Are Kids Necessary? (prob. controversial)

[Hsiang-Lin]

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking lately: do we really need to have kids? Most people would prob. say yes and I never really questioned it myself before either. I just assumed it was something I would eventually do.

But why do most people want to have children? I think the most common answer is to preserve the family name, genetics, or legacy. I took that further and thought, "Why do we need to preserve such things if we can just adopt?" We can still preserve the family name and legacy through adoption. But some people may argue it's not a true bloodline. But is a bloodline all that important? And then I thought, "If everyone thinks kids are unnecessary, then we would have no Einsteins, Edisons, etc. and no great discoveries, inventions, and achievements."

But all these great achievements are indeed great WITHIN the context of the human species. But how are they great within the context of other species? I'm sure a lot of animals and other species in the rainforests don't take too kindly to our intrusion on their environment. Then I got to thinking, "Is there really some higher reason for purporting the human species rather than other species?" Why do we deserve to live on while other animal species must live under our control or dictations?

Also, problems such as world hunger and competition I think to a high degree are affected by the individual's need and hunger to survive and replicate. Without kids, we would no longer have the problem of overpopulation, world hunger, and limited resources. Ultimately, we may just simply die out as a species. Now is that REALLY that bad? I mean this seriously.

I'm not here to instigate controvery or anything, but it is something that I've thought seriously about and would like to get more perspectives. What I learn I know will play a big part in whether I have kids or not Thanks for reading!

[daringd]

Great post, Hsiang-Lin. :-)
You've covered the Yin and the Yang ....

Though I've no child on my own and definitely don't plan to have one too but I always believe there are always 2 sides of the coin. 2 polarities of earth and 2 ways you can go about in perceiving certain situations.

I believe there won't be a right/wrong answer to answer the question whether kids are necessary or not. Because when you go to either side, they'll always be right depends on who answered it.

But I definitely agree with you that the reason why people have kids can be pretty amusing. Coming from a small town myself, for those of my friends who didn't further their studies, their days are counted down to a few events in life, such as:
- Dating
- Marrying someone
- Having kids
- Sending kids to good school
- Kids are dating
- Kids are marrying someone
- etc etc etc .... vicious cycle
and when one doesn't have kids, you'll be rest assured gossips will start flying around like flies.

Then now I'm back to Singapore (big city, modernized ,etc), and I met one of my friend who's quite successful financially. She's married for 2 years, 28 yrs old now. She said she plans to have kids next year and also asked why do people need to have kids. Then she answered her own question by saying,"but it'll be so funny if you don't have kids". I asked,"says who?". She said,"well, it's just funny if you are married and don't have kids."

I guess whether you have or don't have kids. Just make sure it's your own decision and conscience say so. Don't blame it to the surroundings or peer pressure because kids deserve a better reason to live in this earth than just to save one's face.

[Baltar]

Great posts, both of you! My own take on this issue is that whether you should have kids depends on why you want to have kids. Having kids for the sake of having kids is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's a huge responsibility that many people take too lightly. I think the reason so many people end up with various psychological problems as they grow up is because their parents do a lousy job raising them. A child's brain forms neural connections very rapidly, and damage done at an early age can have profound effects later in life (yelling at kids, telling them they're stupid, calling them names, physical punishment, etc.). I'm guessing that many parents don't read about child psychology and parenting, and have no idea how to properly take care of children.

[Trina]

I have a few ideas. I think it differs depending on the person and the situation, but I have a lot of friends with children and come from a very big family and these are the major reasons I have noticed.

One reason people have children is because they are irresponsible. LOL. They don't consciously decide to have a child as much as they consciously decide not to terminate a pregnancy after it has happened. At least half of my friends had their first children on accident. Be it irresponsible behavior or faulty birth control, they didn't set out intending to have children, but once they were faced with the choice to either have a child that was already there or terminate a pregnancy, they chose to have the child.

Another reason is to give life meaning. Having children makes a lot of people feel important. Like they have created something extraordinary and completely unique. Like they have made a profound difference in the world and to others lives. Having children puts life into a context that wouldn't be there without them. Without children (having them and being one), the world would be only what you experience during your lifetime. With them, life is everything before and after your lifetime as well. It gives life continuance and significance.

I think the more important question people should ask is "Why do I want to have kids?" Maybe if more people would ask that, then more kids would be born into loving homes instead of the abusive and unhealthy homes they are born into now.

