David Suzuki on immigration

[Scott Mayers]

didn't think we still had support for child labour in North America

. If I couldn't have children, it would make me very bitter to know someone chose not too with the ability.

Children are NOT a commodity. While humans are considered a resource, as our population keeps successfully assuring we can live longer, the function of having children only aids to overpopulating the world and places a downward pressure on things like wages; yet, inflation is always also a factor that only makes things worse as deflation is even MORE resisted even where it is warranted. [Example: When our dollar matched the U.S., prices did not fall and, in fact, new excuses to keep prices higher for Canadians were found.]

[Freddy]

Children are NOT a commodity. While humans are considered a resource, as our population keeps successfully assuring we can live longer, the function of having children only aids to overpopulating the world and places a downward pressure on things like wages; yet, inflation is always also a factor that only makes things worse as deflation is even MORE resisted even where it is warranted. [Example: When our dollar matched the U.S., prices did not fall and, in fact, new excuses to keep prices higher for Canadians were found.]

.

Each and everyone is a unique life.! No two human on this planet is the same. Two kinds exist. The ones that are too weak to survive and procreate, and the ones that do.

That is what life is. Nothing more. We are the result of the strong that did, everything else go's extinct.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Freddy

[Scott Mayers]

Too weak? That's odd thinking unless you're deluded into thinking that your progeny takes on your consciousness. (Do you experience past life memories?) Evolution only favors offspring where the competition for survival is at it's highest risk. This is Evolution 101 from Darwin. If anything, it is when people/lifeforms are 'weak'er that we opt to have more offspring. Had offspring not evolved in this way, those species simply die off. It is only by accident/coincidence that sexual procreation assures the continuation of offspring. But if any species is or becomes more capable of living longer, sexual reproductions becomes a hazard and would evolve away by eliminating those species that over populate in environments that can no longer feed it. It is to a healthier world that less births are required.

[Freddy]

Too weak? That's odd thinking unless you're deluded into thinking that your progeny takes on your consciousness. (Do you experience past life memories?) Evolution only favors offspring where the competition for survival is at it's highest risk. This is Evolution 101 from Darwin. If anything, it is when people/lifeforms are 'weak'er that we opt to have more offspring. Had offspring not evolved in this way, those species simply die off. It is only by accident/coincidence that sexual procreation assures the continuation of offspring. But if any species is or becomes more capable of living longer, sexual reproductions becomes a hazard and would evolve away by eliminating those species that over populate in environments that can no longer feed it. It is to a healthier world that less births are required.

If you're willing to comit DNA extinction. All the power to you, In a way it's not so unlike suicide. It's a form of it.

[Scott Mayers]

If you're willing to comit DNA extinction. All the power to you, In a way it's not so unlike suicide. It's a form of it.

I don't get your concern. DNA is a as Richard Dawkins' wrote in 1974's, "The Selfish Gene". It acts without conscious essence that only dictates, "copy me". When I die, whether anyone exists that came directly from me or not is irrelevant. It is the same for considering things like legacies. We "think" that somehow we live on. Yet, unless we live elsewhere to look back on how our meaning in life affects others and can appreciate it, what's the point?

Our internal delusion is to still think the way you propose (I do this too) but it is still just a delusion. Our consciousness is evolved to feel this way to serve that "copy-me" incentive. But this is only to serve the mindless function of our genes.

[Freddy]

I don't get your concern. DNA is a as Richard Dawkins' wrote in 1974's, "The Selfish Gene". It acts without conscious essence that only dictates, "copy me". When I die, whether anyone exists that came directly from me or not is irrelevant. It is the same for considering things like legacies. We "think" that somehow we live on. Yet, unless we live elsewhere to look back on how our meaning in life affects others and can appreciate it, what's the point?

Our internal delusion is to still think the way you propose (I do this too) but it is still just a delusion. Our consciousness is evolved to feel this way to serve that "copy-me" incentive. But this is only to serve the mindless function of our genes.

You and Richard are assuming we already know without a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing more to the "selfish gene" other then, That he is selfish with only one reason for it to be. Only because, all none selfish gene simply stop existing.

By all means. Pull the plug on your gene's

Life all over the universe, is simply a act of selfishness.

