Sonja (vegansonja) wrote, @ 2004-05-01 13:49:00

Current mood:	*sigh*
Current music:	"Shampoo Suicide" -Broken Social Scene

If I could tell the world just one thing, it would be...
I'm someone who definitely intends not to make new people.

First, I don't think bringing someone new into the world, human or not, is somehow doing that someone a service. However, it definitely seems to me that raising someones who are already here could significantly brighten a lot of lives. In other words, no argument for procreation over adoption has ever made sense to me.
*thinking* Two scenarios (I think I'm about to go silly...but in a sort of serious way):

Scenario One (I adopt a child):

There's a kid who needs parents. Awesome. Here I am. S/he becomes part of my awesome vegan family, has a relatively happy childhood, cares about things, does good works, etc.
My hope would be that s/he would go on to adopt children of her/his own, but I'll make a baseless assumption that s/he will decide to procreate instead, contributing to generation after generation of new people, all of whom are at least a slight drain on the planet... even if some of them do end up having some positive impact as well. Hurray for adoption!

Scenario Two (I and another make a new person):

Jean-Pierre (not Raffarin--I just think that a sexy name) and I create a child. S/he becomes part of my awesome vegan family, has a relatively happy childhood, cares about things, does good works, etc. I'll make another baseless assumption that s/he would also choose procreation over adoption, contributing to generation after generation of new people, all of whom are at least a slight drain on the planet (we'll say equal to those descendents in scenario one)... even if some of them end up having a positive impact as well.

(still Scenario Two) Here's where the scenarios differ

Meanwhile, the child I adopted in Scenario One is still born. Now, it's possible that s/he could still end up with a loving home, but that only means that the less happy unadopted life was displaced to someone else (as that loving home took in yet another adoptable child under scenario one, etc.). ...but to make this easier on everyone, I'll say the unadopted life wasn't displaced and the child I could have adopted is tossed about through her/his childhood, is sent out on her/his own at 18, and likely ends up in a life of poverty.
Now, I won't get into the sociology of it all, but more often than not, poverty and lack of parenting leads to lots of crappiness and sadness. Instead, I'll just say, adoption isn't even an option for this impoverished adult. S/he procreates and because that seems to be the trend among the poor, s/he likely ends up with more children than s/he would have otherwise (we'll say four kids instead of two, all of whom grow up in poverty and go on to procreate themselves).
This means that eventually (after a few generations--I'm a genealogy nerd), there are "a bunch" more people than there would have been had I not procreated. ...and if you need something more immediate, my would-be child and grandchildren are all off living relatively crappy lives somewhere.

I think what all of that meant was... I think it's damned important for us to realize that adoption isn't reserved for the sterile...and there are far from enough naturally sterile people to take in all of the parentless children in the world.
Adoptive children are NOT just what people end up with when they can't get the real deal. They are people, and because having natural children has been promoted as somehow "special", they're often passed by. ...and that makes me sad.

I really am not trying to criticize those of you who have chosen/will choose to procreate. I don't think even a bit less of you. It's just a decision that seems a bit selfish to me (please don't hate me for saying so--I'm sorry!), and it's a decision I can only understand with difficulty.
_______________________________

Though I've lost affection for both song and artist, I think I was trying to quote Jewel with that subject line.
"If I could tell the world just one thing, it would be, we're all okay". That line really spoke to me when I was fifteen. You see, I have a way of taking words out of context and letting them have whatever meaning I want them to have. :)
As a teenager, I interpreted that one as, "If I could tell the world just one thing it would be, we're all cool people (so chill the hell out)".
The problem with that interpretation is... in context, it doesn't make much sense. :D :D :D
My current interpretation of the line is, "If I could tell the world just one thing it would be, we're all going to be okay". Jewel was basically saying, "everything's fine (so chill the hell out)".
I still like that the song seems to be about combatting miserable apathy. ...but damn it, Jewel, I don't think we're all going to be okay.

