What is essential for the survival of our race ?

[m19834]

While I know this could potentially be a controversial topic, I am pursuing it none-the-less.  It has been said that our main purpose on earth is to procreate and survive.  I am often pondering my choice to have children, and I am, of course, not against people having children in general.  I suppose I take issue with particular viewpoints regarding procreation. 

One of people's favorite things to say is that having kids is an unselfish endeavor, and while I agree that there are probably few things more challenging (and hopefully rewarding, as well) in life, there are, in fact, many children being born for primarily selfish reasons and from selfish actions, too.

On the flip side, from conversations about how having children is an unselfish act (and I agree that it definitely can be), it seems to follow that not having children is selfish.  And, while in many cases this may indeed be true, in many cases it may not be, as well.

I have realized that beyond my personal feelings on whether or not to have children, I feel a greater sense of responsibility toward our race.  I believe, at this point, evolution is of utmost importance to our survival.  If that means that I will have children, okay, but it also means that I may not.  Our planet is currently over-populated and over-used, and it is folding us into its layers with its natural survival mechanism.  I am convinced that at the rate we are going, we as a race will not survive (once again ).  I believe that conscious evolution is necessary for the survival of our race.

What do you think about these things ?

[keypeg]

I don't understand what you mean by evolution.  Do you mean, that an individual will evolve through personal growth?  The other way evolution is used is to mean that a species changes from generation to generation, but for those generations to exist of course you need procreation.     It's too late for me anyway: My young'uns are young adults.  Apparently they were meant to be born and have their roles on this earth.

[m19834]

I don't understand what you mean by evolution.

Well, for starters, I am talking about the entire race.  I think it will take an "evolved" species to utilize our earth's resources in a way that does not destroy it.  I think it will take an evolved species to implement a system that allows our earth's resources to be distributed around the world in a way that meets each individual's and community's basic needs.  I think there are answers to many of our problems, but I think it will take an evolved species to recognize them.  This is along the lines of what I am talking about when I talk about evolution, and yes, this does mean that there will be individual growth. 
 

The other way evolution is used is to mean that a species changes from generation to generation, but for those generations to exist of course you need procreation.

 

Yes, of course.  There will always be another generation as long as the ones before it haven't destroyed the possibility of life on earth before the next generation has a chance.  However, I don't believe that everybody that has children is truly called to having children.  I think there is a pressure on people to have children, even when they are in fact "called" to using their time here in other ways.  I think it wouldn't hurt for people, especially my generation and the next, to feel free to not have children and pursue other matters instead. 

This doesn't mean people shouldn't, it just means there should be a clearer sense of choice.  Sometimes I think that many stable couples (or individuals) think it's just what they are "supposed" to be doing with their lives -- as though they are obligated or have no other matters to attend to -- and obligation or uncertainty about one's purpose in life do not seem like wholly viable reasons to go ahead and have children.

It's too late for me anyway: My young'uns are young adults.  Apparently they were meant to be born and have their roles on this earth.

Yes, of course -- we each have a purpose and a role.  However, I am suggesting that not everybody's role is to have children.  I am further suggesting that those whom have not had children yet, that they consider the choice as though it is an actual choice.  I suggest that people consider the responsibility and whether or not the time and effort involved in the endeavor of having children is truly the best use of who they are as individuals.  I am suggesting that if people feel called to other matters, that they listen to this calling because we need those other matters, too.

[keypeg]

My "role" wasn't to have children either - I just ended up having two anyway.      Now I am back to my "role" which is pursuing my art, which incidentally, they are too (each his own art.)

Now I understand what you mean by evolution.  If how we relate to the environment etc. are of concern, we must keep in mind that there are powerful forces whose wealth depends on the status quo and work deliberately to keep it that way globally.  If you look at how "primitive, unmodern" societies live, they have less of a negative impact.  One could argue that we don't need to evolve, but devolve.

In this sense, however, the artist might play a role since things can be stated artistically and symbolically that cannot be addressed cerebrally in a formal way.  People's minds and hearts can be woken by the artist, whether musician, poet, or painter.  That is why artists are under oppression in some societies at some time periods.

[m19834]

My "role" wasn't to have children either - I just ended up having two anyway.   

Well, I think you actually do see what I mean.  I also would hope that you agree that having children is something worth truly considering in a responsible way.

Now I understand what you mean by evolution.  If how we relate to the environment etc. are of concern, we must keep in mind that there are powerful forces whose wealth depends on the status quo and work deliberately to keep it that way globally.  If you look at how "primitive, unmodern" societies live, they have less of a negative impact.  One could argue that we don't need to evolve, but devolve.

