Is it, especially for males, a moral/filial duty to procreate?

[ultraviolet]

Well acually we arent over populating the world execpt around tokyo, bejing, and other large aisan cites but most other land is unpopulated.
Just correcting you on that fact but I personally don't really care what my faimly thinks of me.

overpopluation doesn't have to mean 'all available space is taken', it can also mean that there are less resources then there are people, which is certainly true. Of course overpopulation is a problem, and just not in asian cities - the USA is the world's third most populated country.

They even have a little website so you can see just how populated the world is. There are 134 million babies born in a year. idk about you but this sounds like overpopulation to me

researchfail?

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

uhhh...? o.O no. This isn't right in any sense.

It's a Loco Mocho post.

 

[Tarvos]

Well acually we arent over populating the world execpt around tokyo, bejing, and other large aisan cites but most other land is unpopulated.
Just correcting you on that fact but I personally don't really care what my faimly thinks of me.

The statement came from the days when most faimlies had 5 or six kids and most of them died before adulthood. In the end, it doesn't even matter. *cough*linkinparkrefrence*cough*

Stop spouting bullshit before I give you a public display of dismemberment. It'll be raining blood south of heaven.

*coughslayerreference cough*

 

[opaltiger]

Well acually we arent over populating the world execpt around tokyo, bejing, and other large aisan cites but most other land is unpopulated.

You cannot say "the world is not overpopulated because there are some places where no one lives", because comparing two areas directly is nonsensical. For example: California is underpopulated, because there are still enough resources available for more people, despite having a population in the tens of millions and a density of 240/sq km. Iran, on the other hand, despite having a population density of only 45/sq km, is overpopulated because the land is mostly desert and thus cannot support many people.

My point is, you need to look not just at how many people live in a given area, but at how many people that given area can support. Although it may seem counter-intuitive, simply having a large population does not make an area overpopulated.

So, is the world overpopulated? Answer: yes. There are not enough energy resources for everyone. There is enough food but it isn't distributed evenly so about half the population live in starvation. I couldn't link you to my source, but I believe that I read somewhere that an optimal world population would be around two billion (it is currently 6.7 billion in case you were wondering).

Also: next time do some research before making claims that are so blatantly wrong an average six-year old could point out the flaws in them.

 

[Tarvos]

well we could sustain more people if people did more about sustainable energy

but governments are twats

 

[M&F]

A child is born every second. Granted, most of them don't live long, but, if that's not overpopulation, I don't know what overpopulation is.

Also,

well we could sustain more people if people did more about sustainable energy

but governments are twats

While it's true governments haven't been taking action related to the matter, it's easier said than done. Specially given they (mostly) don't produce as much energy as the dirty means. I'm not even going to waste my time poking at individual energy wasting; some factories use up, every day, as much as an average house does a year.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

There are 134 million babies born in a year.

...you're forgetting there's a death rate as well. There's a 56 million death rate, so 78 million people are added to the world population each year.

Of course, that's still pretty damn high. Admittedly, with the baby boom and whatnot the death rate will probably rise quickly pretty soon, so my point is moot.

...I have the greatest surname ever.

 

[opaltiger]

Admittedly, with the baby boom and whatnot the death rate will probably rise quickly pretty soon, so my point is moot.

...

you realise there are countries out there that are not the US, right? that the vast majority of population growth in the world takes place in countries like Nigeria or Bangladesh?

 

[ultraviolet]

...you're forgetting there's a death rate as well. There's a 56 million death rate, so 78 million people are added to the world population each year.

I didn't forget that there was a death rate, I figured that it was a big enough statistic on its own, regardless of the death rate. If the death rate was 133 million people per year then I probably would have mentioned it. o.O

Admittedly, with the baby boom and whatnot the death rate will probably rise quickly pretty soon, so my point is moot.

...what baby boom? Are you forgetting all the wars that are happening right now (yes, wars do happen even when they're not mentioned in the news)? There's also famine in like, half of the world's population currently.

I don't know how a baby boom would make the death rate rise, I'm assuming you mean that it'll fall... but it won't, so :|

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

...what baby boom? Are you forgetting all the wars that are happening right now (yes, wars do happen even when they're not mentioned in the news)? There's also famine in like, half of the world's population currently.

I don't know how a baby boom would make the death rate rise, I'm assuming you mean that it'll fall... but it won't, so :|

In America, after World War II, there was a massive increase in births. That was about in the late 40's or 50's, so they're all about to hit retirement age, so this is causing some Social Security problems and whatnot. Anyway, when they age, they'll die soon, and since there are many of them, the death rate (of America, at least) will increase. (This, as opaltiger said, doesn't really take the whole world into account.)

 

[ultraviolet]

Oh, I thought he was referring to a recent baby boom and I thought that was weird. o.O Sorry, Kam. :x

 

[see ya]

No, no, and no. There are plenty of people in this world. Enough to where procreating should be a choice, not a requirement. And the whole "family name" thing is kind of a moot point now, what with a huge amount of single mothers and divorces.

