Better to be born in the 90's than not at all

The world is facing a serious problem. It is over populated. Mostly with imbeciles. There are billions of people walking around, living their insignificant little lives, stressing over their jobs, or their girlfriends and boyfriends, or their cars. We are two years away from twenty twelve, having dodged that Y2K bullet a decade ago. Most countries are close to falling apart, and the economy already has. We are fighting wars on more fronts than we can handle, and unemployment is at an all time high.

This is obviously not a world worth being born in. I was born in the “Ninties”. Even the sound of it is so much less scary than saying “twenty ten”. Tom hanks, Jim Carey, and Micheal Jordan were gods. Bill Clinton got into office. It was a good time to be born. We had everything. Plenty of fossil fuels, the economic backbone (Mexicans and other minorities) were never harassed as they are today. Not counting the gulf war, where we got our oil, or the Rawandan Genocide, first and second Chechen wars, the first world trade center bombing and the Oklahoma city bombing, which brought terrorism to the nations attention as a serious threat, and the Somalian disaster further instills in America a fear of skinny brown people, then our leader, the man who is meant to make the important decisions regarding all of these things, gets impeached over a blowjob.

Living in a confusing world torn by war, poverty, and stupidity is not ideal, but people born today will grow up seeing a lot of the same problems I had to see. i am sure they will grow up stressed about their jobs and cars and boyfriends or girlfriends too. But to as the question “ is it better not to be born today?” begs another question that we can answer much better than that one. Namely, is it better to be born today than to be born two hundred years ago? Thousands? I feel kids back then had it a lot worse. Were they born during early civilization, say, the kids would not grow up playing with iphones and xbox, but would have spent their early life toiling in harsh conditions, making clay statues of people in misery appealing to the gods for death, and then they would die. At age thirty or so.

It seems silly to ask if the world would be better without humans or sentient life. Taking that this is a non-secular question, that all there is right now is one little rock with a bunch of animals on it, and one kind in particular that is really good at killing all of the rest, it seems like a no brainer that the world would be better off without humans. But without life on earth, then what is the point of earth? Mars had frozen bacteria on it. Scientists conjecture that counts as life. But human life is so unique in its arts, social complexity, and our air of superiority and stewardship, earth without the creatures that inhabit it today is utterly insignificant.

Is life Worth Living?

Should humans continue to reproduce, and how good must life be in order to justify bringing children into the world? The questions raised by Peter Singer are that simple. I had never thought of that issue before, and there are valid reasons to ask whether we should be the last generation. Are we just harming future generations through overpopulation and the suffering that many people live with every day? The more I consider Peter Singer’s article, the more I realize that I have a totally different point of view. I feel that the continuation of the human race is very important to most people, and that wanting to pass on a part of one’s self to the future has meaning for everyone. We are becoming more environmentally responsible, which will lessen the suffering of future generations, but that is not really the question. The value of life itself is the question.

For generations philosophers have brought up the point that we are just making this world harder to live in and that future children are going to suffer because of how we are harming the planet. Poverty still exists but many of us are alive and well, and prospering today. I believe that people are getting smarter with each coming generation because of what they have learned from the previous generation’s mistakes. Education is expanding in developed nations, so as more people learn, they will find solutions to reduce the suffering of the generations to come. Becoming more environmentally responsible is not that hard, and with a little effort, we can make this world a better place for everyone to live in. I see overpopulation, suffering and the environment as things to work on and improve, not as reasons to end sentient life on our planet. Giving up is the easy way out.

The definition of happiness is different for everyone. Most people want to reproduce so that they can experience the joy of raising a kid. “Loving and being loved is the noblest of meanings for breath.” A blogger, Nate, made that brief statement, but it is full of meaning. If there is no love in this world, what is there to live for? People should step back and think about that for a moment before they suggest that we should end mankind with our generation. The power of love is so strong, and the intense love that parents feel for their child is something that everyone should be able to experience. Children bring joy to the world and motivate us to do better. Love should drive everyone to want to help the planet and keep mankind reproducing for generations to come; fear of the future is nothing new and should not control us.

People are entitled to their own opinions, and if they feel that having children is not responsible or necessary to ensure their happiness in life, then they shouldn’t reproduce. However, as Rosemary from New York commented, “If you think that you can share the joy and pain of life with another individual and mentor them as they begin their journey, then you should have a child.” I think that is a very honest statement, but I do feel that couples should think before they decide to have kids. If a couple is already struggling to live a happy life, or they don’t want to bring up a child in a poor household, that may be the smart choice. It would be ideal if everyone could be financially stable before considering taking on the lifetime duty of being a parent. Before having children, people should try to make sure that that their children will have a chance to have the best life possible. The fact that a child is likely to have a good life is a reason for bringing that child into existence. Love and joy are enough reason to live; the fact that some people will suffer is not reason enough to end it all.

Everyone is human, and every life has its ups and downs, but life is definitely worth living. Everyone should be optimistic and encourage each other to find happiness in life, and this is the attitude that should be passed on to future generations.

Future Generations: No Chance Of A Happy Life?

From being a full-time nanny during the summer, to helping my aunt raise her twin daughter, children have always been a passion of mine. The thought of whether or not to start a family when I am an adult has never even been a question that crossed my mind. As horrible as this may sound to others, I think its somewhat of a women’s’ job to get married and raise a family! So obviously to me, the idea of sterilization for humanity is not an option.

Bringing a child into the world is a huge responsibility that people should take seriously. Unfortunately, many times woman who give birth aren’t prepared to properly raise a child. This does definitely cause some concern but the vast majority of children are given the love they need to grow up and be happy, productive members of society. I’m pretty sure the last thing a person thinks of when bringing a child into the world is how miserable she or he will be or how much suffering the child will endure.

I think the point that humanity would no longer have to feel guilty about what we are doing to future generations is simply ridiculous. Yes the environment has recently taken a change for the worse, but that is no reason to stop bringing children into the world. Also, the last thing a person would think of when they are contemplating bringing a child into the world or not is how it would effect future generations and the environment on a global level. The next generation will just have a few more issues to deal with, nothing that’s impossible.

I agree that overpopulation is definitely a global problem and might start becoming a major issue in the near future, but it doesn’t mean we should completely just stop bringing children on the Earth. Although completely unrealistic, if anything I think the best option would be to only allow women who can properly support a child to get pregnant. This is not a jab to people who can’t financially support people whatsoever; I am simply saying that children need a healthy environment to be brought up in, loving parents or a loving parent, the opportunity for a good education, and good foundation for the rest of their life. But, of course, the question would be raised about who decides whether or not one can correctly care for a child. Also the idea that children of the next generation will be miserable and unhappy is simple foolish because I am the biggest advocate that people choose to be happy and choose live a fulfilling life.

In his article, Peter Singer made some legitimate points regarding global issues due to over population and climate change, but sterilization is an unrealistic option that should never even be considered. The fact that someone would actually take the time to write about the mere possibility of that is quite perplexing.