Sounds like it's important to love yourself, if that's all life is.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Freddy

[Scott Mayers]

But in opposition, what I don't think you recognize is that it is also an unfair imposition upon the rest of the environment to simply allow people an unrestricted privilege to have children. The same parents don't find it 'fair' to OWN their children's actions when they become adults who often contribute to increased social problems.

[Bonam]

But in opposition, what I don't think you recognize is that it is also an unfair imposition upon the rest of the environment to simply allow people an unrestricted privilege to have children.

An unfair imposition to "allow people to have children"? Who would be doing this allowing or disallowing, and who gave that entity the right to make such decisions? It is only a completely tyrannical regime that would disallow its citizens (or more appropriately its victims) from having any number of children that they choose.The only "imposition" here is someone having the hubris to think they should be able to tell others whether they can have children or not.

[Freddy]

But in opposition, what I don't think you recognize is that it is also an unfair imposition upon the rest of the environment to simply allow people an unrestricted privilege to have children. The same parents don't find it 'fair' to OWN their children's actions when they become adults who often contribute to increased social problems.

That is why I'm not opposed to war. It's the other side of procreation. And the reality of limited resources.

I even think war accelerated evolution to our extraordinary intelligence. Good chances the internet would never have existed without war, It has its place in nature.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Freddy

[Scott Mayers]

An unfair imposition to "allow people to have children"? Who would be doing this allowing or disallowing, and who gave that entity the right to make such decisions? It is only a completely tyrannical regime that would disallow its citizens (or more appropriately its victims) from having any number of children that they choose.The only "imposition" here is someone having the hubris to think they should be able to tell others whether they can have children or not.

False. The opposite it true in a civilization. That is, if we are to be expected to respect ANY socially constructed rules based on convention of becoming responsible to one another (that is, civilization), we require just as much limitations on whether we should or should NOT allow people to have children. This is already partially being done in that we have age-limiting laws to prevent those under 18 from having such choices. It is arbitrary to nature, however. If you think it "natural" for individuals to have children, then does this not also stand fair for anything we "give off"? Do I have a 'right' to shit in the street, for instance?

[Scott Mayers]

That is why I'm not opposed to war. It's the other side of procreation. And the reality of limited resources.

I even think war accelerated evolution to our extraordinary intelligence. Good chances the internet would never have existed without war, It has its place in nature.

Does that not include things like genocide too though?

[Freddy]

Does that not include things like genocide too though?

Your making it sound like a big deal. But in fact

If all life evolved from the same living thing, and we are all Unique in our evolution . Each day we are committing mass genocide of life ,chickens cows etc.....

By your own description this is racist. But you accept it as ok.

I accept mass genocide of all life if it helps my existence. You decide to pick and choose the ones you think it's acceptable and which is not.

What would you call that?

If it's not acceptable to kill then kill nothing. We can't make up a list of things that is acceptable to kill if killing is wrong.

If you want to live life and act on a higher moral level, then you can't just decide to pick and choose and leave out everything that is inconvenient for you.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Freddy

[Scott Mayers]

Your making it sound like a big deal. But in fact

If all life evolved from the same living thing, and we are all Unique in our evolution . Each day we are committing mass genocide of life ,chickens cows etc.....

By your own description this is racist. But you accept it as ok.

I accept mass genocide of all life if it helps my existence. You decide to pick and choose the ones you think it's acceptable and which is not.

What would you call that?

If it's not acceptable to kill then kill nothing. We can't make up a list of things that is acceptable to kill if killing is wrong.

I wasn't making a statement to agree or disagree to the moral questions involved. That is, I am not presuming anyone as "racist" nor am placing judgment on you for this (your opinions, that is). My point is about how we convene or agree among ourselves for the sake of something we refer to as "civilization". I'm nihilistic intellectually. But while nature is cruelly non-moralistic, if our 'goal' as a civilization is to appeal fair to each others concern in a most effective way that appeals to those of us convening, we require certain agreements of behavior that enhance our collective comforts by creating laws for this sake. So I'm not in complete disagreement with you here if we are simply in a self-serving society. But as a civilization, should we not attempt to try laws that include population controls since this factor highly affects ALL people?

Edited June 22, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Bonam]

But as a civilization, should we not attempt to try laws that include population controls since this factor highly affects ALL people?

