- Messages
- 916
CMV: If it's wrong to have children of your own because that overpopulates the earth, then for that same reason, it's also wrong to donate money to feed the starving children of the third world
I hear people saying a lot that it's selfish to have kids because, being typical westerners, they're likely going to engage in a lot of wasteful overconsumption that will hurt the environment. For example, if they conform to the dominant culture, they're probably going to eat meat, drive cars, drink coffee that wasn't traded fairly, wear a wedding ring that has a 3-carat conflict diamond, etc.
It seems to be assumed that because the people of the third world live in a less technologically- and economically-developed society, their population won't have as much of an impact. Instead of using a petroleum-powered tractor, they'll probably use a plow pulled by some draft animal fed by grass produced through photosynthesis, or they'll hunt wildlife, which is a renewable resource (till it gets hunted into extinction). During their early stages of industrialization, they may economize by riding a motorcycle instead of a gas-guzzling SUV.
The thing is, these recipients of charity are not living in accordance with the balance of nature, though; they're being propped up by western civilization. Our society had to produce a surplus in order to feed them, which means that they're still contributing to whatever industrial activity was needed to create that economic output. It's kind of like if you buy an electric car and then plug it into a grid where the power comes from coal burning plants. All you're doing is adding a middleman to the process, which ironically makes it LESS efficient.
Also, one of three things is going to happen in the future: (1) that backward society will fully industrialize, and become western-style consumers just like us, and everything we donated to keep them alive will just have made them a BIGGER western-style civilization; or (2) that society will become semi-industrialized, and be like China, Mexico, or India, with a bunch of pollution because they have a big population but can't afford to invest money in cleaner technologies; or (3) they'll remain poor and just keep reproducing as much as possible, with the help of whatever aid we give them; and eventually, just by their sheer numbers, they'll be consuming as much as we do, even if they live at a lower standard of living.
If people in the third world have a culture that encourages having more kids than they can support, then all you're doing, by refraining from having your own kids, and instead donating to feed their kids, is paying someone else to overpopulate the world on your behalf. It's no different than hiring a hit man and then saying, "Well, I didn't pull the trigger, so technically I'm not a murderer; and in fact I'm even a benefactor because I helped give that hit man a livelihood."
Westerners see that people from less-developed countries have a culture that respects nature in some ways, because they're more directly in contact with nature and affected by its vagaries, so therefore would want to pray to the rain gods and whatnot for favorable weather. Or they would want to refrain from offending the spirit of the animals that they rely on for food, lest those creatures refuse to yield themselves up to the hunter.
Westerners seem to assume somehow that when these people's economic situation is changed, they will still retain that nature-loving culture and be more environmentally friendly than us. They'll out-hippie us because they have fewer centuries of civilization in their heritage; they'll be eating more granola, driving more hybrids, building more solar power plants, etc. because their memories of being impacted so much by the mysterious vicissitudes of the natural world and being in such close contact with nature will be so fresh in their minds, that they'll still have a high respect for it.
But actually what I think they will do, once they get some money, is try to overcompensate for their years of poverty by buying the hugest SUVs and mansions they can afford, going on vacations all over the world, etc. so they can show that they're just as prosperous as us. They'll want to build a huge military, too, so they can show they're as powerful as us. They're going to be like Amish kids who have had an opportunity to go to public school and play around with technology; they'll turn their backs on their cultural heritage and join mainstream civilization to the extent they're able to.
It's just human nature that when people see what their peers have, they feel bad if what they have seems lacking in comparison. Once these countries start to develop, we'll seem more like their peers and they'll feel uncomfortable if they can't match our various material accomplishments, so they're just going to spend, spend, spend and to fuel even more consumption, try to maximize their economic production so they can win that dick-measuring contest and be kings of the world.
CMV.
I hear people saying a lot that it's selfish to have kids because, being typical westerners, they're likely going to engage in a lot of wasteful overconsumption that will hurt the environment. For example, if they conform to the dominant culture, they're probably going to eat meat, drive cars, drink coffee that wasn't traded fairly, wear a wedding ring that has a 3-carat conflict diamond, etc.
It seems to be assumed that because the people of the third world live in a less technologically- and economically-developed society, their population won't have as much of an impact. Instead of using a petroleum-powered tractor, they'll probably use a plow pulled by some draft animal fed by grass produced through photosynthesis, or they'll hunt wildlife, which is a renewable resource (till it gets hunted into extinction). During their early stages of industrialization, they may economize by riding a motorcycle instead of a gas-guzzling SUV.
The thing is, these recipients of charity are not living in accordance with the balance of nature, though; they're being propped up by western civilization. Our society had to produce a surplus in order to feed them, which means that they're still contributing to whatever industrial activity was needed to create that economic output. It's kind of like if you buy an electric car and then plug it into a grid where the power comes from coal burning plants. All you're doing is adding a middleman to the process, which ironically makes it LESS efficient.
Also, one of three things is going to happen in the future: (1) that backward society will fully industrialize, and become western-style consumers just like us, and everything we donated to keep them alive will just have made them a BIGGER western-style civilization; or (2) that society will become semi-industrialized, and be like China, Mexico, or India, with a bunch of pollution because they have a big population but can't afford to invest money in cleaner technologies; or (3) they'll remain poor and just keep reproducing as much as possible, with the help of whatever aid we give them; and eventually, just by their sheer numbers, they'll be consuming as much as we do, even if they live at a lower standard of living.
If people in the third world have a culture that encourages having more kids than they can support, then all you're doing, by refraining from having your own kids, and instead donating to feed their kids, is paying someone else to overpopulate the world on your behalf. It's no different than hiring a hit man and then saying, "Well, I didn't pull the trigger, so technically I'm not a murderer; and in fact I'm even a benefactor because I helped give that hit man a livelihood."
Westerners see that people from less-developed countries have a culture that respects nature in some ways, because they're more directly in contact with nature and affected by its vagaries, so therefore would want to pray to the rain gods and whatnot for favorable weather. Or they would want to refrain from offending the spirit of the animals that they rely on for food, lest those creatures refuse to yield themselves up to the hunter.
Westerners seem to assume somehow that when these people's economic situation is changed, they will still retain that nature-loving culture and be more environmentally friendly than us. They'll out-hippie us because they have fewer centuries of civilization in their heritage; they'll be eating more granola, driving more hybrids, building more solar power plants, etc. because their memories of being impacted so much by the mysterious vicissitudes of the natural world and being in such close contact with nature will be so fresh in their minds, that they'll still have a high respect for it.
But actually what I think they will do, once they get some money, is try to overcompensate for their years of poverty by buying the hugest SUVs and mansions they can afford, going on vacations all over the world, etc. so they can show that they're just as prosperous as us. They'll want to build a huge military, too, so they can show they're as powerful as us. They're going to be like Amish kids who have had an opportunity to go to public school and play around with technology; they'll turn their backs on their cultural heritage and join mainstream civilization to the extent they're able to.
It's just human nature that when people see what their peers have, they feel bad if what they have seems lacking in comparison. Once these countries start to develop, we'll seem more like their peers and they'll feel uncomfortable if they can't match our various material accomplishments, so they're just going to spend, spend, spend and to fuel even more consumption, try to maximize their economic production so they can win that dick-measuring contest and be kings of the world.
CMV.