Should people stop reproducing


What's Wrong With Having Babies? Don't you like babies?

VHMET-Volunteers like babies as much (or as little) as everyone else. "Having babies" is not so much the problem - having adults is what causes problems. The ecological impact of disposable diapers is certainly considerable, but we have grown up longer than we are children.

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

Childhood and youth 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 shouldn't be any more of them. A baby condor may not be as cute as a human baby, but one of the two we must choose if the other is to survive.

Also, when there are fewer of them to be cared for, caring for the children of humans will improve. When we think about the world we will leave behind for future generations, reproduction today feels like renting rooms in a burning house.

By choosing not to beget another one of us, show Volunteers a deep love for life.

If we only have two children, don't we just replace ourselves?

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

Today the demand hardly sounds any different: "Think about not getting any or just one - and be sure to stop after the second."

The idea that two offspring only replace ourselves is doubtful. We are not salmon that breed and then die. Most of us will see our own grandchildren in our lifetime, and probably our great-grandchildren too.

Accordingly, our influence on the earth's ecosystem doubles if we "replace ourselves" - always provided that our descendants lead an environmentally friendly lifestyle as we do, and that they do not reproduce.

The demand to quit after the second child actually challenges the procreation of "qualified" couples. Even if a wanted child is better than an unwanted one, an intelligent one (whatever we mean by that) is better than a stupid one, and a cared for better than a neglected one, each of us in the over-industrialized world has a gigantic negative influence on nature, regardless of these factors.

If we stop after the second child, in terms of energy expenditure, it is like the average East Indian couple stopping after the sixtieth - or the Ethiopian after the one 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 the second, but rather right away.

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

How many times have you heard or said that yourself? Whoever says that: we can be sure that he or she is not talking about himself. No, it always is these wrong people. It's "those stupid degenerates who shouldn't reproduce. Those who are too poor to raise children, or so abnormal that they don't even have their children." to like and maybe abuse them. "According to this logic, it follows that" bad specimens shouldn't spread their genes. "Seems familiar, doesn't it?

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

Perhaps, but even if intelligence could be measured and inherited, there is no evidence that the exhausts of intelligent people stink less than those of idiots. And since wealthy people can also give their offspring more material wealth than the socially disadvantaged, the ecological influence of those offspring is also likely to cause more damage simply because they can consume more.

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

Others find that their race or ethnic group is or will soon be in the minority if they do not keep up with the increase. Carrying on the family name has long been an uncontested justification for procreation, and when a couple says they want "one of their own" they mean "one that has our genes". The thought behind this ancestry mentality is deep and firm: more of us, less of those. Even if the word is worn out: to me it smells like racism. And when a couple wants a descendant of a certain gender, even after sexism. It takes some elitist thinking to create replicas of ourselves today, while tens of thousands of children of the "other" die every day because no one can take care of them.

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

In the end it is for VHMET-Volunteers the wrong species that has children. Regardless of our superficial differences, we are all homo sapiens. And as long as we continue to exterminate other species en masse, an increase in our species cannot be justified.

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

Well, if there was a minimal intelligence test that was needed to get the "license to multiply" - would you pass it?

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

With 40,000 children dying of malnutrition every day, and the number of animal and plant species that are becoming extinct as a result of our excessive reproduction, do you think it would be a good idea to have someone like you?



What about the human instinct to reproduce?

Like all living things, humans have instincts that lead to reproduction. But our biological drive is to have sex and not to have children. If we have an "instinct to reproduce," then a squirrel also has an instinct to plant trees: the shoot tells it to bury nuts, and trees are the natural consequence.

Cultural desires can become so strong that we mistake them for biological drives, but there is no evolutionary evidence of an "instinct for reproduction." Otherwise, why do we stop having children when we have as many as we wanted? If instinct is really aimed at reproduction, how can we resist it? There are too many of us who have never had the desire to have children; but mutations do not occur in such a large proportion of a population.

Let's look back to our evolutionary roots and face it homo erectus imagine how he has the desire to bring a new person into the world. All he has to do now is understand that for this he needs a woman, has to have sexual intercourse with her and that then you have to wait nine months ...

In view of the frequency with which we as a species desire sex, it seems likely that human sexuality, in addition to having children, also serves not least to bond with couples. Human toddlers are so vulnerable (and for so long) that their survival depends on strong ties between their parents - and even more so in prehistoric times.

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

  • Continue the family name. Do dad a favor. Blood relationship cult drivel.
  • I want my (as yet unconceived) children to have better things than I did. Unfulfilled childhood dreams and fantasies.
  • This time we would like a boy / girl. Ego extension. Uncertainty about gender roles. Dissatisfaction with existing children.
  • I just love kids. Lost contact with inner child and existing children.
  • I want someone to come and see me when I am old. Uncertainty. Fear of old age. Exploitative personality.
  • We want to give grandchildren to our parents. Still dependent on the encouragement of the parents.
  • I have superior human genes. Oxymoron.

While most conceptions are unintentional, conformity is arguably the number one reason for wanting pregnancies. Many seem reluctant to question tradition or to be different from what is considered normal in our society.

Surprisingly, many who continue to reproduce have never thought about doing anything else. Prontalist propaganda is ubiquitous and it works well.

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

For many of us, "just don't do it" is not enough as an answer. Most people who are not already parents need alternatives to meet the needs of having children.

Both men and women can feel the need to protect a helpless being. Instead of producing a new human being in order to then protect him, there are enough other "children" of the earth who need our protection. Possibilities 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 parenting, "borrowing" children from relatives or a "big brother / big sister program" (is there something like that here too?) Could meet the need to help. A career choice such as nanny or teacher also gives ample opportunity to take care of yourself.

But not only young people need help. Like other domesticated animals, everyone needs the help of others at some point in their life. Helping the elderly, the disabled, the 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.

The first step on the way to an alternative to one's own reproduction is to rethink the pronatalistic attitude of the past. From childhood we are told that we will one day have children ourselves. We are asked "how many and when?" Only when we answer: "Never" do the alternatives become meaningful.

Shall we stop having sex?

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

The World Health Organization estimates that an average of about 100 million couples sleep together every day. That's only about 3.3% of the six billion people in the world. Thanks to contraception and sterility, this regrettably small amount of love-making leads to only about 910,000 pregnancies, of which about 55% fail to make it to birth for various reasons. According to an estimate by U.S. Census Bureau do it about 365,000 a day.

Thus, less than 0.4% of all heterosexual acts of love lead to the creation of a new person - which is statistically insufficient to prove a causal connection between sex and reproduction.

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

If there were more avenues for sexual fulfillment, perhaps fewer people would try to fill a disturbing void with a dependent being.

Is VHEMT for Abortion?

Only during pregnancy.

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 move isn't even for wanted Pregnancy. Unfortunately, accidental conceptions still happen, so a way to repair this damage is still important.

But without conception there would be no abortion.

The question of a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion is in some ways beyond the scope of VHEMT. But the first word in our name is "voluntary," and bearing an unwanted child to term is certainly not. Even so, there is a wide range of opinions on the subject in the movement.

Polls at information booths in North America have found that the average desired score on this scale is about 3.5. However, the actual pressure worldwide is below 1: no choice, but at the other end of the scale. Instead of being forced to use contraception, many couples are forced to use it dispense: negative contraceptive pressure, so to speak.

Next section: DEATH