her liberal "mental disorder" is not "showing why" anything.

I didn't urge her to seek counseling for being a liberal. I urged her to seek counseling for making the comment that dying by terrorism is not a big deal because everyone eventually dies anyway. That is a strong clue to abnormal psychological behavior.

It's just name-calling. I find these forums so interesting and worthwhile--usually at a much higher level of reasoning than other blogs and forums that I've read--that I'd like to see it stay that way and not stoop to the label-hurling and stereotyping that pervades much of the discourse on the internet. I do not think that the posts of yours I criticized go quite that far, but they were gesturing in that direction. Thus, I am urging you to shift course a bit, back to the making points and giving reasons for them that you were doing earlier in this thread.

I would particularly be interested in hearing your reasons why, as you say, you "don't list terrorists as the problem, [but] list Islam and the Muslim culture as a problem." This is the other statement I was referring to when I wrote that your comments had "attacked groups." Without you explaining your reasons for this statement, it seems to me that this is an example of the type of religious prejudice that serves to increase hatred and mistrust between groups of people. That is what _I_ find absolutely dangerous and out of line. Please do explain your reasons. What specifically is it about Islam and Muslim cuture that is a problem? Such an answer would be very productive because I'm sure many of us have wondered about it. I'm sure we've all wondered if it just _happens_ to be _Muslim_ extremists that are so visible _right now_ in history, or whether there is something about Islam that lends itself to being twisted or exaggerated. We know that Christianity has been twisted and exaggerated, too, and to very destructive ends (Crusades, Inquisition, witch trials, KKK, people who protest at the funerals of soldiers saying they deserved to die because they fight for a country that "supports the homosexual agenda"). Why is it _Islam_ that is a problem and not, say, extremist religiosity, or the corruption of religion in order to maintain power over others?

As I understand it, it is not Islam that endorses terrorist violence, but extremist perversions of Islam. Islamic terrorists, in my view, are no more representative of Islam generally than members of the KKK are representative of Christianity. I'm interested to know why you would, apparently, disagree. I'll be watching for your reply.

Ok. Let me explain it to you.

1. You mentioned the crusades and religious extremism being present in all religions. You are correct. However, this does not describe Islam. Islamic terrorists are not "extremists" they are "fundamentalists." The Koran calls for the conversion of all non-Muslims and those who do not convert are to be killed. You can read it yourself.

2. Islam is inherently dangerous and violent. The Koran promotes violence against everyone who is non-Muslim and not a believer in Allah, especially Christians and Jews.

3. Islam is the only religion that currently trains terrorists, runs countries that fund terrorism world wide, and teaches children to hate Christians and Jews during religious studies.

4. In the last fifty years, no major organized terrorist attacks have been carried out by non-Muslims anywhere in the world. Whether they are blowing up our buildings, flying planes into our towers, blowing themselves up in market places, shooting children in the back, or attacking our embassies, 99% of every terrorist attack in the world has ties to Islam.

5. Islam is the only religion that has a call to holy war. No other religion has anything equal to the "jihad."

6. The Koran claims that Islam's "end of days" will not take place until everyone on Earth is converted to Islam. If you put 2 and 2 together you will see that the Koran calls for all non-Muslims to be converted and those who do not convert shall be killed. What does this lead us to?

Do I need to continue?

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by KevinG

Panda...

I don't feel you are being intellectually honest with yourself and therefore there is nothing I can do to help you understand reality.

I'd rather spend my time debating with people who stop to think before they speak.

Kevin, actually I am thinking before I speak. And I'm posting perfectly sound refutations of your arguments. As a working research biologist, I have a pretty good grasp of what evolution and natural selection are, and are not, about.

What you're doing, and it's a pretty common mistake, is confusing your opinions with reality. You're also resorting to that other common tactic of using ad hominem attacks as a distraction to avoid addressing the substance of someone elses argument.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence though.

[daisylover26]

Originally Posted by KevinG

4. In the last fifty years, no major organized terrorist attacks have been carried out by non-Muslims anywhere in the world. Whether they are blowing up our buildings, flying planes into our towers, blowing themselves up in market places, shooting children in the back, or attacking our embassies, 99% of every terrorist attack in the world has ties to Islam.

Kevin, I have to disagree with the above statement. What about the terrorist activities of Northern Ireland? What about other localized (and less publicized) terrorist groups that act out in countries all around the world? Many such groups exist in various parts of Africa and they have nothing to do with Islam. I'll concede that perhaps a large percentage of terrorists groups are tied to Islam. But, I think to say that "99% of every terrorist attack in the world has ties to Islam", is an overstatement.

[Amadeus]

Islam is not a religion of peace.

