I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
I didn't fully explains some of my points. In some situations it is good to fight for your children. If roving bandits want to enslave your children, then I think it's good to fight to protect them. On the other hand, if your children are starving, and you fight and kill people to get a small quantity of food from other starving people, then I think it's wrong. More specifically, the point I was trying to make is that it's wrong to place a higher value on your family in terms of limited resources. It's good to protect your family from those who would hurt them and steal their food, but don't think you're any better if you try to steal food from other people(or any necessary resource).
Love your neighbor to whatever extent possible. Seek cooperation over violence if at all possible. Sometimes other groups will want to attack your group in some way. It's right to defend yourself, but make sure not to take action to expand the desire for further war. I'm sorry for not considering the defense of your family in my previous post. Defense is good, but offense with the desire to gather more resources than other people is bad.
My idea of the spiritual level of equality between human beings really doesn't have anything to do with behavior. I don't think a person who behaves in such a way that he is a detriment to those around him is because he has a bad spirit. Countless factors are at play to make a traditionally bad person. Even factors that the person has no control over are at play such as chemical imbalances in the brain. My point about spiritual equality is that even an individual with the worst character is a human somewhere deep down. There is nothing fundamentally different at the core of this person from a good person. Change in everything from behavior to world view is difficult for most, but possible for anyone... because of that common spiritual equality. One thing everyone has in common is that they are capable to some degree to change. _________________ "If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"George W. Bush loves poor people. He keeps making more of them." -unkn
Joined: Oct 19, 2004 Posts: 108 Location: Carlisle, PA
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:25 am Post subject:
Falconoffury wrote:
My idea of the spiritual level of equality between human beings really doesn't have anything to do with behavior. I don't think a person who behaves in such a way that he is a detriment to those around him is because he has a bad spirit. Countless factors are at play to make a traditionally bad person. Even factors that the person has no control over are at play such as chemical imbalances in the brain. My point about spiritual equality is that even an individual with the worst character is a human somewhere deep down. There is nothing fundamentally different at the core of this person from a good person. Change in everything from behavior to world view is difficult for most, but possible for anyone... because of that common spiritual equality. One thing everyone has in common is that they are capable to some degree to change.
Sure, people can change. But the vast majority do not.
Let's take 100 child molesters. Your theory is that they might change, so let's give them a chance. My theory is they're a waste of skin, so let's put them down.
Out of 100 child molesters, perhaps one changes. You're right in his life and can point to a wonderful story of redemption. Heart-warming story, isn't it?
Meanwhile, the other 99 have gone on to molest again. Even if they only did it *one* more time each, 99 innocents lives are destroyed.
Are those 99 lives worse less than the one guy who redeemed himself?
My thinking is that the one guy, whether he would've redeemed himself or not, deserves to die. He *did* something to deserve it. Whereas all those potential victims did *not* do anything to deserve it.
Granted, this is an extreme example. But I see "extreme" examples every damned day. Just turn on your television.
Further, I don't see where it makes any difference whether the person has chemical imbalances in their brain that are beyond their control or not. It isn't an animal's "fault" if he has rabies, but we still put him down simply because he presents a danger to the rest of us as long as he lives. That he *can't* change is the very reason we put him down!
I am not arging for the death penalty here, that's not my point. I am theoretically for the death penalty, but given that our society is particularly stupid about the way it uses the death penalty, I'm utterly opposed to it. State-sanctioned killing is a bad idea.
My point is simply that some lives *are* more valuable than others. Whether an evil SOB's "spirit" is somehow morally equivalent to that of a decent human being is pretty irrelevant in terms of this world.
Again, my judgements are not based on genetics, racism or nationality... they are based on behavior. Some people *are* better than others. We are *not* all equal.
The only option I feel I have now is to raise my children in a way that will prepare them for a very difficult future. However our current idealized suburban lifestyle is not such a good place to start.
/rant
Yup, thats the way I see it as well. I think our kids might just end up being the better for it in the end. I live in Saskatoon and the way the current generation has been brought up is appalling. When I was in grade 8, me and my friends were offered a joint by this guy, and we got all freaked out and said no. Now the grade 8's are smoking meth and having sex. WTF gives it's only been 10 years since I was in grade 8?! I blame our use of television, and society in general for the way it forces kids to grow up by age 5 these days. Let me just say I'm 22 and pretty sure I'll NEVER grow up. So we shouldn't be giving our small children "schedules". As I tell my daughter "Your job is to play, if you're not having fun you're not working hard enough" Thats about all the schedule kids need.