I feel very, very strongly that people should only become parents if it's what they sincerely want. It's at least an 18 year contract, and no one should feel obligated to just walk into that because "LOL FAMILY NAME" or some stupid bullshit like that (or "I GOT KNOCKED UP AND I DON'T WANT THIS BABY BUT I MUST KEEP IT BECAUSE ABORTION/ADOPTION IS EEEEVIL", but that's a whole different, rage-inducing story)

As for my family name, it's pretty secure. I'm still on the fence on whether I'll ever have kids or not (I'm not even considering it until I graduate college, though), but my brother's married and I have a few cousins that have already had babies, so it's secure. My dad doesn't really care.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

lol family names. My girlfriend's dad doesn't want her to get married because it will end the Boudjema line in Ireland. He also doesn't want her to have a child out of wedlock. And he doesn't believe in divorce.

 

[surskitty]

Why doesn't she just not change her name?

 

[Lili]

For family names, I'm actually in a huge arguement with my mother because I want a name change.
When I was born, my mother was basically torn in half, knowing that if she gave me my biological's father's name, her boyfriend would be heartbroken, but if she gave me her boyfriend's last name, if my father found out he would be furious. After a while, she decided to give me her boyfriend's last name, and never tell my father, her ex-best friend whom she secretly was in love with, I was born.
Soon, her boyfriend broke up with her when I was nine months old, and she never spoke to him again. Around twelve years or so later, I still have his last name on all my medical records, even after we've done paternal testing. On school records, though, and to everyone else, I have my biological father's last name. My parents(now back to being best friends, and only best friends) are now going through court and security services to get my surname changed to Riley on my medical records, or else I cannot get anything of my father's if he is harmed while on active duty(he was just in Iraq, has a purple heart, and trains the infantry). I was born out of wedlock, if you didn't guess, so my mother still has the last name of Jefferson(my medical surname is Williams). Since my mother has complete custody of me, and my father didn't even know of my existance until I was three months old and didn't visit me for the first time until I was three years old, I demand that when we get my name changed, it will be Lilijana Marie Jefferson-Riley or Lilijana Jefferson Riley(getting rid of my middle name 'Marie' completely). She denies this, saying I'm my father's child, thus we're in a huge arguement over this.
So, if I get married, I won't be able to carry on any of the three surnames. So, in my opinion, it really doesn't matter to carry on a surname(but then again, I'm female, so I probably couldn't anyway). Sadly, though, my brother was kicked out of the family by my father and uncle(causing me to lose contact with whom I think is the coolest person in the world for two years), so even if I did end up having a nephew or niece, my paternal side of the family would probably never acknowledge it. And unless my father and his twenty-two year-old girlfriend have children anytime soon, our name will never be carried on.
And some people can't spread their genes anyway, if they're sterile. What would they be considered to your friend, then? Useless? A wallflower?

 

[Drowzee64]

About as much as it is a moral duty to eat. We eat because it keeps us and therefore the human race going, and we procreate because it keeps as going as a race. In other words, no.

 

[Dannichu]

I get your point, but I find it hard to belive that two people would sit down and decide to have children "because it keeps the human race going".
I imagine people have kids because they actively want to/get pregnant and decide, for whatever reason, to keep it, and the continuing of the human race is a by-product of that.

Actually, I'm sure there are other, creepy reasons why people choose to have kids (like the "moral obligation" thing that's actually the focus of the thread), but I find the fact that people like that too depressing to think about for long periods of time.

 

[Minish]

My surname is Taylor. Yeah, that one. The most common surname in the entire UK. I don't think there'd be a problem even if I were male.

Seriously, what the crap is with 'keeping the family name' going actually being a deal? Who actually cares about surnames? Do people not realise that your surname is one jaggedy line down to you? If you take all your grandparents into consideration too, and their parents, how many family names is that you just don't happen to wear? It's not even like it's your father's father's father's etc. line, at some point one of those will have taken the name from their mother and the whole thing is suddenly completely moot (I am totally not butthurt about not getting my father's mother's cool surname "Hart", totally not. *sob*)

As for procreation, yeah, pretty much what everyone else has said. Maybe if you were one of five or so people left on earth that excuse would fly. Also, if your only reason for having children is 'for the good of the human race', uh, please don't have children, ever.

 

[spaekle]

I'm pretty sure the "moral obligation" thing is just something breeders pull out when you mention you don't want kids and they feel as though the validity of their lifestyle choices has been challenged.

 

[Mango]

No, it is not, as a man, your moral duty to have children. It's your moral duty to have sons. DUH. I mean, what else does the world need more than more men to run it? If you have daughters, keep going until you have a son. If you can't have a son, it's probably your wife's fault.

Basically, that's what your friend, OP, is saying. What he is telling you, albeit indirectly, is that, as a man, it is your and his job to grace this planet with more men to run the world carry on your family name. Is your friend an 80 year-old man, by any chance? Because any teenager speaking like that is just sad.