Why is it okay to be a serial breeder, but not a serial killer?

[Alyssa M.]

Well, if it came to zero population growth, we as a species would die out.  It would be mass murder on a grand scale and the dying would not be replaced......End of civilization as we know it.

I don't think there should be a law to prohibit how many children a person has but the growing number of neglected and abused children should be addressed.  Probably the simple answer is education, because we know that serial breeders who don't cherish their children are usually ignorant about birth control and what constitutes being a good parent. 

China took birth control to the extreme and their citizens are rebelling in growing numbers, I cannot see communism surviving there much longer, well not as before.  Capitalism is taking hold there, Hong Kong and Shanghai is testiment to that.

To clarify, zero population growth refers to the rate of change of the population -- that is, population stability. This is quite different from population decline, which is characterized by a negative growth rate. In the long term, the only sustainable rate of population growth is zero. Indeed, it's the only possible rate in the long term. We can't just keep growing (excpept, perhaps, asmptotically, but never mind that). Eventually we run out of room.

Yes, education is the most promising solution to the problems surrounding population growth. The other solutions are much less attractive, to say the least -- they include war, famine, disease, and other disasters. We can learn to have fewer children (and educating women, in particular, is most important), or we can let nature take its course.

With regard to China, I fear that the growth of capitalism may not result in any more real freedom. It may no longer remain a true communist state, but that does not preclude tyranny. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and that the economic changes will result in political freedom.

Prolixly, Alyssa

[RebeccaFog]

Our government is a serial killer & a mass murderer.

That is beside the point.  This topic concerns life and death and the balance between them.  If killing is wrong, why is birthing right?

Life is delicate and precious.  Shouldn't bringing a life into the world be taken as seriously as ending a life?

Are you a parent?  I can guarantee it's taken even more seriously by the people involved. 

No.  I'm not a parent.  If I were, I assure you that I would still have the same insane questions.  I would also worry myself sick over the welfare of my children.

I am not attacking parents.  I am trying to create a dialog that reaches far beneath the surface of the reality which we know.

Posted on: May 11, 2008, 08:06:23 PM

Our government is a serial killer & a mass murderer.

That is beside the point.  This topic concerns life and death and the balance between them.  If killing is wrong, why is birthing right?

I think you have made an assumption here that breeding has to be either good or bad, and that dieing is a bad thing.

To poke some holes in your logic, dieing itself is not a bad thing and it is enevitable. Also you are not always the cause of your offspring dieing and I don't believe you can be responsible for their lives as they are an individual entity (though you can have some responsibility for who they are).

So to summerise, I think it is the cause of death that makes the dieing wrong. When you give birth it is with the assumption that your offspring will die some day, but you are not usually responsible for that death. You create the entity but they destroy themselves.

But.  By creating the little darlings, don't you also ensure that they will die whether or not you yourself are involved in their demise?

I'm not saying all death is bad.  That is another dimension to what I am asking.  If death is inevitable whether from old age, illness, or accident, why are serial killers so reviled?  Aren't they just a part of the process?

I'm just asking.

Posted on: May 11, 2008, 08:10:10 PMI'm not sure how my question has become a referendum on over population and birth control.

[Constance]

I am not attacking parents.

I guess a few of us parents get a bit defensive when one asks what's the difference between a "serial breeder" (i.e, parent) and a "serial killer" (i.e., murderer). To me, this is one of the problems of written communication. I can't hear the tone of voice you use when posing such questions. And I've heard many Zero Population Growth folks equate parenting with wanton destruction. True, none of your posts in this thread had been blatant attacks against parents. But, they did seem close to that. Again, I can't hear your tone of voice as I read your comments.

If death is inevitable whether from old age, illness, or accident, why are serial killers so reviled?  Aren't they just a part of the process?

In my opinion, serial killers are not "just a part of the process," though I can see where one might consider them to be from a coldly clinical point of view.

I think serial killers are reviled because the seemingly wantonness of their actions. They kill not as "a part of the process," but usually for selfish or even sadistic reasons. We might as well just say that military personell, executioners, and terrorists are a part of the process, too. I guess from the coldly analytical point of view, they are.

Maybe Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo wouldn't have lived much longer than they did, and their murderers were just helping the process along. I don't see it that way.

Knowing people who have been murdered, I have a tendancy to revile those who kill intentionally. Of course, this is also "bad" as my reviling of them is inconsistent with my religious beliefs. I try to work to have compassion for them, but it's not easy.

[RebeccaFog]

Knowing people who have been murdered, I have a tendancy to revile those who kill intentionally. Of course, this is also "bad" as my reviling of them is inconsistent with my religious beliefs. I try to work to have compassion for them, but it's not easy.

I had to hear my own father be murdered in the room next to me when I was five.

I'm not saying that to garner empathy, but to show that I'm not taking murder lightly.  What I'm asking is something beyond emotion and hidden at the end of reason.

I think I'm trying to ask whether there is some point at which the act of creation is on a par with the act of destruction.

Human birth & death is a pretty good place to do that because to get anywhere near an answer, nevermind a consensus, a person is required to put aside their emotions or else never be capable of even approaching the issue.

I'm not very experienced at creating the right scenario for what I was trying to get across.

No one is wrong.

[Constance]

I think I'm trying to ask whether there is some point at which the act of creation is on a par with the act of destruction.

There are some various Pagan philosophies that connect creation with destruction, but in the form of birth-death-rebirth cycle. I don't know if that's quite what you're asking about.

It seems to me that creation and destruction are equivalent to Point A and Point B on a time line.

[Alyssa M.]

I think I'm trying to ask whether there is some point at which the act of creation is on a par with the act of destruction.

<< BAD GEEKY PUN ALERT >>

Well, in quantum mechanics a dagger is a creation operator, but in mystery novels a dagger is an annihilation operator.

(If you get that joke, congratulations, you're a geek!)

[RebeccaFog]

There are some various Pagan philosophies that connect creation with destruction, but in the form of birth-death-rebirth cycle. I don't know if that's quite what you're asking about.

It seems to me that creation and destruction are equivalent to Point A and Point B on a time line.

That makes sense.  I guess you can't destroy something that has yet to be created.  Unless you begin a series of events that stop an event that would have led to a creation just at the moment of creation.

maybe.  Unless I'm insane.  Which is becoming very apparent to me.

[buttercup]

Knowing people who have been murdered, I have a tendancy to revile those who kill intentionally. Of course, this is also "bad" as my reviling of them is inconsistent with my religious beliefs. I try to work to have compassion for them, but it's not easy.

I had to hear my own father be murdered in the room next to me when I was five.

I'm not saying that to garner empathy, but to show that I'm not taking murder lightly.  What I'm asking is something beyond emotion and hidden at the end of reason.

I think I'm trying to ask whether there is some point at which the act of creation is on a par with the act of destruction.

Human birth & death is a pretty good place to do that because to get anywhere near an answer, nevermind a consensus, a person is required to put aside their emotions or else never be capable of even approaching the issue.

I'm not very experienced at creating the right scenario for what I was trying to get across.

No one is wrong.

My Lord Rebis, what a terrible thing to go through!  And being only five, I'm so sorry that this happen to you and of course, to your father.  What a dreadful world we live in!!  

[RebeccaFog]

My Lord Rebis, what a terrible thing to go through!  And being only five, I'm so sorry that this happen to you and of course, to your father.  What a dreadful world we live in!!  

Thank you buttercup.  Believe it or not, it gets worse.  But we won't get into it.  That was so long ago and I've had a lifetime to come to terms with it.

This thread was supposed to be a philosophical discussion of the mechanics of creation and destruction in the context of human actions.  Maybe on the level of human biology.

I have failed.

I don't think I have a talent for philosophy or politics.

I'm fired!   

[NickSister]

Is creation inherently better than destruction? If so then creation outweighs the destruction, and therefore it is better to be a breeder than a serial killer despite breeding creating the inevitability of destruction.

If you want to talk genetics with the aim of enhancing species survival - the creation has got to be more beneficial for the species as it creates new possibilities, the destruction is only bad if it prevents the victim from breeding. But there is a counter argument in that the destruction could be seen as beneficial if the destruction of certain 'dangerous' genes outweighs the variation lost. In a big population the loss of variation is pretty minimal anyway. Similarly breeding can promote certain bad strains (like rednecks) in the absence of 'natural selection', though basic evolutionary theory will tell you that the more variation the better in terms of species survival. But then lots of rednecks can only be bad for the species as they reduce the chance of anyone breeding overall. 

My conclusion - breeding is ok, but not always more so than serial killing.

[RebeccaFog]

You shouldn't have used rednecks as an example.  Now I want to become a serial killer.  Is there a school for that?

[lisagurl]

You shouldn't have used rednecks as an example.  Now I want to become a serial killer.  Is there a school for that?

Yes in West Virginia.

[NicholeW.]

You shouldn't have used rednecks as an example.  Now I want to become a serial killer.  Is there a school for that?

Yes in West Virginia.

I always thought Mississippi was a fine 'redneck-breeding' place. No schools there? >

Actually, some research has shown that the 'lower pecking order castes' do much better in passing their genes along than do the 'fat educated ones.' The research has been done with mice, not humans. But, it could well be that the 'rednecks' are more suited for survival than are other human types. >

Nichole

[lisagurl]

The exit poll in West Virginia said that 76 % of the people think Obama has the same ideas as his former paster. It is no telling what people believe as long as it is on TV. At least MS voted down the VP's buddy and put a Democrat in the house.