Biology and reproduction

What’s wrong with having babies? You don’t like babies?

VHMET-volunteer like babies as much (or as little) as everyone else. "Have babies" is not the problem at all ?? It is adults who have problems. The environmental impact of disposable diapers is certainly significant, but we have grown up longer than we are children.

People who think about having a child often forget that they are creating a new person who will leave them as an adult in a comparatively few years.

Childhood and adolescence are wonderful parts of life, be it that of a human, a panda bear or a big cat. It is sad to imagine that there should not be any more. A baby condor may not be as cute as a human baby, but we have to choose one of the two if the other is to survive.

In addition, care for human children will improve when there are fewer of them to be cared for. When we think about the world we leave behind for future generations, reproduction today looks like renting rooms in a burning house.

By deciding not to father another of us volunteer a deep love for life.

If we only have two children, we are not just replacing ourselves?

Stop after the second child ?? that may have been a radical demand in 1968, when the demand for zero population growth increased. But even then it was hardly an appropriate one. The so-called "self-replacing reproduction" (replacement level fertility) of 2.1 children per couple, population growth would not continue until well into the next century.

Today the demand hardly sounds different: "Thinking about getting none or just one ?? and be sure to stop after the second."

The idea that two offspring will only replace ourselves is doubtful. We are not salmon that multiply and then die. Most of us will still see our own grandchildren in their lives, and probably also the great-grandchildren.

Accordingly, our influence on the earth’s ecosystem doubles when we look at ourselves "replace yourself" ?? always provided that our descendants lead an environmentally friendly lifestyle as we do, and that they don’t reproduce.

The call to stop after the second child is really a reproduction "qualified" Couples out. Even if a wanted child is better than an unwanted one, an intelligent (whatever we mean by it) better than a stupid and a cared for better than a neglected one, each of us in the over-industrialized world has a gigantic negative impact on nature, regardless of these factors.

When we stop after the second child, is it in terms of energy consumption like the average East Indian couple stop after the sixtieth? or the Ethiopian after the thousandth.

Two are better than four and one is twice as good as two ?? but even a single intentionally conceived child is now the moral equivalent of selling a ticket for a sinking ship.

Regardless of how many offspring we already have ?? we don’t have to stop after the first or second, but immediately.

Isn’t it that the wrong people are having children these days??

How many times have you heard that or said it yourself? Whoever says that: we can be sure that he or she does not mean himself. No, they always are this wrong people. There are "these stupid degenerates who shouldn’t reproduce. Those who are too poor to raise children or so devious that they don’t even have their children to like and maybe be abused." According to this logic it follows that "bad specimens shouldn’t spread their genes." Doesn’t seem familiar to us?

These opinions implicitly assume that some people do right are responsible for passing on their genes. Intelligent, financially sound, responsible, social people with superior genes should create more of their kind. After all, somebody will do it anyway, right?

Maybe, but even if intelligence could be measured and inherited, there is no evidence that the exhaust fumes of intelligent people smell less than those of idiots. And since wealthy people can give their descendants more material prosperity than the socially disadvantaged, the ecological impact of these descendants is likely to do more harm simply because they can consume more.

Some also say that the religious or political system to which they belong needs more members to improve the world; but there is no guarantee that the offspring will follow their parents’ traditions. In fact, the opposite seems to be the rule in modern society. And by the way: if the only people who will adopt a given world view are their own descendants, not everything can be best with this world view.

Others find that if they fail to keep up with the multiplication, their race or ethnic group will be or will soon be in the minority. Continuing the family name has long been an uncontested justification for reproduction, and when a couple says it "an own" want to have, then they mean "one that has our genes". The idea behind this parentage mentality is deep and firm: more of us, less of to those. Even if the word is worn out: for me it smells of racism. And if a couple wants a descendant of a certain gender, even after sexism. It takes a lot of elitist thinking to create replicas of ourselves today, while tens of thousands of children do "other" die every day because nobody can take care of them.

In any case, simply increasing the sheer number of people in a particular religious, political, or genetic group is not necessarily a good way to improve their status. "proliferation wars" between rival groups have already brought about changes in power in some majority-determined governments; but the members of these groups are not better off because they belong to the larger ones. Multiplication for the sake of power is a holdover of the old tradition that we have today "genocide" name: mass murder due to genetic conditions. The motivation remains the same.

Ultimately it is for VHMET-volunteer the wrong species that has children. We are all independent of our superficial differences homo sapiens. And as long as we continue to exterminate other species en masse, we cannot be responsible for the multiplication of our species.

I am particularly intelligent. Shouldn’t I pass on my genes?

Well: if there was a minimal intelligence test that would be necessary to get the "License to propagate" to get ?? would you pass it?

Let’s just try it. Please answer the following question:

Given the 40,000 children who die from malnutrition every day and the number of animal and plant species that are becoming extinct as a result of our proliferation? do you think it’s a good one idea would be to put someone like you in the world?

What about human instinct to reproduce?

