I've just re-read my entry, and I think I said what I meant - but you seem to have read something entirely different into it.Muddypause wrote:Dear gad, that's a terrible argument. It's exactly parallel to religious fanatics saying that they have to have as many kids as possible so that their brand of enlightenment will eventually dominate. It's an idea of exraordinary conceit.
As soon as you make the judgement that your kids are more morally entitled to a place here than other people's then we are well on the way to ever increasing circles of strife.
I'm hoping you didn't mean it like it seems.
I don't see the parallels. I'm not a reglious fanatic - this is NOT a religious argument, my faith being silent on the subject. I have two kids, and have had the snip to limit things right there (ooh thanks for sharing Andy). I don't claim to be enlightened, far from it. And did I make any judgement about my kids being more entitled to a place than anyone else's, morally or otherwise? Nope. But they are equally entitled. You seem to have made a few assumptions about my thinking Muddy - are you perhaps trying to line me up with a stereotype based on your knowledge of my faith?
If you accept that there's anything in the nurture component of how people turn out (and I know it's debatable) then my kids - and there are only two so it's population-growth neutral - are going to know a thing or two, are going to make an argument or two, are growing to grow a carrot or two.
If there is to be any hope for our species at all, it must evolve intellectually. How's it going to do that if anybody who really thinks about the problem chooses to terminate their own DNA? Surely that's an argument worthy of a Darwin Award?
OMG I just realised we hijacked cer35's thread! Sorry Cer! Muddy, let's take this outside... *finishes pint and rolls up sleeves*