/end rant
Quote:
Look folks, you're not going to drop dead from not having sex, OK?
Speak for yourself!! ( Had to get that in there.) _________________ smoke 2 joints in the mornin'/smoke 2 joints at night
smoke 2 joints in the afternoon it makes me feel alright
I smoke 2 joints in time of peace and 2 in time of war
I smoke 2 joints before I smoke 2 joints and then I smoke 2 more - sublime
Joined: Oct 19, 2004 Posts: 108 Location: Carlisle, PA
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:56 pm Post subject:
I thought about this some more and decided I wanted an example that didn't include capital punishment. So here's a scenario for you, Falconoffury...
You're the leader of a small, sustainable community in a future world. Your society is primarily agriculture-based and has a thousand members. A bunch of refugees come knocking at your door one day. There's a hundred of them and they've lost their homes elsewhere due to warfare rendering their previous home uninhabitable. But you only have enough resources to add ten members to your community.
You do the math and doublecheck your numbers... yes, if you take in 100 refugees, the entire community will die. If you clear woodlands for agriculture, you won't have enough wood for heating. People will starve or freeze, you just can't sustain this many folks. There are simply not enough resources even with zero population growth to increase your community ten percent overnight.
You can feed them all and put them all up for the night, but at least 90 folks are going to have to leave in the morning. You'll give them advice, wish them well and hope for the best, but there just isn't room for them all to move in with you.
On what basis will you choose?
If you truly believe everyone is equal, I suppose you'll do a lottery of some sort. If you *really* believe that strangers aren't worth less than your own, you'll make your community members subject to the lottery too... odds are you'll end up evicting some of your own, in fact it's likely you'll evict more of your own than of the strangers. If you're unlucky, you might have to evict your own spouse or one of your own children or even yourself.
I value some people more than others. So if I were the leader of this community, I wouldn't care about the theoretical implications of everyone being spiritually equal. Assuming my current society is working, I'm not going to exile any of my own. I *do* value "us" more than "them." My people are staying.
Further, I'd look at the refugees realistically and pragmatically. If there's things we're missing and we need, the people who have those skills are the ones we're going to invite to join us, provided they have the personality types to "fit" into our society. Do we need a doctor, a nurse, a veternarian, a dentist, a wood-carver, a lumberjack, a blacksmith, someone with better farming methods, someone good at building stuff? Those are the folks I'm going to invite to become members of "us".
Maybe we have everything we need, but we're missing some "wants" - perhaps we'll invite a painter, a musician or folks with long-lost knowledge to join us.
But whether we invite people based on need or want isn't the point, the point is we're going to have to make value judgements, we're going to have to decide some people are "worth" more than others.
This "example" is better for me than the previous one because I *have* taken people in, whereas I haven't ever actually killed a child molester. But I don't just "adopt" any stray kid that comes along. I have only so many resources, so much time and energy, so much money. I "adopt" kids whom I see something in - a certain minimum level of intelligence, a kind heart, a desire to help others, overall decent values, and a willingness to work hard to build a better life for themselves. It would be a waste of my resources for me to do otherwise... because I simply *can't* adopt every unwanted kid in the world.
The 19-year-old who currently lives with me expressed some sorrow about a girl she goes to school with whom is a couple years older and lives in a trailer park with her husband and 3 kids. She says she feels sorry for this girl because she didn't have a chance, whereas I'm providing a "chance" for her. I reminded my roommate that this girl has had a crappy life and has become bitter, angry and hateful, whereas she has had a worse life herself, but is is caring, kindhearted and full of humor. She has the "chance" she so values because of the choices she made about how to react to adversity and chose to become someone I enjoy being with; her friend does not have the same opportunity because she has become someone whose presence brings misery to others. I do not exaggerate here; everyone likes my roommate, if she were not living with us, someone else would certainly take her in. But the second girl is unpleasant to have in the house for even a half hour - my roommate has come home early from an evening out because her friend and her husband were so natsy to each other that it was painful to her to be around.