[Josip]

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Without kids, we would no longer have the problem of overpopulation, world hunger, and limited resources. Ultimately, we may just simply die out as a species. Now is that REALLY that bad? I mean this seriously.

You also can simply kill yourself and you will be without problems at all.

[Alvin]

Originally Posted by Josip

You also can simply kill yourself and you will be without problems at all.

Tsk, that was uncalled for, don't you think?

The population explosion is a real problem that we'll all be dealing with in the decades to come (unless Josip you take your own advice ). I for one can see Hsiang-Lin's point although I wouldn't take it to the extreme that no-one should have kids, but I've long decided I wouldn't contribute to the straining of our natural resources.

In the end, I believe it's a personal choice.

[Josip]

Originally Posted by Alvin

Tsk, that was uncalled for, don't you think?

I think it is logical response for this kind of subject. The suggested solution for disease (world hunger) is killing of patient (human species). I think it is absurd, and just asked does he want to implement the same logic on himself and remove all possible current and future problems.

Originally Posted by Alvin

The population explosion is a real problem that we'll all be dealing with in the decades to come

There is enough food in the world and enough resources.

The reason because in some parts (e.g. Africa) people are hungry is politics.

Originally Posted by Alvin

In the end, I believe it's a personal choice.

Personal choice is on personal level. But, on evolution level all stupid choices simply DIE OUT.

[SamBeaven]

I kind of agree with Josip on this, in that it's not a matter of wider politics or nature - I feel it depends on personal choice. I do think there's an unfair level of social pressure on people to have kids, implications running throughout society that if you have kids you're going to die old and lonely, that you need to reproduce to sustain and complete yourself. It's a cultural issue more than anything else.

I'm not planning on having kids. Not because of any issues with regards to the world economy or the future of humanity - even if the Earth were to get overpopulated, we could easily colonise other planets, the oceans, what have you. I just don't particularly like kids, and get the feeling of completeness I need from writing and creating. That's my legacy, not whatever sprogs I'm indirectly responsible for birthing.

[daisylover26]

As others have stated, the answer to this question ultimately depends on who is answering it. I can say that I believe for some people, having children is absolutely not necessary to live a rewarding and happy life. My husband and I are two such people. I have never wanted children, mostly because it's just not a lifestyle that appeals to me. But, that's not to say that I don't like kids. Once they reach a certain age, I love kids. I worked as a teaching assistant in the public school system for five years, I have two nieces that I've helped raise since I was 15 and they were babies. They are now 15 and 13 and it has been a JOY to watch them and help them grow over the years.

From my perspective, there are so many unwanted and ignored children all around the world, you can actively be a part of a child's life without having to create another one. And for me personally, I subscribe to the "take care of what's already here" philosphy. Don't get me wrong, I don't fault someone for wanting or having their own child, but I have seen so many that just go into parenthood blindly or not on purpose and I do think that's kind of a shame because it doesn't always "work itself out".

I'm only in my twenties, but because I have spent so much time working with children, few people question my choice not to have any of my own. Occasionally I'll get the "Oh, you'll change your mind" or "You'd be such a great mother" or "It's different with your own kids", but for the most part, people leave me alone IMO, if you're questioning whether or not you want kids, I would take that as a sign that you shouldn't have them (at least for now). My mom always said with her it was a burning desire to have children, no question. I've known others the same way. It's such a huge, serious, lifelong committment and I think until you know without a doubt, you should hold off. I would also advise someone considering parenthood to spend some time around kids. Volunteer at a school, become a Big Brother/Sister, hang out with nieces/nephews, etc.

Good luck with this. I know it's a tough, personal decision, but I applaud you for giving it thought before jumping in.

[daisylover26]

One other thing I forgot to add RE: importance of bloodline. Some people are real hung up on "blood" relations and, again, it's a personal thing I guess. But I think family is 100% what you make it and where you find it. My nieces that I spoke of in my other post are technically my step-nieces. But I am closer to them than any of their blood aunts on either side. They are more my family than some of my blood relatives. I think of my closest friends as family. My grandmother raised 8 children, two of which were her stepchildren. She and my grandfather divorced when those two children were toddlers and SHE was the one that got custody of them and raised them as her own. Love doesn't discriminate; people do. Having a "blood" child does not guarantee that they will carry on your legacy anymore than having an adopted child means they won't.

[Hsiang-Lin]

Hey everyone,

Thanks for all your input! Josip, I think my kids will love you more than me once they know about this thread

But seriously, what you say indeed makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It's obvious isn't it? Why would you want the extinction of your own species? Just live life happy and make kids and ensure them happy lives.

