Just thinking about it makes me want a beer and a cigarette, or several. — Bitter Crank

I've been meaning to talk to VS about this - It was my understanding that this is a non-smoking forum.

I'm not going.

No smoking Edit: Everything is perfect.

Violators will be severely punished at 3:00 p.m. daily in front of the Administration Building. — Bitter Crank

I've said this before and I'll say it again - you should be careful what you say or people will think you are bitter and a crank.

Of course you are right about that, and then where would we be?

You need to determine your own motivation. It's all subjective.

I can't bring myself round to the idea of bringing up innocence in such a corrupt environment. Humanity in it's current state is poison. All the lies, hate toward one another is no place I want to be. You'd be better of living in the wild, if you had the luxury to chose that of course.

there is enough room in Texas for the entire world's population for each family of four to have a 2,000 sq ft home and decent yard. — Victoribus Spolia

Assuming this is actually true, it's only part of the equation. You still need additional land for farming, mining, water, factories, business, parks/recreation and energy production. And then there's roads. So it's a bit misleading to only mention being able to cram 7.xx billion people into Texas.

Granted, we could be much more efficient if the entire population lived in the continental US, leaving the rest of the world to nature. But that's not how things are, and adding another 2-3 billion people over the next few decades is only going to strain resources and the climate that much more.

Given our incredible inefficiencies and wastefulness across the globe, it would have been better if the human population had levelled out at 2 billion or so. But we didn't so we have to make do with a polluted, overfished, warming planet of 10 billion by mid century.

But maybe the robots will save us.

You still need additional land for farming, mining, water, factories, business, parks/recreation and energy production. And then there's roads. So it's a bit misleading to only mention being able to cram 7.xx billion people into Texas. — Marchesk

I acknowledge that, but we waste almost 50% of our produced food as it currently stands and we produce more food on less land than ever in human history. Per eating requirements of humans we produce more than enough food for everyone and the Guinea Plateau ALONE could surpass all of our current outputs worldwide. The Texas example is just an example meant to illustrate that the population is manageable as far as space is concerned, and the guinea plateau point illustrates that we do not need much fertile land to sustain that population which can be contained in such a space.

lets say we expanded that population to JUST the continental U.S., to make room for some of the things you mentioned, each family would have a luxurious land allotment and we would still have massive available land for farming throughout the uninhabited world.

The point above is not meant to be a "realistic" scenario of how we should distribute people and resources, it just demonstrates that the the issue IS in fact distribution and resources. The point is not to suggest what can be done, but to properly identify the problem, because if we do not understand the problem, we cannot propose and good solution.

The fact is, the issue is NOT food production and population. the issue is land management and logistics of resource allocation given localized geo-politics. This helps rule out certain solutions, like attempting to explode crop production by creating mutant corn that can grow in Blizzards or sending condoms with our foreign aid packages to the Sudan. Such thinking will result in futility and we will likewise keep having thinkers propose our own infertility in the west as somehow a good idea to help poverty elsewhere, which is mathematically and historically unjustifiable.

Bringing children into this world as per a conscious progation of the species does not seem to me to be the reason ANYONE wants to have, or indeed has, children of their own, these days. This school of thought would be more in line with the notion of an altruistic serving of the needs of the human race, leastways a human race within the overall race. Women fawn over babies. They want one. I see more a correlation with the essentially novel desire to have a puppy or kitten abouth the house, than, say, any wish to help bring about a new generation of family members. No-one says "Aww.. look at this beautiful baby, I can just imagine having my own child, children, and seeing it, them, through into adulthood.' No, the desire generally stops at the idea of a 'sweet' baby (even though we all obviously KNOW what follows!).Its only later that people, parents, have to wake up, even grow up, to the fact that baby won't be baby for very long!! Of course, we all love 'our own' and will continue to do so, but I guess my point, personal feeling, is that the 'philosophy' of bringing a child into the world, isn't much of a philosophy at all. Not at the outset, leastways. Of course, those using 'manuals', whichever 'bible', in their pursuit of having children, generally seem to have a totally different agenda. And, yes it is an agenda, a doctrine even, to follow some 'design for life' which someone else, another human being, once wrote as per their own notions, desires, and, usually, intention to control as many others as possible! This is also so subjective a reason to have offspring as to become OBJECTIVELY cold, I would go as far as to claim. It is true that I have no children of my own, but until the last ten years, maybe always thought I may, but I did live as 'father' of a family of three girls (along with Mother and me!) some years ago, loved and now miss those years greatly, but also understand that in any perceivable 'bigger scheme of things' I have now missed the boat in regards to my own true paternal inclinations! Still, I do 'get' it, whats going on, I think, and so believe that although the result of a wish for children will always lead to a simple ongoing 'propagation' scenario, how people get there is a little more basic than any understanding of what parenthood and 'passing on genes into future generations' truly and wholly entails. So, a philosophy [behind bringing a child to this world]? No, I don't really see, in general, such a process of greater thought which could be termed as such, in this case.

I believe that man's nature and obligation is to conquer and dominate . — Victoribus Spolia

The nature part, I can kinda see. The obligation part I have a real problem with. I think mankind has done enough conquering and dominating. I think it's time he pulled his head in and started looking about at the absolute carnage over creation he has caused.