In some abstract way, these two girls may be equally valuable and worthwhile. However, if that is true, it is an abstraction that serves no practical purpose. There is no ethical principle that would cause me to make the life of myself and my loved ones miserable by subjecting us to the second girl living with us.
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 120 Location: same as everyone
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:47 pm Post subject:
Years ago I saw for sale some dapper little diaper covers printed fanny-side with the question Who needs this crap?
What was amusing then seems profound now.
One son, one daughter here, almost grown. Both completely beloved and impossible to regret. But if I had it to do today..aware of the escalating probabilities of severe distresses due to economic collapse and the way I believe that will set this mankind into an even more hideous spiral of violence than we witness today I'd never. If I get the one thing that I now most want out of the rest of my life, it'll be never to become a grandmother. I'm just not a gambler. Especially not with loved-ones lives. Sufficient evidence is there for me to conclude that we're already meaner than junk-yard dogs to each other on the whole (which might have lasted if we'd stuck to sticks and stones), and I see precious little sign that this species is going to make that giant leap of consciousness it would need to survive…and I mean survive in a societal world worth living in. Lead a simple life? Great. Turn the first starving child, woman, or man at my door away so I can eat another day? Fahgheddabouddit.
Personally, I'm trying to calculate exactly how much Irish whiskey a body has to swallow and in what timeframe, to successfully turn oneself back into creation, just in case that time should come when that's a more desirable option than hanging around here and losing my humanity. I have already born two people who may have to make the same choice. Enough.
Note to self: order a boxcar of Kentucky bourbon, in case the shipload of Jameson's runs out. And remind the kids yet again how expensive kids are!
To Sencha (and to others who all-too-frequently find themselves visiting the very depths of despair) I offer this: you are on the bottom, only because the world is upside-down. You are squeezing yourself through a hard and tiny soul-gap, getting scraped and bruised along the way, but keep going. You can trust, Sencha, that you will come out the other side, and you will be amazed and you will find reliefs. Reality means leaving room for change, and I am living proof that the most unexpected things can happen that you never could have dreamed would. Remember it is not a sign of sanity to be well-adjusted to a sick society, so count yourself among the perfectly sane, sweetpea. Perhaps we are not entitled to our despair, those of us who have at least some comforts and safety and basic needs met, but believe it or not, your hard anger only serves to reveal an exquisitely moving level of caring. Everything is recognized through its opposite (what would we call a sunny day if we'd never known rain?). you see you running from madness. I see you running towards goodness. Embrace this about yourself and be happy and grateful for the tender heart you've been given. It is a gift we have all now been witness to.
Besides, sugar-defying the gods who would destroy you can be a real hoot sometimes.
Wishes best, AnnaLivia _________________ "O hell, here comes our funeral. Let us pry....for our missed understandings."
I'm 25 and single so this is not a possibility for me. Before I learned of PO I debated this and something that really scared me was how self absorbed we (including myself) are in our collective culture. Children mean you have to sacrifice time and money as well as add chores to your life. Responsibility, like total 100% responsibilty for someone else to be sheltered, fed, clothed, educated, and just grown is a very serious thing which I doubt most people think about before they have children. YOu really have to ask yourself if you are ready.
Pre-PO I was planning to consider this after I had worked enough to save a good balance in the bank and buy a single family home. I grew up as a child living in apartments because my family moved frequently. I hated it! The other kids had yards, pets, and such and I did not. I felt it is something very significant for a child to grow up in a house owned by his family and just have those sort of roots there. It does not have to be some palacial house but I would say it would make me at a personal level feel like a "real" man who is successful if I came home to a house I owned with my family. It would just be something that can't be explained but the ultimate in having a sense of having done something big.
As for the post PO education I got after my formal education....it's changed my outlook on everything. I am just working and saving while watching to see how thing play out in the next few years. If we have a hard crash soon I would say children would be difficult to raise simply because they are expensive.
In the long term I would say I probably want 2 because it would be a legacy to leave the world. Nothing I can do in the world can match facilitating the creation of a life. The process of raising a child and applying what I had learned being a child woud also be a very important thing in feeling I had lived a complete life. I doubt anyone says they should have worked more or bought more stuff when they are on a death bed.