But what about other species or animals? Why do we deserve to live more than they do? I'm not saying I want to commit suicide. Far from it. But it just doesn't make sense to me why humans deserve to live more than other animals on the planet. I'm not saying there ISN'T a reason. There may possible well be. But that's why I started this thread to see if I can find a pointer

And all the major problems in the world seem to stem from scarce resources and competition of some form. Without kids and if we just ensured the balance and stability of our current population, we could essentially die out in peace and allow the other animals to live out their lives.

I think that is the power of human consciousness. It is hard for me to imagine any other species capable of wiping themselves out consciously. AGAIN, let me emphasize this is NOT what I want. It is something that I am asking, why not? Also, I think all this stems down to one point: Why is human life more valuable than any other life?

Again, thanks for all your input and I'm happy to see people are questioning this belief too. Take care!

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

But what about other species or animals? Why do we deserve to live more than they do? I'm not saying I want to commit suicide. Far from it. But it just doesn't make sense to me why humans deserve to live more than other animals on the planet. I'm not saying there ISN'T a reason. There may possible well be. But that's why I started this thread to see if I can find a pointer

If you're religious, it's because we were created in the image of god.

If your an evolutionist, it's because we are the most well adapted species for our environment - survival of the fittest.

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by Radical

If your an evolutionist, it's because we are the most well adapted species for our environment - survival of the fittest.

What about choice on top of that? Should we, because we know what 'choice' is and have the ability to choose, be so selfish as to choose ourselves so strongly outright over the other species on the planet we all share? If we were to take it all over and destroy it, would we not be viruses?

What's the purpose of a virus? (please explain!)

[Mused]

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

...But what about other species or animals? Why do we deserve to live more than they do? I'm not saying I want to commit suicide. Far from it. But it just doesn't make sense to me why humans deserve to live more than other animals on the planet. I'm not saying there ISN'T a reason. There may possible well be. But that's why I started this thread to see if I can find a pointer

And all the major problems in the world seem to stem from scarce resources and competition of some form. Without kids and if we just ensured the balance and stability of our current population, we could essentially die out in peace and allow the other animals to live out their lives.

I think that is the power of human consciousness. It is hard for me to imagine any other species capable of wiping themselves out consciously. AGAIN, let me emphasize this is NOT what I want. It is something that I am asking, why not? Also, I think all this stems down to one point: Why is human life more valuable than any other life?

Again, thanks for all your input and I'm happy to see people are questioning this belief too. Take care!

I think most peole are of the mindset that human life is "more important" than other life whether or not they want to be. Maybe it's a survival thing embedded deep into our genes. The human population definitely makes quite an impact on the planet. I think most people would argue that a human life is far more capabable and intelligent than a animal life therefore they are simply "worth" more. Capable being the ability to make, produce, invent things etc. Humans can adapt better to different environments and/or change that environment to make it liveable. Can one be human and truly appreciate other life without thinking we're better? I'm sure a lot of use would like to hope we are not of the mindset that we are better than other species therefore have more right to exist. However, when it comes down to it, if you had to make a choice between saving a human and an animal which would you choose?

[Radical]

Virus or not, we are the fittest. It's not a question of whether we deserve our dominance or not, evolution selected us.

[elainevdw]

It's funny that you bring this up. I was considering bringing up something similar myself.

Formerly called Zero Population Growth, an organization called People Connection advocates family planning to reduce overpopulation, helping the wellbeing of the environment, women, and children. I think they used to preach one kid per person, so that our population wouldn't go up -- it would either stay steady or start to decrease.

A little more fun is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It's a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.

We don't carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.

Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth's ecology.

As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Mother Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons. Good health will be restored to the Earth's ecology... to the "life form" known by many as Gaia.

For some really hilarious answers to "Why have children?" check out the table of reasons and disputes here. Some examples:

Reasons given: I can't help it, it's a biological urge.
Real reasons: Unexamined motivations.
Suggested alternatives: Institutions await those who can't control their biological urges.

Reasons given: Pregnancy and childbirth are life experiences.
Real reasons: Life choices limited by social indoctrination.
Suggested alternatives: Rent pregnancy simulator. Choose different life experiences.

Reasons given: God wants us to.
Real reasons: Mindless obedience to dogma peddlers who want larger flocks.
Suggested alternatives: Seek true nature of God, whatever you perceive God to be.

Reasons given: Want a child with our bloodline.
Real reasons: Ego extention. Racial identity.
Suggested alternatives: Recognize value of people with different genetic makeups.

Reasons given: I have superior human genes.
Real reasons: Doesn't recognize an oxymoron. Megalomania.
Suggested alternatives: Do great things with your genes, rather than expecting the next cultured batch to do it.

[Hsiang-Lin]

Great ideas people.

We as humans certainly do have an evolutionary advantage over all other species (well, those within our knowledge and our planet). Indeed, the gap in evolutionary intelligence and advancement is too wide to ignore.

But an interesting case bears consideration. What about retarded people or those with mental disabilities? Do they deserve less right to live than we do? If survival of the fittest is all that matters, then wouldn't that mean we can exterminate all those who are mentally handicapped?

If it came down to me having to choose between the life of a human and an animal, I would say follow Steve's podcast about searching for a 3rd alternative! :P But seriously, that's what I'm getting at here. Is there a higher level of thinking that may allow us to approach this binary problem from a more insightful perspective? (instead of just a simple "I'd choose the human/animal! Duh!")

[Hsiang-Lin]

Also, Mused, I think there are people out there who would choose the animal over the human. I can't make you believe that, but there is enough evidence out there that makes me believe that human compassion can truly outgrow that even of his/her own survival.

Also, if I list a specific example then we get into the person's agenda and how he/she is really being selfish in their "act of compassionate suicide." But that's not the point I'm trying to get at.

I believe what WOULD I do does not matter as much as what SHOULD I do. And that's because I espouse the subjective reality model to some degree (you create your own reality). So if you think you WOULD do something, then you're gonna do it! Plain and simple, which leaves almost no room for choice or improvement. Of course, I know that's a generalization and highly debatable, but to get back to the main point of the thread: Why is human life any more valuable than any other life BEYOND just survival and evolutionary reasons?

Also to be totally fair, then we should have more rights than humans who are mentally handicapped because they have less survival skills and are less evolved than we are. That logic just tickles me funny.

[Alban]

Hey everyone, it is an interesting topic here.

I have no kids but let me share my own experience. I come from a family of 5 children (five boys, so i have 4 brothers).
I remember when my parents told me they were going to have a fifth child. I was about 12 years old. It was very uncommon to see a family with so many kids, and that made me feel like my family was different from the other families and that made me ashamed.
I was thinking "oh no, what are they doing, 5 children is too much there is no need for that."
Well now my little brother is 10 year old and I love him. He is really a great kid, he has lots of humour for his age and I like very much spending time with him. Now I can't imagine him not to be here. That is a personnal point of view, but just to say that kids can bring lots of love in a family, and that is a good reason for having kids.

To answer the question of Hsiang-lin,

But why do most people want to have children? I think the most common answer is to preserve the family name, genetics, or legacy. I took that further and thought, "Why do we need to preserve such things if we can just adopt?"

Maybe, people just want kids in order to love them, to give and receive love, even if they are not totally conscious of that. And that is why it is perfectly OK to adopt, because we can love adopted kids as much as natural kids. And this is why having kids just for the sake of having kids is not such a good thing. I mean if people have kids just to do like everyone else it is wrong, because it is not a matter of fashion. (don't know if i am clear, I am not an native english speaker)
I have been thinking also that the love between a mother and her children is a bit like the true LOVE that one can experience towards every beings if he/she is identifiying him/herself with consciouness. I say that because a mum feels that her child is somewhat part of her. They have shared the same "body" and the same food and everything for 9 months before the birth, and that gives a true feeling of connectedness. At least when the kid is young, the mother feels the baby is part of her.
Maybe if they are some mothers here, they can tell us if this feeling exists. (maybe I am just imagining it, I am a boy and have no kids...so I just guess )

and for the other species point of view:

But all these great achievements are indeed great WITHIN the context of the human species. But how are they great within the context of other species? I'm sure a lot of animals and other species in the rainforests don't take too kindly to our intrusion on their environment

Well, maybe it is not a matter of number, but rather of attitude...I am really not sure of that, but couldn't 10 billions of humans live in peace with other species if they were respectful toward them? (for instance if they were all vegetarians or something like that...)

[KevinG]

Interestingly, most humans can't even respect themselves, much less lesser beings.

Along those lines, humans can't even respect one another, much less lesser beings.

I feel that we are wasting our time talking about animals when there are humans dying all around us unnecessarily.

[spiralarchitect]

I'd like to address the issue of "personal choice" here.

Most of us live our lives with the illusion of choice, especially those of us living in democratic countries. But are choices are limited and strongly influenced by the pressures of the social, environmental and cultural systems that we live in. This is the main reason for answers like "well, you just have to have kids" to the question posed in this forum, because we often live our lives simply fulfilling the expectations of our cultural roles. You guys all probably know this, even if you might express it another way, otherwise we all wouldn't be here, right? We're in the process of trying to wake up, to be able to see the infinite choices that we do have. But it's very, very hard. We have to always be imagining a world that we know we can realize, but that doesn't exist yet. The realities of our current situation and current world constantly pressure us into fulfilling our expected roles.

So I agree, that in an ideal world of infinite choice and conscious, empowered individuals, having kids should be a personal choice. The reality, however, is that it is *not* a personal choice. It is influenced by the forces of the systems and environments around us. Compounding the problem is that population size has a real and very serious effect on other people and our planet in general. Most areas of the world with high rates of population growth are environmentally fragile or damaged areas that are as a result poor and not well educated. Poor and uneducated often leads to large family size and a larger population than the available resources can sustain, leading to war and more environmental destruction (e.g. Rwanda, Haiti, Iraq, Indonesia...) . People in these situations, don't so much choose to have large families rather it is the result of environmental pressures (lack of access to education and birth control, the social status and power of women).

On the other hand, we in the "first world", although with much lower rates of population growth (zero or negative in many cases except for places like the US with high rates of immigration from poorer countries) consume far more resources per capita than in poorer countries, so the environmental impact of each person is much greater. Yet we too are largely governed by social and environmental pressures of the systems we live in.

I guess what I'm saying is that simply leaving the question at "it's a personal choice" is not a sustainable solution. I'm not advocating a totalitarian solution where a central authority dictates family size (e.g. China). I think that the solution lies foremost in working for social and economic equality so that people have the opportunities to imagine new choices and secondarily, for those of us who do have choices, to recognize the effect of our "environmental footprint" and limit our families to few or no children or find ways of reducing that footprint for the good of all.

[Hsiang-Lin]

spiralarchitect, I have to say what you said makes a lot of sense. In a way, I see it akin to the "third alternative" to this issue. It's kinda like what Steve has been promoting to solve many of the world's major problems: to raise the consciousness of us all and allow us to approach what seems like binary problems as actually a multifaceted issue.

In the long run, I see this as a valid solution. Also in the short run, we can start applying this mentality to ourselves and improve ourselves as much as we can day by day. Now through a governing perspective, I think they may also take steps towards limiting population growth.

China's tactic may be a little extreme so I suggest a nationwide education of the drastic results of overpopulation. There are already programs and organizations in place, but hopefully it can get even bigger.

Let me set it straight that I have nothing against kids and in fact I think they are cute and cuddly. In fact, I see our awakening process as something similar to training our minds to be like a baby's again where we can learn without the impedance of bias or prejudice. So kids are great! And the mother's love with the child is also something so beautiful that it chokes me up sometimes when I think about it.

However, I wondered to myself, "If we are able to enjoy such motherly love and the happiness of having children, why aren't other animals allowed to do the same?"

KevinG, you may have a point. Perhaps the problem is that not enough people in the world are well-educated and sustained enough to worry about the larger issues in life. From a practical perspective, we would seek first to improve the education of all WHILE at the same time limiting population growth in some way so that we don't have a conflicting growth of educated and non-educated people.

My life is certainly privileged and much better than many people's out there. In the end, I think what Buddha says makes a lot of sense, "Ignorance is the root of all suffering."

So if we educate the underprivileged to self-sustain and give them the necessary resources to climb up in society, ultimately we may start to see a real solution to the issue of population overgrowth. Let's just hope it's not too late by then...

[KevinG]

Hsiang--

How would you go about improving education? Do you feel it is a problem that the government educates children in America?

I think you are correct about the astronomical rate of population growth. It is a major factor in why I support abortion; that and the fact that abortion substantially lowers crime rates.

The three biggest problems in this world that I see are lack of quality parenting, lack of quality education, and organized religion, not in that order.