note: I would actually encourage folks to adopt older children, but "Adopt Babies" sounded funnier in my head. :) ...but parenting doesn't really sound like fun to me. I think I'll forgo full-time child-rearing altogether and save the world instead. :)

	beastofburden 2004-05-03 11:18 (link)
	Yeah, I still like Jewel and some of her songs. But, while I do agree...we are all not going to be okay, I still like that song too. It would rock if we would be all okay though. *sigh* Maybe she's just optimistic or something. Hmm... The name of that band makes me want to find their music. (Reply to this) (Thread)

vegansonja 2004-05-03 12:51 (link)

I don't really dislike "Hands". The opening line in particular just sort of strikes a nerve. ...and I think my annoyances toward Jewel herself stem more from having heard that she had bought a pet store puppy (who she dresses up in annoying clothing). :) I remember there was another song on that album with a line that impressed 15-year-old me. :) The song "Deep Water" contains the line, "And you try to find yourself in the abstractions of religion and the cruelty of everyone else". At the time, that seemed a lot like what I had been doing. Looking back (and really, I even knew this then), though, I wasn't so much looking for my damned self as for something that might feel confidently like "truth". Meanwhile, my conservative Christian surroundings and "the good book" were telling me that I was eternally damned for even having the damned doubts that I couldn't control. :D Damn, that was a beautiful year in my brain! (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

cobrabubbles 2004-05-03 14:20 (link)

I have that CD. Got it at like midnight the day it came out. Thought it was pretty spiffy at the time. Still do, I guess...but Jewel depresses me these days. All that poppy nonsense...what happened to the yodeling, damn it? Oh, and she's got that fella who's a rodeo guy. Meh. Better than being a matador, I suppose. "Deep Water" and "Hands" are both reasonably good songs though, despite the fact that dear Miss Kilcher's lyrics aren't exactly profound. I still dig them. "I won't be made useless." That's the stuff right there. Plus she does have a rather remarkable voice as these things go. I just wish she were using it for something better than "U and M-E spells L-O-V-E 2 me"...what the hell is that? Seriously now. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nature vs. Nurture (read in a jovial tone and don't yell at cool VeganSonja) vegansonja 2004-05-03 14:08 (link)

You know what really clips my begonias?!" -the ranting Swede :D I'm not really looking for a debate or discussion, so this shalln't be posted as an entry. I just want to type it out so I can stop wanting to flip off someone I don't know. :) :) :) People who are all "Nature, baby!" have a way of getting to me (especially the ones who start "genius" sperm banks...which actually isn't why I desire to flip someone off) because... damn it, I'd like for everyone to receive ample opportunity to not become their parents. ...and environmental influence seems more... open-ended. I've always been inclined toward the "nurture" side anyway. The "nature through nurture" stuff... it sounds damn more like "nurture" to me. :) Even when speaking solely of individuals, the "nature" people always get me thinkin' about cultural development. Are they implying that people of different ethnic backgrounds might have inate behavioral differences? If not... why the hell wouldn't they? I guess it's empirical evidence that leads me to view that stuff as mostly crap. One of my friends from the hometown, for example, is "half Thai". Her older brother is... I guess they'd say "full Thai". Do they think and behave in a "Thai" manner? No. They were raised in raised in small town America. As a result, they've both grown up to behave rather "small town American". Another example is my brother. Underneath it all, he's a bright and thoughtful kid. ...but he definitely seems a product of his tempestuous environment. ... *sigh* A couple at my family's church of choice has an adoptive daughter. When last I was around, the girl was under a year old. Because she was adopted, her parents would freak the hell over every cry the child let out. Apparently, crying as an infant might hint toward later mental illness and/or temperment problems. ... I brought this up to Mom who awesomely commented that there's usually an underlying reason when children are put up for adoption. Yes, Mother; it's called "poverty"...a situation that we ourselves are in (albeit less obvious thanks to our close-knit family ties and small town lifestyle). ...and in the case of this child, it's "her biological mother was a scared teenager". Jeez, people. At least give the kid a chance to grow up sane. ... Sorry for that. A nice day to each of you! :) (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Nature vs. Nurture (read in a jovial tone and don't yell at cool VeganSonja) cobrabubbles 2004-05-03 14:33 (link)

