Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: k-punk on kidzzz

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    81

    Default k-punk on kidzzz

    cor. i'm surprised there's not been more - er, any - comment about k-punk's post on tuesday:

    http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/

    to me his argument is perfect. i honestly cannot see how any rational human being could disagree.

    i'm holding on grimly to childlessness in the face of fecundity among almost all my friends. to me it's a political, personal, rational, considered position. to friends with children i'm simply in denial or immature.

    like i say, it's been quiet around here on this particular issue. surely everyone else can't agree?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    36

    Default

    2 other articles to consider, both about demographics and politics:

    a truly horrifying look at the future borderzones between urbanity and rurality, check this out: http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR26001.shtml

    the ruthless Spengler on the demographics of American bluestate life: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK09Aa02.html

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Plymouth
    Posts
    24

    Default the kids are alright

    well k-punk's anti kids post is entirely consistent with his prioritisation of cold rationality over hard wired socio-biological behavioural routines... however - how can society evolve without new people to develop the ideas generated by previous generations? Whilst humanity is a pest species, I am a human, the best I can do for this small piece of spacetime is to ensure that what I consider to be my most effective 'mindtools' for surviving/caring/connecting are given to other people and thus survive my death. This inevitably involves children... either mine or someone else's. The Chinese model for controlling population growth probably makes sense... but would anyone in the individualist West accept that level of intrusion into their 'personal lives'?
    That said, it can be a wind up hanging around with the breeders in the oedipus construction factory.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    the faces of malthus and tebbit lie behind the mask of rationality.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shaun L
    how can society evolve without new people to develop the ideas generated by previous generations?
    but why does society need to evolve? what good will that evolution do?

    and from a purely personal (selfish) point of view, the survival of "society" after my death matters not one jot. i'll be dead. i'll be unable to care/notice.

    Whilst humanity is a pest species, I am a human, the best I can do for this small piece of spacetime is to ensure that what I consider to be my most effective 'mindtools' for surviving/caring/connecting are given to other people and thus survive my death
    i disagree. i believe the best i can do for this small piece of spacetime is ensure that what i consider to be my most effective mindtools are employed to improve the lot of others around me; those who are already here as opposed to those who don't yet exist.

    i'm not being deliberately inflammatory here: i'm simply saying that, from a rational/pragmatic point of view, there is absolutely no reason to continue the existence of the human race. and from an altruistic point of view, i think the planet/universe would be better off without us

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    2,212

    Default

    He's such a scamp. I think people get far too wound up by K-punk, but then that's partly his intention -- he could almost be from Essex .

    Put it like this -- I'm a parent, and I'm as fluffy as they come (just ask Eden!) -- but I don't find this article offensive at all, given the premises from which K-Punk publishes. While I think he's wrong, from a cold rationalist perspective, to say that the human population needs to be reduced -- c.f. Stewart Home's disputations with Green Anarchist -- there's much to appreciate in his argument. And, as I've often said, it's not about facile agreement with K-Punk.

    Most important to me, when you actually talk about your kids with Mark -- an unperson who can be distinguished from K-Punk, no doubt much to his disgust -- he's dead nice. He's not lacking in compassion or sentiment at all.

    He is a wind-up merchant though.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Plymouth
    Posts
    24

    Default

    The anti natal POV is negatively anthropomorphic. Anthropomorphic in that it assumes that humans are important, negative in that the POV assumes that the only good human is a dead one.
    Humanity is completely irrelevant when viewed on a universal scale... the lack of any 'overarching narrative'/god/purpose to our lives when they are contextualised thus makes it impossible to say 'the universe will be better off without humans'. There is no better/worse... these are just constructs of our fleshy neurons.
    Given that humanity doesn't matter, why not accept that biological existence includes reproduction.... whilst I know this is a somewhat 'collaborator/quisling' kinda argument- if people are going to have children... and they are- it is more constructive to try to contribute to future generations, rather than washing your hands of the human stain and effectively saying 'Homo sapiens- you're a bunch of idiots... I'm having no more to do with you'
    For some people this contribution could probably be achieved through writing etc.. however, not every useful gene/meme is going to be carried through skilled verbal communicators.. these people could probably make their most effective contribution to the next 300 years on earth via the rearing of empathetic self aware children.
    Of course parenthood is not a component in the 'complete' human experience.. the very idea is fascist--- however I do believe that labelling human reproductive capacity as negative isn't an effective means of engaging with the human condition.

    Why does society need to evolve? Well when viewed from the perspective of a bliss delivery machine... even that of a wellbeing delivery machine-- society is seriously inefficient. Since I feel that the humans of the future will share my responses to unpleasant stimuli, I don't want to discount their needs.... that's why society needs to evolve.. because its crap right now.
    Last edited by shaun L; 10-12-2004 at 05:00 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    no new york
    Posts
    41

    Default

    to me his argument is ridiculous. i honestly cannot see how any emotional human being could agree. ;-)



    but then i don't mind. i am more interested if this ties in with his abuse. how much has that influenced him in his decision not to have children.
    Last edited by stevienixed; 11-12-2004 at 12:05 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grimly fiendish
    but why does society need to evolve? what good will that evolution do?

    and from a purely personal (selfish) point of view, the survival of "society" after my death matters not one jot. i'll be dead. i'll be unable to care/notice.
    But this is not an argument against having children. You will still be around for a number of years and during that time people will have kids. So the kids will have an impact while you are still alive. I expect that you will live long enough to see many of them turn into adults and have a large impact on the world and you life (such as your pension). The fact that they will outlive you and society will go on is just an inevitable consequence.

    Would you really want to be surrounded by a bunch of old farts when you are 80? Especially considering that they won't even be able to fetch your walker?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shaun L
    if people are going to have children... and they are- it is more constructive to try to contribute to future generations, rather than washing your hands of the human stain and effectively saying 'Homo sapiens- you're a bunch of idiots... I'm having no more to do with you'
    don't get me wrong: i'm not saying i don't care about the actual people who will come after me. of course humans will continue to exist - very few people think like me, after all - and of course we should do what we can to ensure that their lives are as good as/better than ours. what i meant is that the continuation of "the human race" as an entity doesn't matter to me, not that i don't care about the individuals within that race.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaun L
    Why does society need to evolve? Well when viewed from the perspective of a bliss delivery machine... even that of a wellbeing delivery machine-- society is seriously inefficient. Since I feel that the humans of the future will share my responses to unpleasant stimuli, I don't want to discount their needs.... that's why society needs to evolve.. because its crap right now.
    yes: if we accept - pragmatically - that society is going to exist, then of course it needs to improve. but my question was meant idealistically: ie given that society is crap, would it not be better if we could just wind it down?

    pie in the sky, though, that

    either way: i cannot see how my having children could possibly make much of a difference. ok, my child could feasibly be the person who ended up curing cancer/bringing about lasting world peace, but what are the chances of that? and even if they did, it wouldn't be because they were mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalDjigit
    Would you really want to be surrounded by a bunch of old farts when you are 80? Especially considering that they won't even be able to fetch your walker?
    if i live to 80, i'm quite sure i will be surrounded by old farts: at least, i hope i will, ie a few remaining friends. i'll make the most of it. it's up to me to look after myself as best as possible; i'm certainly not going to have kids just so i've got someone to wipe me arse in 50 years' time!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •