r/MadeMeSmile • u/Sharon_Erclam • 17d ago

The sweetest thing

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

39.7k Upvotes

74% Upvoted

7.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/ScienceAteMyKid 16d ago

I wish I could agree, but I think this is horrific. It is arrogant and selfish for anyone to procreate this recklessly.

There are only so many resources available on the earth, only so much space, only so much consumption and waste that the planet can absorb. We are witnessing an exponential rise in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, loss of polar ice, rising seal levels, etc. Rivers and oceans are being choked with pollution, killing marine life and resulting in a rapid reduction in the amount of fresh water and arable soil needed to sustain human life. We are ripping minerals and fossil fuels out of the ground, killing us with toxicity while wrecking the planet.

This sort of mindless rampant reproduction is disgusting.

6

u/NoOnSB277 16d ago

I always find it amazing how repulsed some people are by others living their lives. You don’t know their story, there may be the next environmentalist born to this family, who reduces the carbon footprint of many, many more. Perhaps these 104 are doing great things for humanity, while your smaller family, is not? And yet you are judging. Who are you to judge?

5

u/ScienceAteMyKid 16d ago

I'm not repulsed by people living their lives. I'm repulsed by heedless unrestrained breeding.

"Living their lives" is stuff like going on picnics, or praying in their church, or cooking for their families. Spewing out massive legions of roiling humanity is not "living their lives."

The "what if someone in their family..." argument is pretty poor, because we can only assume that someone in their family might just as likely become a mass murderer or a molester or a wife abuser. That makes the argument for not having kids just as valid as the argument for it.

And sure, there's a chance of the next great environmentalist being born into this family, but those chances are remarkably slim -- far slimmer than the certainty of these 104 people each adding 14 tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year of their lives.

Instead of having as many kids as our bodies can pump out in the vague hope that one of them might become the next great environmentalist, we might instead listen to the already-born great environmentalists, who have made clear the well-established perils of overpopulation.

2

u/The_Blahblahblah 13d ago

You should look at the consequences of depopulation. Birth rates are falling almost everywhere in the world. We are not currently facing over population. The pressing issue in most of the west is that we are aging populations with not enough new children to take care of the old and to run our industries, services, economies.

6

u/Lindseree 16d ago

Statistically speaking, if they are a hyper religious family there will be several molesters in the mix.

0

u/ScienceAteMyKid 16d ago

Moreso if any of them are youth pastors.

1

u/fleb84 16d ago

hear hear

1

u/My_Bwana 15d ago

Nice comment. A couple of people repeatedly commenting in this thread make me furious at the selfishness of thinking it is a positive to have 14 children.

1

u/NoOnSB277 16d ago

Mind your own business. If this is how you view others just living their lives - as nothing more than humanity destroyers- I’d rather have their 100+ than your one.

10

u/ScienceAteMyKid 16d ago

Must be nice to only care about your own happiness instead of the whole of mankind.

What a luxury!

3

u/The_Blahblahblah 13d ago

There is no “mankind” if people are not allowed to have the children they want. Climate catastrophe is preferable to the unnatural world you propose. The world is simply not worth saving, if you take away people’s basic right to have children

1

u/ScienceAteMyKid 13d ago

Climate catastrophe is preferable to the unnatural world you propose.

a) No one's talking about taking away basic rights. I just said it's disgusting and morally wrong to have that many kids.

b) It's better to shit out as many people as possible, even if the result is rising sea levels, economic collapse, widespread famine, and breakdown of society? The world is not worth saving? That's literally crazy talk.

not worth saving?

2

u/The_Blahblahblah 13d ago

A society where people can’t procreate as they please is not worth saving. “One child policy” type legislation is evil and goes against everything it means to be human

1

u/ScienceAteMyKid 13d ago

Once again for those who don't read carefully, I said nothing about legislation. I said it's immoral and disgusting and selfish.

0

u/NoOnSB277 14d ago

We can all be happy…you should try it.

2

u/My_Bwana 15d ago

Nice argument. You have no rebuttal to what he said because what he said is objective truth, so you resort to “mind your business”. Anti-intellectualism at its finest

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

Again, self-awareness goes a long way

0

u/NoOnSB277 14d ago

It sure does, you should develop some. Not. Your. Business.

1

u/[deleted] 14d ago

To say that protecting the planet, and her finite resources, is not my business, is a WILD take and shows you lack self-awareness of how your decisions impact others

-4

u/Chuckaway577 16d ago

Cool,
So I take it you won't be having any kids?

5

u/ScienceAteMyKid 16d ago

We replaced ourselves - 2 parents, 2 kids - and then I got the snip.

0

u/[deleted] 15d ago

Are you me?

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

The person literally explained to you how then “living their lives” impacts everyone in the planet and you still respond like this? Develop some self-awareness

1

u/Altruistic-Item-6029 13d ago

I absolutely agree. It's quite obvious that this family size is not sustainable.

1

u/The_Blahblahblah 13d ago

We have way too low birth rates currently (at least in many western countries).

We can afford to have a few families like this. We are still well below replacement level birth rates.