[4] Generally speaking, the classic jihad policy involves giving non-Muslims a choice: (1) convert to Islam, or else (2) remain a non-Muslim but become a (subjugated) dhimmi and pay the jizya "protection" tax to the Muslim authorities, or else (3) be put to death. The chief basis for this policy is most clearly captured in verses 9:5 and 9:29:

9:5: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 132 wrote that captive non-Muslim non-combatants, including women and children, could be executed if they merely engaged in verbal or written opposition to Islam:

"As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims."

5:33 "The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..."
See Ibn Kathir's tafsir of 5:33 here: Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."

Let's try verse 9:111 - "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain."

Let's start with verse 4:74 - "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whoever fights for the cause of Allah, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We shall bestow a rich recompense."

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by daisylover26

Kevin, I have to disagree with the above statement. What about the terrorist activities of Northern Ireland? What about other localized (and less publicized) terrorist groups that act out in countries all around the world? Many such groups exist in various parts of Africa and they have nothing to do with Islam. I'll concede that perhaps a large percentage of terrorists groups are tied to Islam. But, I think to say that "99% of every terrorist attack in the world has ties to Islam", is an overstatement.

I said organized terrorist attacks. Not simply terrorist activities.

Name one ORGANIZED terrorist attack by a group of people in the last 50 years that was not perpetrated in the name of Islam.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Islam is not a religion of peace.

[4] Generally speaking, the classic jihad policy involves giving non-Muslims a choice: (1) convert to Islam, or else (2) remain a non-Muslim but become a (subjugated) dhimmi and pay the jizya "protection" tax to the Muslim authorities, or else (3) be put to death. The chief basis for this policy is most clearly captured in verses 9:5 and 9:29:

9:5: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 132 wrote that captive non-Muslim non-combatants, including women and children, could be executed if they merely engaged in verbal or written opposition to Islam:

"As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims."

5:33 "The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..."
See Ibn Kathir's tafsir of 5:33 here: Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."

Let's try verse 9:111 - "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain."

Let's start with verse 4:74 - "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whoever fights for the cause of Allah, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We shall bestow a rich recompense."

Great post. I thought about going to dig all those up but it was already 2 AM and I was falling asleep writing my response.

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by daisylover26

Kevin, I have to disagree with the above statement. What about the terrorist activities of Northern Ireland? What about other localized (and less publicized) terrorist groups that act out in countries all around the world? Many such groups exist in various parts of Africa and they have nothing to do with Islam. I'll concede that perhaps a large percentage of terrorists groups are tied to Islam. But, I think to say that "99% of every terrorist attack in the world has ties to Islam", is an overstatement.

To expand on that (with 5 minutes' research):
List of terrorist organisations

[RedPanda]

The Munich Massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972

Muslims

The October 1984 bombing in Brighton, England, by the PIRA in an unsuccessful but lethal attempt to kill then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Not a major terrorist attack.

The June 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182 originating from Canada

The arrest of Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik on Friday caps a 15 year investigation, described as the most expensive and most complicated criminal investigation ever undertaken by Canadian police.

You say those aren't Muslims?

The Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland (August 15, 1998)

This was during a war between factions, not a planned terrorist attack against a certain country.

The August 31 – September 22: Russian Apartment Bombings

Lol. Who was responsible? Chechen seperatists. Chechens are Sunni Muslims.

The Passover Massacre on March 27, 2002 in Netanya, Israel

Hamas claimed responsibility for this attack. Hamas is a Muslim group.

The Moscow theatre siege and the Beslan school siege in Russia

Again, Muslims were the perpetrators at the Beslan school in Russia and the Moscow Theater Seige. Why are you making this so easy?

That do you? To save time, yes, I'm including attacks committed by Muslims which were not in the name of Islam.

All Muslim attacks are in the name of Islam. They are killing infidels which the Koran calls on them to do.

[belugagirl]

KevinG, thanks for the detailed response! That's what I was looking for: a discussion with some reasons attached to it that we can all consider. I'm going to mull over what you (and Amadeus) have said and do a little looking into those issues. I'll get back to you on what I find and my thoughts about your arguments.

[Hsiang-Lin]

Hey everyone,

Sounds like the discussion is going off-topic and I need time to do some research and thinking on my own about the original topic. There is already a wealth of information in this thread and I feel my time can be better spent organizing my thoughts for now.

But thanks to everyone for contributing. It's really opened my eyes to new perspectives. Best

[belugagirl]

You're right, Hsiang-Lin, we have drifted quite a way from the original topic here. KevinG, Amadeus, and others interested in taking up the discussion of Islam/Terrorism, shall we begin a new thread? This is an important issue, and I would very much like to continue "comparing notes" on it. I still think it belongs in this forum, under the principle of "changing the world," but if it gets its own thread, we can get other interested/knowledgeable people in on it who otherwise might not get this far down the "Kids" thread. I don't know how to start a new thread. KevinG, would you be so kind . . .?