[Angela]

Very interesting topic. It appears (did you see the Newsweek demographic charts?) that the people who are bearing enough young to grow the species tend to be the ones who are following the tenets of religious belief. The Brights that I know tend to either not procreate or to limit their families to one or two kids. That leads me to believe that the next generations will explode with the "religious gene" and/or a real societal tendency towards organized supernatural belief. It seems to me that the "Supers" are more likely to go the way of mass destruction than those with a naturalistic worldview, so maybe the human race will be reduced or eliminated soon after the next big birth boom. I would be more concerned if I had children, but in general it doesn't look to me like humans have any more importance here than hedgehogs or javelinas.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Angela

Very interesting topic. It appears (did you see the Newsweek demographic charts?) that the people who are bearing enough young to grow the species tend to be the ones who are following the tenets of religious belief. The Brights that I know tend to either not procreate or to limit their families to one or two kids. That leads me to believe that the next generations will explode with the "religious gene" and/or a real societal tendency towards organized supernatural belief. It seems to me that the "Supers" are more likely to go the way of mass destruction than those with a naturalistic worldview, so maybe the human race will be reduced or eliminated soon after the next big birth boom. I would be more concerned if I had children, but in general it doesn't look to me like humans have any more importance here than hedgehogs or javelinas.

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?

[Hsiang-Lin]

Angela, I share that same view. I don't really see how we are more important than any other animal species from an objective point of view. Of course, from a survival and egoistic point of view, I have to admit I'm not ready to die yet and survival is still on my list (although not my overarching life purpose)

It makes sense to me that people would say why not kill yourself if you really believe this is an issue? Until I understand the issue further and can fully accept death, I am still reserving judgment.

KevinG,

As for education of children, I'm not sure I haven't really thought much about it. I don't think governmental education is a bad thing and in fact, I think the education system is good in the sense that it forces us to discipline ourselves to learn instead of just learning whatever we want, which can lead to drastic results.

Of course, there is never one side to the issue so I'd say for now, I can't think of any immediate changes that needs to come to the education system.

As for the issue of population overgrowth, I feel if you consider this from both sides it makes sense. If I'm not willing to commit suicide right now, then what right should I have to accuse people who have children that they are evil? But at the same time, I can't think of a valid argument that says we should continue to treat animals as inferior to us and overpopulate without thought simply b/c we are more intelligent or superior in evolution.

What it comes down to is, how can I live my life most intelligently? That matters from person to person, but hopefully everyone truly considers his/her every action before jumping to a conclusion. People are often quick to judge and slow to forgive. Actually, reminds me of the Kramer racist incident. I don't know about you guys, but I feel we should allow him a chance although what he said was indeed extreme. Anyway, thanks for all your thoughts once again!

[Baltar]

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?

If you look at the short term (human lifespan) then a human life appears more important than the life of a hedgehog. But if you look at the big picture (billions of years) then neither will seem more important than the other. Our planet is a small blue rock in a planetary system, and the planetary system itself is a micro dot in the milky way galaxy, which exists among billions of other galaxies. I think Angela meant that compared to the scale of the universe, humans are just as insignificant as animals. This planet alone will outlive our species by billions years.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Angela

I would be more concerned if I had children, but in general it doesn't look to me like humans have any more importance here than hedgehogs or javelinas.

As a species, I would argue that we do have more importance. Hedgehogs do not have the potential for spaceflight, as far as we know, but humans do. There might be aliens out there more advanced than us, but as far as we know, there aren't.

Thus, it is our responsibility to try to reach as far as we can, because otherwise, no one else will. And what's the point, if no one ever does?

[Hsiang-Lin]

Hi Michael Chui,

Well to play the devil's advocate, I could argue that spaceflight and any major accomplishment we do achieve is only important within the context of the human species. How does space flight or the invention of the lightbulb benefit other animal species? Sure, if we took care of them using our better technology they would be more comfortable, but at some point we run into the question, "Who are we to judge what's better for other animals?" (most animals are treated like crap these days so I doubt this will be a question we'll ask anytime soon anyway)

That's one of the points I've been trying to get at. Sure, we can advance, advance, advance, and it all makes sense within the context of our own species. But what happens when we step beyond our species? Do the same glorious inventions and discoveries still have the same merit?

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Baltar

If you look at the short term (human lifespan) then a human life appears more important than the life of a hedgehog. But if you look at the big picture (billions of years) then neither will seem more important than the other. Our planet is a small blue rock in a planetary system, and the planetary system itself is a micro dot in the milky way galaxy, which exists among billions of other galaxies. I think Angela meant that compared to the scale of the universe, humans are just as insignificant as animals. This planet alone will outlive our species by billions years.

You didn't answer the question.

Pick one.

My question stands for everyone who feels human life is no greater than animal life.

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?