Yes, of course the environment in which one develops plays the dominant role. However, one's genetic constitution is also extremely important. Our genes help to establish broad definitions of character which are then expressed in more specific terms through whatever manner of nurturing we experience. As for a question like whether or not different ethnicities might express certain minor behavioral distinctions on a genetic level...there hasn't really been enough research yet to determine this. But it hasn't been dismissed as a possibility entirely. But given that the level of genetic distinction among all humans is still relatively small, it might be hard to determine for sure one way or the other. A possibility would be to study African populations in particular, as there's more pronounced genetic variation there than among people anywhere else. But as far as general personality traits go, ranging from proclivity for depression to level of passivity or aggression to even things like inclination toward religious worship, there seems to be a genuine molecular component that can't be totally dismissed. Now that the Human Genome Project is (basically) complete, there are certain to be many more findings on these issues in the next few years. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Nature vs. Nurture (read in a jovial tone and don't yell at cool VeganSonja) cobrabubbles 2004-05-03 14:35 (link)
	And I know you didn't want a discussion, so don't feel obligated to reply unless it's to point out some way in which I'm once again egregiously wrong. :) But when it comes to these matters, the decade of my life spent exploring genetic issues sort of requires me to chime in. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Nature vs. Nurture vegansonja 2004-05-03 14:56 (link)

I absolutely haven't dismissed a genetic component, but given that a child's mental development is soo adaptable, I think it rather likely that the genetic role is a relatively small one. That is, we're all born with broad definitions of character (which mostly overlap with those of everyone else... of all ethnic ancestries), and then nurture/experience pretty much takes over. So... nature by way of nurture... or the other way around. ...whichever way makes sense. :p Anyway... some guy acted like it was a big find a few years back. :) So... in response to "Yes, of course the environment in which one develops plays the dominant role. However, one's genetic constitution is also extremely important." ...I'd say we're on the same page. Change the word "extremely" to "somewhat", and we'll be reading the same sentence. :D (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

PS vegansonja 2004-05-03 15:13 (link)

The primary reason why I wasn't seeking a debate is because I posted my initial ramble from the human rights/welfare corner (as opposed to the science corner). Having come from that side, I assumed someone looking for debate from the science side might provoke some internal, "What the hell, bitch! Why don't you want to give people chances?!" within me, and damn it, this is supposed to be my week without frustration. :D (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: PS cobrabubbles 2004-05-03 15:27 (link)
	Got it. I think. :) On a sort of related note, I was watching a show on Animal Planet last night and I got wondering about Neanderthals...if an enclave of them was suddenly found in some remote mountain pass in Europe or something, would they be treated as people? I have no idea what the reaction to that would be. Complicated, to say the least. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Speculation is fun! vegansonja 2004-05-03 17:42 (link)

Rich-man, I think about that at least monthly. What initially sparked such considerations for me was the notion of reviving Neanderthals Jurassic Park style ;) and then raising them as Homo sapiens children (as was done with chimpanzees in Oklahoma a while back). It's all about the speculation as to how they would develop and whether or not they could be easily assimilated into the culture/s that our species has/have built. As interesting as the thought seems, I'm quite happy that living Neanderthals will almost certainly never be found. ...for precisely the reasons you've mentioned. Curiosity and greed would ensure that they become immediate research subjects. This would lead to a quick classification as "greater apes" or (less likely, thanks to the religious folk) "lesser people". Then along would come the Neanderthal liberation movement, :) which would find eventual success. ...but, alas, only after generations of exploitation. ...and this all reminds me of that guy... whose name escapes me. He was the last of his tribe, a group that had been believed long gone. He ended up spending his last years in Berkeley so cultural facts and language could be recorded before his death. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Speculation is fun! cobrabubbles 2004-05-03 20:20 (link)

This...just might be the hottest thing I've ever read. :) If I didn't think you were awesome before today, I most certainly do now. I've definitely wondered many times about engineering new Neanderthals and seeing how fully they could interact with us and assimilate into our society...this is also conveyed in my disappointment over the apparent lack of any surviving Neanderthal lineage. My bet, however, is that assimilation would not work out all that well. I could even go all Aldous Huxley and imagine them becoming a drone-like worker class. They might be sent to do the simple, repetitive, non-creative tasks that most people don't like doing (and that undocumented immigrants from Latin America are often faced with in this country today). The greater ape/lesser human question is a good one, and one of the main issues I was pondering last night. I actually think they would most likely end up as lesser people, mostly for the fact that they would look like people, not apes. But man, that phrase has some baggage, doesn't it? Untermensch? Yeesh, I don't think so. It really is a good thing that there are (almost definitely) no survivors out there to find. And I rather doubt that any would be engineered, at least in the foreseeable future. Though I'm not against species resurrection, especially with those recently lost...marsupial wolf, passenger pigeon...or even more ancient creatures that were wiped out by our ancestors. I mean, really, wouldn't it be bloody cool to get to study a great moa or a saber-toothed cat or a mastodon or a giant ground sloth? And of course dinosaurs are all but impossible. Alas. But if some turd did open, say, Neanderthal Park, I'd be at the front of the line in fighing it. Join the Neanderthal Liberation Front! I'm so there. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Speculation is fun! cobrabubbles 2004-05-04 02:51 (link)
	Oh, and when I said "surviving Neanderthal lineage," I actually was trying to say a surviving Neanderthal lineage in modern humans. I wish they were part of our ancestry. Instead, they're just our cousins who found themselves in a bit of a jam and eventually got themselves perished. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: PS cobrabubbles 2004-05-03 15:38 (link)

Oh oh oh! Is this all because of Steven Pinker? Yeah, blah on that. Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture is a much more even-handed reading of things. But Pinker does make sure people recall that the set range of human behaviors (including the need for and ability to nurture) is still, ultimately, a function of our genes. We can't do things that are just simply outside our capacity. That might seem really redundant, and it is, but some people neglect the fact that our mental functions developed just like our physical functions did. Which takes me back to the Neanderthal thing again, I guess. But yeah, Pinker's not very useful. Ridley knows what's going on. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: PS vegansonja 2004-05-03 17:32 (link)
	If we're to consider how humans evolved as a species, I think it worth mentioning that we're all pretty much in the same place evolutionarily right now. In the consideration whether nature or nurture has the greater affect in a modern human child, that really isn't incredibly relevant. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: PS cobrabubbles 2004-05-03 17:49 (link)

This is true. Which is part of the reason why I was saying Mr. Pinker isn't especially cool. To say something like that is, at least for the purpose of serious discussion, basically saying nothing. I was mostly just trying to cut the fellow a little bit of slack, insofar as it's not like he's an idiot or anything. Modern human child...hmm...A.I. is kind of an interesting movie, I think. The development of artificial intelligence will give us another perspective on this question, which is cool. And speaking of that movie... "Come away, O human child! To the waters and the wild With a faery, hand in hand, For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Nature vs. Nurture cobrabubbles 2004-05-03 15:23 (link)

As far as "extremely" or "somewhat" goes, I think we're just going to be coming at the question from different starting points. It's to be expected though, given that you're more of the humanistic anthropologist type and I'm a bit more focused on the underlying molecular framework of it all. Or at least I was. I've "come toward the light" in the past couple of years. But I spent about half my life reading everything I could on genetics, not to mention spending my first three semesters of college planning to be a genetic engineer. So the ol' deoxyribonucleic acid has kind of a soft spot with me. :) But yeah, it would seem that we're basically in agreement anyway. :) (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Nature vs. Nurture vegansonja 2004-05-03 18:58 (link)
	"humanistic anthropologist" :D:D:D That sounds sort of redundant. :D:D:D ...but you're a voice of reason, boy. Though you're likely more intellectually acquainted with the "nature" side, we're still more or less in agreement. *self-satisfaction sets in* (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2004-05-03 19:41 (link)
	I agree completely on adoption. You said it better than I could. -S (Reply to this) (Thread)