Material and external evolution abounds, spiritual and inner evolution -- as an entire race -- obviously does not.

[maul]

How are we going to evolve as a species without procreating... and if you don't have procreation, then "evolution", concious or otherwise, means nothing. What we need to do is get off this stupid planet.

[m19834]

I think this is not actually about whether or not we each have children.  I think it's about how we have them -- in what form and for what purpose.  I have never had the stance that there should be no procreation, my stance is rather that there is more than one kind and the decision on whether or not to have babies, is considered with responsibility and care.  There will always be people having babies, and of course we need this, but that's kind of the point for me.  There are plenty of people having children already, I don't necessarily feel that me having them, too, will be my best (or most unselfish) contribution to the species.

[keypeg]

It's what you do with those children. 

[m19834]

It's what you do with those children. 

And I wholly agree ! 

[dnephi]

Have tons of kids if you're smart, athletic, capable, and not a criminal.

Otherwise, don't.

Cheers!

[m19834]

It's what you do with those children. 

I guess to expand on this, what you have pointed out is part of my point.  From my point of view, there is truly no lack in the amount of kids and people that are here, there is a lack, rather, in what is done with them, how we are cared for, and how we care for each other.  And, truly, what generation has grown up feeling no void and no lack in intellectual and spiritual nourishment, stimulation, care, and opportunity to develop fully as an individual ?  How many people feel they have ignored large portions of who they are (or have been ignored by many others), only to discover these parts of themselves later in life, with a feeling of it being too late ?  It is many, I believe.

Getting back to this idea of there being "forces" that work against a better government of our race, I agree.  I also see clearly that these forces will be overthrown by universal justice, and in a sense, all human systems will be and need to be before a true balance is seemingly attained and seemingly restored.  Even speaking shallowly, all it takes is a few, major, natural disasters to show the true vulnerability and powerlessness of the human systems that we think of as being intact and "holding" us together.  Don't you find it interesting that when these disasters strike, in many ways a new humanity takes form ?  People become more compassionate, they become more at peace with each other, more helpful.  Well, what is governing during those times when human systems have failed, have come up wanting, and have been, for a time, completely annihilated ?  It seems that a truer nature of who we are comes forth during these times.  I find that interesting.

Contribution to mere masses is not "evolution" anymore.  There is a need for a better quality of living from the inside out.  I am saying that the responsibility does not stop at procreation itself; we must evolve.

[keypeg]

There is a need for a better quality of living from the inside out.

This is something we are capable of doing.  The smallest thing can count.  This includes small seeming interactions and especially in the everyday humdrum things that we might not consider significant.  If enough people conscientiously act conscientiously it has a cumulative and spin-off effect.

[gerry]

How are we going to evolve as a species without procreating... and if you don't have procreation, then "evolution", concious or otherwise, means nothing. What we need to do is get off this stupid planet.

What? - and take our profligate ways with us to another one?

[s_bussotti]

Lack of environmental consciousness is going to wipe us out much faster than lack of orgasms or lack of being born with 20/2 eyesight.

[ahinton]

Speaking purely personally, I can honestly say that I've never had any desire to be involved in procreation (and I'm not gay, incidentally). The world is already a better place as a result.

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

I'm guessing you're talking about 'social' evolution?  Quality of life, being wise, appreciation, etc.  We don't control over the over.

Isn't the world's population supposed to peak in the next 50 years or so?  That the world can't support more?

[gerry]

What we need to do is get off this stupid planet.

Actually, I think a former contributor (not to be named) has possibly done just that - having been taken up in the Rapture.

[gyzzzmo]

Essential for the survival of our race....

I gues we'll have to bomb USA then. Theyre the biggest polluters and have proven to be the biggest threat for 'world peace' so far. Only then we can continue evolving peacefully :p

[gerry]

Essential for the survival of our race....

I gues we'll have to bomb USA then. Theyre the biggest polluters and have proven to be the biggest threat for 'world peace' so far. Only then we can continue evolving peacefully :p

YIKES

[lisztisforkids]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_For_Leibowitz

[Bob]

That's a bit of a downer.  The PS server is in the US I think.  If the US gets hit, the PS site will go down too.

Having the PS site go down would be a hassle... not to mention getting nuked too.  Man...

(Bob notices that gyzzzzmo is now on post 667.  Creepy.)