I wouldn't want to have children as a means to be lazy and get extra hands working but if we do crash hard and go back to an agricultural society children would be a big time asset.
I think children are the one way where you can do something that is not just for yourself. When your priorities in life change like that and you drop everything and focus on the care of another human being you become a better person for it. I doubt it is something that can be known by people who are not parents.
Adoption is a great option for people to consider but it might be mean to say it but I would say nothing could compare to watching the recombination of your DNA and that of your mate live and grow. It would really be a miracle to look at the child and think about how impossible his or her existance was but came to be.
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:00 pm Post subject:
On the face of it, it is easy to ridicule those who have PO awareness (or even a general awareness of the limited and fragile resources on this planet) and still plan to have more than 1 or 2 children. It’s also easy to ridicule those who (regardless of any awareness) have large numbers of children. But who’s to say one person knows what is right for another? It is true that a solid argument can be made that it doesn’t help our fundamental resource issues to keep procreating like nothing is wrong. But each person has their own reasons to have children or not. Take me for example. Having kids for me was always a goal. I didn’t have the best upbringing and from a young age I was determined to have a family where my kids could have a normal upbringing. I needed to be part of a normal family at some point and now I’m very lucky to have two wonderful little girls. And then came along Mr. PO - what a major punch to the stomach: “What have I brought these children into!” But now, I’m slowing becoming more determined to live my life in an ultimately more fulfilling, and less resource intensive way. PO was a nasty, bitter pill to swallow, but I’m better off for it. Without having kids I suspect I would have degenerated into a wanton hedonist… spoiling myself in an attempt to make myself happy…gobbling up resources along the way.
So to me the better question isn’t “should you have kids?”, but rather, if you have kids, do you know the reasons why and the implications (both for you and the planet)? Unfortunately that is not a question that is going to be asked by the majority of the people anytime soon, if ever. The drive to procreate for many is just far too strong, PO or not. It’s what we’re built to do. Now, once our resource plight becomes well known (PO driven or not), governments will probably be forced towards some sort of population control policy. And it makes sense. Maybe a policy like along the lines of if you want more than 1 or 2 kids, fine, but you’ll have to pay dearly for the privilege. (Instead of tax breaks how about taxes!) People like me would still want kids. Other people might think twice. In the general the planet would be better off. As for those in the here and now who don’t want kids, then kudos to you because you’re not adding more strain to the system. And, truth be told, if things go bad you could very well have much less grief.
As for me, the jury is still out as to whether or not my wife and I will have one last kick at the can for a little boy (we each wanted one child of each sex, but no more than 3 total). Pre-PO awareness, going for a third use to be a fait a compli, now it’s no better than 50/50. Why still 50/50? That’s a good question. If I’m honest with myself I know that I’ve already got two wonderful little girls; I’ve achieved the majority of what I wanted. I’m now PO aware, and try as I might, I’m having difficulty justifying going for a third. But with all of my rational thought, I realize that I’m still an emotional being too. _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 890 Location: Scotland
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:11 pm Post subject:
ive got 2 babies already - 20 month old and a 7 month old. i love them more than i love myself and id do anything for them.
peak oil wont have the quick effect that many people predict. sorry folks, if you are expecting to wake up one morning to find everyone trashing stores and anarchy, then you'll be mistaken.
pretty much all civilizations have taken AGES to collapse, and because ours is the most complex of all time, i guess it will take even longer. i imagine that it will be well into the 2100's before we can actually say that western civilization is at an end.
sorry to burst anyone's bubble that plans to run to the hills tomorrow. do it if you want, but everyone else will be burning around 80million barrels of oil for the forseeable future.
Years ago I saw for sale some dapper little diaper covers printed fanny-side with the question “Who needs this crap?”
What was amusing then seems profound now.
Personally, I’m trying to calculate exactly how much Irish whiskey a body has to swallow and in what timeframe…to successfully turn oneself back into creation, just in case that time should come when that’s a more desirable option than hanging around here and losing my humanity. I have already born two people who may have to make the same choice. Enough.
Note to self: order a boxcar of Kentucky bourbon, in case the shipload of Jameson’s runs out. And remind the kids yet again how expensive kids are…………
Wishes best, AnnaLivia
My wife and I have decided not to have children. Like some others for years before knowing of peak oil I had the feeling that the world was no longer a good place to raise young. I would have if my wife wanted to. I placed no pressure.
Like you Anna we have picked a exit plan for when the time is right. Instead of bourbon we have chosen Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) and Marijuana. I have neither yet but I suspect the Nitrous would be harder to acquire. In the end we hope for some laughter followed by the big sleep.
Joined: Jan 19, 2005 Posts: 68 Location: Dorset, England
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:09 pm Post subject:
This is a great thread, thanks to all for sharing their inner thoughts. It's helped me to firm up my own.
I have 5,000 forebears standing behind me and I owe it to them to pass on these genes.
Children are adaptable - you are judging them as not being able to cope before they are even born!
Just as adults can be adaptable if they choose to be that way.
Children are fantastic ambassadors for your values.
The energy decline has only just started and your kids, brought up with the aim of living as sustainably as possible, will influence those around them for a long time before anarchy breaks out.
To those who are not happy: why is it not your sole goal to rectify this situation? Please do something, I speak from experience, 20 years being depressed is a waste. Read a book, talk to someone - a volunteer or professional if you'd prefer, cut down on thinking and focus on feeling, write stories or poetry, do some tai chi, get a garden, just try everything you can to shift. Everyone is connected.
Peak Oil is a mirror too - if you don't like what you see, make a change _________________ "If the complexity of our economies is impossible to sustain [with likely future oil supply], our best hope is to start to dismantle them before they collapse." George Monbiot
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4690 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:35 pm Post subject:
This thread is possibly one of the most important on the whole darn website. I don't have any children now (I'm still in high school ) and I don't plan on having children in the future. I'm open to adoption at some time in the distant future, but it's a little early to think about such things now.
I often look back at history and realize that at my age, I should already have a wife and 2 kids by now! It's strange that in recent history, we now have kids later in life and fewer of them. At the same time, we have more resources per person than most of humanity could have ever dreamed of. Shouldn't we have more children? We can support more of them, shouldn't we all have 8 kids? Granted the world is overpopulated by a few billion and our wonderful abundance is about to turn into a shortfall, but the sheple should be having kids by the dozen.
I think I know why we (as a society) aren't having lots of kids. Each Western child needs a lot of stuff in order to be "happy." My mother used to wear her older sisters clothes. I don't have an older brother but even if I did, I probably wouldn't have to do that. At Christmas I get lots of little things that I don't really need. I could have asked for (and received) an X-box. But I didn't and I wouldn't want one. I think it's a waste of time to sit around blowing things up in an imaginary world just to get that instant gratification.
But back to the point, in the past, a child did not need as much stuff. Many of my friends would "die" without their X-Box and their American Idol. A kid used to need a few toys and a backyard to be happy. The current society raises the cost of having a child to the point where many people have trouble paying the bills. I think PO might help us in that respect. Consumerism will take a hit and children will be forced to use their imaginations a little to entertain themselves.
Without cars and shopping malls, people might actually sit down and talk to eachother every now and then. Without TV and American Idol, families might actually have a conversation. Without credit cards and home equity, people might actually learn to live within their means. I don't know, I'm in a good mood today.
Sorry for rambling. I tend to be a scatter brain, so why not write in scattered thought clumps ?
Last edited by Tyler_JC on Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
If you are planning on going back to a farm lifestyle, which I plan to do if the circumstances force it, then a large family is critical. Many kids were common in farm families. _________________ Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Joined: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 921 Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:48 pm Post subject:
Awkward question for me, cos my darling daughter wasn't actually a decision, i'd pretty much decided on no kids when she came along. Naturally (!!) wouldn't have it any other way now, apple of my eye etc, but i have to admit if it wasn't for her i'd be 'in the bar' with a window seat. Sure not having any more, am waiting for the govt payouts for sterilisation.
Not sure the 'stuff requirements' is real reason for falling birthrates in 1st world, think pseudo-estrogen pollution & crowding/competition induced hormonal feedback deserve more credit.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
So we shouldn't be giving our small children "schedules". As I tell my daughter "Your job is to play, if you're not having fun you're not working hard enough" Thats about all the schedule kids need.
Had to get that in there.)
?