No, because such laws are completely unnecessary. Almost all developed countries have birth rates of 2.0 or lower per female. That means population naturally declines over time. Therefore, aside from their inherent immorality, there is also no need for population control laws from a pragmatist standpoint. Unless, of course, you want to go impose them in third world countries (good luck proposing that one).

Edited June 22, 2015 by Bonam

[Freddy]

I wasn't making a statement to agree or disagree to the moral questions involved. That is, I am not presuming anyone as "racist" nor am placing judgment on you for this. My point is about how we convene or agree among ourselves for the sake of something we refer to as "civilization". I'm nihilistic intellectually. But while nature is cruelly non-moralistic, if our 'goal' as a civilization is to appeal fair to each others concern in a most effective way that appeals to those of us convening, we require certain agreements of behavior that enhance our collective comforts by creating laws for this sake. So I'm not in complete disagreement with you here if we are simply in a self-serving society. But as a civilization, should we not attempt to try laws that include population controls since this factor highly affects ALL people?

Yes but it might have consequences we couldn't anticipate. Like the overpopulation we have, due to our world enjoying this relatively peaceful period.

By favouring and protecting human life over all other life on earth . We are causing as much damage to everything then going at it and waging wars.

We don't need laws to control population, nature already had its solution for this problem. War

Edited June 22, 2015 by Freddy

[Scott Mayers]

To both Bonam and Freddy,

While I agree that population reduction occurs naturally by many here, overpopulation still occurs here for the same reasons. You can't presume everyone is well off as you may perceive yourself in this environment. Rural populations still operate on the belief of the-more-children-the-better. Like I said, children are NOT commodities or pets meant to entertain parents or serve to take care of them in some future. They are real living entities that eventually gain their own capacity to join civilization with their own minds and powers and thus where some opt NOT to have children, those who DO end up having an unrestricted capacity to impose potential restrictions upon the rest of the society.

It may or may not be possible to enact ideal laws to control population births. But if we don't, as our world population gets bigger, there WILL come a point to which even any voluntary birth controls will dissolve unless that luxurious population maintains even stricter controls on the masses by preventing them from the same luxuries. Population is exponential and grows upwards while the supply of our present luxuries keep diminishing. Thus less 'luxurious' people who volunteer to give up having children and more impoverished ones who will have more.

[jbg]

Good for Kenney for calling Suzuki out on such an insane statement.

After listening to Suzuki on global warming back in 2001 (and in fact got my start on Canadian boards by being on his board), I don't know that he has any other kinds of statements, outside maybe biology.

[Freddy]

To both Bonam and Freddy,

While I agree that population reduction occurs naturally by many here, overpopulation still occurs here for the same reasons. You can't presume everyone is well off as you may perceive yourself in this environment. Rural populations still operate on the belief of the-more-children-the-better. Like I said, children are NOT commodities or pets meant to entertain parents or serve to take care of them in some future. They are real living entities that eventually gain their own capacity to join civilization with their own minds and powers and thus where some opt NOT to have children, those who DO end up having an unrestricted capacity to impose potential restrictions upon the rest of the society.

It may or may not be possible to enact ideal laws to control population births. But if we don't, as our world population gets bigger, there WILL come a point to which even any voluntary birth controls will dissolve unless that luxurious population maintains even stricter controls on the masses by preventing them from the same luxuries. Population is exponential and grows upwards while the supply of our present luxuries keep diminishing. Thus less 'luxurious' people who volunteer to give up having children and more impoverished ones who will have more.

Our expectations of high quality of life, directly influence us to have less kids due to our liabilities. Compared with someone who has zero quality of life who could benefit from having a few children helping to gather the few minimum necessities of life.

[H10]

The overpopulation claim makes no sense. People in the lesser populated developed countries use up all the resources and threaten the stability of the world. 20 million australians destroy and use up far more resources than 200 million + indonesians. If any population needs to go down its europe, america and canada. Because another 100 million people in australia and canada would use more resources than another billion people in asia and africa. Not to mention due to colonialism and slavery many countries in africa are grossly underpopulated. a country like Mali is very large but has so few people that it is easy for the rebels to hide because most of the country is not even inhabitated.