Humans, like all living things, have instincts that lead to multiplication. But our biological drive is to have sex, not to have children. If we have one "Instinct to multiply" then a squirrel also has an instinct to plant trees: the urge tells him to bury nuts, and trees are the natural consequence.

Culture-related desires can become so strong that we mistake them for biological drives, but there is no evolutionary indication of one "proliferation instinct". Why else do we stop having children when we have as many as we want? If instinct really aims at multiplication, how can we resist it? There are too many of us who have never wanted children; but mutations do not occur in such a large proportion of a population.

Let us look back at our evolutionary roots and introduce ourselves homo erectus how he has a desire to bring a new person into the world. All he has to do now is understand that he needs a woman to do this, must have sexual intercourse with her and that they then have to wait nine months.

Given the frequency with which we, as a species, have the desire for sex, it seems likely that human sexuality, in addition to having children, will not least serve to bond with couples. Human toddlers are so vulnerable (and for so long) that their survival depends on strong parental ties? and depended even more in prehistoric times.

But because people who intend to reproduce subconsciously feel that this is a mistake, they cannot speak their real reasons. We therefore have to translate their explanations:

  • Continue the family name. Father doing a favor. Blood Relatives cult drivel.
  • I want my (not yet begotten) children to have better times than I had. Unfulfilled childhood dreams and fantasies.
  • This time we would like to have a boy / girl. Egoverlängerung. Insecurity about gender roles. Dissatisfaction with existing children.
  • I just love kids. Lost contact with inner child and with existing children.
  • I want someone to visit me when I am old. Uncertainty. Fear of old age. Exploiting personality.
  • We want to give grandchildren to our parents. Still dependent on parents’ approval.
  • I have superior human genes. oxymoron.

Although most of the conceptions are unintentional, compliance is probably the main reason for desired pregnancies. Many seem to hesitate to question the tradition put or to be different from what is considered normal in our society.

Surprisingly, many who continue to reproduce have never thought about behaving differently. Prontalist propaganda is pervasive and works well.

I always wanted to have my own baby. What else is the meaning of life?

It is enough for many of us "Just leave it" not as an answer. Most people who are not already parents need alternatives to meet the needs that are having children.

Both men and women may need to protect a helpless being. Instead of producing a new person to protect him, there are enough others "children" the earth who need our protection. Options in this direction are the protection of wild animals and their habitats, but also simply gardening.

If nature is not enough to replace people: there are enough children who need parents. Adoption, foster parenthood, the "Borrow" the children of relatives or a "Big Brother / Big Sister program" (Is there something like this here too?) could meet the need to help. A career choice such as nanny or teacher gives ample opportunity to take care of yourself.

But not only young people need help. Everyone, like other domesticated animals, needs the help of others at some point in their lives. Helping the elderly, disabled, sick or otherwise disadvantaged can also meet our altruistic needs.

Pets have much less environmental impact than humans, and many child-free people find it emotionally satisfying to adopt a dog or cat.

But the first step on the way to an alternative to your own reproduction is to rethink the pronatalistic attitude of the past. From childhood we are told that we will have children ourselves. We are asked, "how many and when?" Only when we answer: "No way", the alternatives become meaningful.

Shall we no longer have sex??

Sex is the cause of most pregnancies, but is sexual intercourse really the main reason for human reproduction? As nonsensical as this question may seem, here are a few statistics:

The World Health Organization estimates that an average of around 100 million couples sleep together each day. That is only about 3.3% of the six billion people in the world. Thanks to contraception and sterility, this unfortunate small amount of lovemaking only leads to around 910,000 pregnancies, of which around 55% fail for various reasons for birth create. According to an estimate by the U.S. The Census Bureau manages around 365,000 daily.

So less than 0.4% of all heterosexual love acts lead to the creation of a new person ?? which is not statistically sufficient to prove a causal connection between sex and reproduction.

Doubt? Well, try it yourself. Estimate how often you have had sex in your life. And now you estimate how many times you tried to make a child. Now divide the small number by the large number to find out what percentage of times you were motivated by the desire to reproduce.

If there were more ways to achieve sexual fulfillment, fewer people might try to fill a disturbing void with a dependent being.

Is VHEMT for abortion?

Pregnancy only.

No, seriously: pregnancy should be avoided wherever possible. Unwanted pregnancy is the cause of almost all abortions, and VHEMT is certainly not for unwanted pregnancy.

The movement is not even for wanted Pregnancy. Unfortunately, accidental procreation still happens, so a way to repair this damage is still important.

But without conception there would be no abortion.

The question of the right of women to safe and legal abortion is, to some extent, beyond the scope of VHEMT. But the first word in our name is "voluntary", and carrying an unwanted child is definitely not. Nevertheless, there is a wide range of opinions on the subject in the movement.

Surveys of information stands in North America have shown that the average desired value on this scale is around 3.5. The actual pressure is less than 1 worldwide: no choice, but at the other end of the scale. Instead of being forced to use contraception, many couples are forced to do so dispense: negative contraceptive pressure, so to speak.


Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Christina Cherry
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: