Letters to the Editor
-
Re No need to breed?
Interesting peice, but I was a bit surprised at the tone she used regarding adoption. As long as there are babies in your community that are orphaned, it seems to me irresponsible to let them continue suffering while you bring a fresh life in the world. I am a 40 year old man who KNOWS he will never reproduce genetically, by choice. But that doesn't mean I won't be a parent to a child who's natural parents can't care for it for some reason or another. To let that child suffer, while I bring my own genetics into the world, seems selfish at best, and dangerous at worst.
Adoption NEEDS to be seen as a more viable option, and adopted children need to be seen as the same as natural children. To bring a new child into the world when others need parents is irresponsible, IMO.
-
It does grow up, and it gets big and ugly.
Then, there's this: "People who envision having a baby often forget that they are creating an entirely new human being who will leave in a few years as an adult." Honey, I forgot the toddler would grow up!
Mieszkowski seems amused--in a patronizing way--by VHEMT's assertions, but it does seem that there are a great many people who don't seem to grasp that childrearing is more than just a collection of Kodak moments. I suspect that they come from the same pool of folks who adopt that golden retriever puppy because it's so cute and fluffy but drop it off at the shelter, neglected and unloved, because they didn't realize it would get so big and require so much care. The only difference is that there's more social sanction against abandoning children than there is against abandoning unwanted pets.
VHEMT is tilting at windmills, but if they are making people think more carefully about whether and why to have children, they're providing an important service. If their ideas became more widespread, they could help to prevent some serious family dysfunction, neglect, and abuse...if only the societal pressure to reproduce weren't so overwhelming.
-
I expected the snide tone...
...but to be candid, VHEMT doesn't need any "bromides" to sway people who are on the fence about breeding. The real bromides are the facts: over 100 years of environmental science that tells us our planet is only meant to sustain a finite number of humans given our rates of natural resource consumption. Scientists estimate that two billion, or the world population circa WWII, is the maximum sustainable given our current consumption rates.
Why is it that the suggestion of ANY level of population reduction prompts retorts that those who choose to reproduce are preserving the existence of the human race (and otherwise doing us any favors at all, which they aren't, IMO)? First of all, I've never seen anything but navel-gazing, Cary-Tennisish, sentimental spittle and platitudes offered up in support of the importance of perpetuating humanity. Why do we deserve to outlast every other living thing on the planet? Ms. Mieszkowski, why does VHEMT need to flatter and pander to the people who've selfishly determined that it's OK to bring us closer to environmental apocalypse, as long as they get a little Mini-Me or six with which to stymie their boredom and lack of purpose? How'd pandering work out for Al Gore or John Kerry?
Secondly, were humans in any danger of extinction when there were only one or two billion of us? Obviously not. Allowing the population to fall naturally to a stable, sustainable number in no way jeopardizes the continuity of human life. It's hysterical to suggest that we're going to "die out" if those humans that have the power to limit their family size do so.
It's equally hysterical to suggest that anyone who disagrees with the default choice to breed must, by default, hate children, if not all of humankind. ("You must hate America if you oppose the war!" Good gads, we're supposed to make fun of people like this, not embrace their logic.) It's sad that Ms. Thompson had to do the pro-mommy ankle-grab for the press, just so people like Mieszkowski (who earlier snotted that we should move to Ethiopia, presumably so that her own precious brood is free to pry off and burn the wood from our homes when the time comes) won't declare in their blogs that actual horns were seen growing on her head.
It's OK, though. This is about what I expected from Salon, where probably half the staff is self-obsessed yuppie Mommies who Think They Can Write.
-
note to mmefiori
Cary Tennis has actually written for Salon about why he does not have a child. You can read that piece here:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/08/breeding_tennis/index.html?sid=1150410
-
Oh, for god's sake
"Yes, that's right, they just compared having a child to shitting."
What I'm wondering is, when on earth will seemingly intelligent and educated people stop mistaking analogies for comparisons? The two are not the same, and it's cheap and childish to act as if they are. If you can't make an argument without deliberately twisting another's words, you lose said argument. Feh.
-
Mieszkowski's another bonehead "writer"
She really does confuse the point of the article, which is that adoption is a morally better choice than having a baby, with some sort of hysterical nonsense about human extinction. Yes, in a world where there are millions of unwanted, neglected children, absolutely, adoption is "better" than having a baby! What's so shocking about that? They weren't "comparing having a baby to shitting". Ew. I'm so sick of Salon's whiny articles like this. Aside from some questionable choices in partners, I really admire Angelina Jolie for having stepped up to the plate on the adoption front. One hopes more people - men and women - will be so big-hearted.
-
the movement to eradicate the scourge of humanity
Oh, come now, Broadsheet! The "movement to eradicate the scourge of humanity"?
Certainly you can poke fun at naive idealism without falling into conflation! Bill O'Reilly, yes;
Broadsheet, no.
Or did I miss the ;-) at the end?
For a discussion of the topic that is less naive, please check out "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann. Sorry that he's a mann -- perhaps some consolation can be found in his discussion of only allowing women to vote.