primarscources (primarscources) wrote,

  • Mood:
  • Music:

my activist side

i wish i had never been born.

sounds like a depressed teen ranting about how their life is so miserable or whatever. i know lots of you losers use livejournal to blather about your pathetic existence to anyone who cares. are you unaware of the fact that only the very small number of people who know you will actually care what you have to say (and not all of them, at that)? the vast majority of people won't give a shit, and for good reason. why should any stranger care about the latest drama playing out in your life? that kind of thing is so specific to the people involved that nobody else can or should care the least bit about it. i thought i'd offer something a bit more universal today.

(yes, i realize drama is universal, but it's only the FORM of it that's universal. person A cheated on person B, yada yada. that kind of thing ONLY has meaning to A and B, and maybe to persons C through G who know them. the fact that a stranger can relate to that generic situation does not make them any more likely to suddenly see your situation as being as important as their own).

anyway, on to the topic:

i don't actually wish i had never been born, but i wish people in general would stop having so many goddamned kids. why should i want such a thing? hmm, let me think... maybe it's because OVERPOPULATION IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST SOLVABLE PROBLEM EVER TO FACE THE WORLD. i put that in capital letters because it is important. if you consider yourself an activist, you may be worried about pollution or endangered species or wealth inequity or starvation and disease in third-world countries. if that's all you're worried about, you have a very narrow view of the world. these issues are important, but they're shit compared to to overpopulation. if someone is ill, is it better to treat the symptoms, or to fix the cause of the illness? if you chose the former, congratulations! you're a fucking idiot! the correct answer is that you fix the cause of the illness, because once you do that, the symptoms will go away.

an example: you have cancer. do you want the doctors to:
A) give you lots of morphine for the pain until you eventually die, or
B) destroy the tumor so you can recover
i'm guessing most people will choose option B. i would choose B myself, but i'd probably take some morphine as a side dish to go with the surgery.

the analogy here is that pollution, extinction of various species, inequity of wealth, starvation, and disease are ALL symptoms of overpopulation. with the technology we have today, we can easily produce enough food for the entire planet (how much longer that will be the case remains to be seen). we can cure (most) diseases, we can live in a way that doesn't destroy the habitat of other species, and we can reduce pollution, but an increasing population is counterproductive to ALL of those things, and to solving many other problems. EVERYTHING gets easier with less people around. you can chop down fewer trees to make houses. you can pollute less because energy demands aren't as high. you can keep the ratio of farmland to forest small. you can give everyone the stuff they want because there's enough of it to go around. you can get to work in 10 minutes instead of inching forward for an hour in congested traffic.

in fact, i am so sure of myself on this point that i challenge anyone and everyone to think of a single problematic issue facing the world that WOULDN'T be alleviated in some way by reducing the human population. consider yourself challenged.

needless to say, having kids is a stupid idea. "but i love children!", you say. fuck you. adopt a child. i can't think of a single reason why it would be better to have a kid made of MY genetic material as opposed to someone else's (barring any weird genetic defects, which i wouldn't want any kid to have). "but it wouldn't be the same if i raised someone else's kid!", you say. fuck you squared. the only difference would be that you'd have a little more diversity under your roof than you did before. if adoption makes you uncomfortable, you're a worthless human being and should be killed for the good of the rest of us decent folks. "but adoption would mean the rigid walls of the sacred family unit would become more permeable!", you say (though probably not quite like that). fuck you upside-down and backwards. haven't you ever heard the phrase "it takes a village to raise a child"? well, it's true, dammit! i'm not advocating that we pass children along so they have a new family every month or anything. i'm just saying kids need to be exposed to people outside their family, and that this can be better accomplished by not placing arbitrary, outdated, and ridiculous restrictions on the family unit (*COUGH* GAY MARRIAGE BILL *COUGH*).

i am not having any kids of my own, ever. i refuse to screw over everyone else (regardless of how small a way in which it is done).

if you are considering having kids, consider adoption. if you still decide to have kids of your own, you should know that you are doing the world a great disservice. i would even go so far as to say that you are committing a sin. not a religious sin, but a sort of humanistic sin. it won't look like a sin, of course. it will look like a cute baby, but in reality it's a black hole that will consume your time and $166,000 of your money. it will also consume the world's resources and will make life a little bit more miserable for everyone else on the planet, especially the people in third-world countries. of course, you won't spare yourself any of the costs by adopting, but you will spare everyone ELSE the resource drain caused by bringing more human life into the world. so don't have kids. adopt instead. it's the compassionate thing to do.
FYI: every time a child is adopted, an angel gets its wings. every time a human is born, an angel catches on fire and explodes. but seriously, think about it.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded