Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 01:49:18 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Becoming more right wing as you age

Started by touchingcloth, January 06, 2019, 06:03:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: flotemysost on January 06, 2019, 07:02:29 PM
My opinions are increasingly leaning in this direction (not necessarily re: completely banning IVF, but generally about how we view procreation and the right to have your own biological children), but I've never thought of it as right-wing.

The stance I'm coming from is that a) as you say, the planet is already horrifically overcrowded and as resources run low it's generally poorer, non-Western populations which are hit first and hardest, b) as you also say, the number of unwanted children who are currently living either in care or with wildly incapable parents is tragic, and c) pregnancy and childbirth can be traumatic and dangerous and shouldn't be treated by society as an expected, inevitable life stage - it's definitely not for everyone. But I think those are all pretty liberal views.

This is a whole load of lazy fucking crazy misanthropic nonsense though.  This absolutely is the liberals blind spot as I've heard a few seemingly liberal people suddenly start acting like authoritarian kniggets when it comes to population growth.

a) The planet is not over crowded it is over processed, the bulk of population growth is in places like Sudan but each person there uses about a 13th of what a US person does.  So you need to first decide whether you want to discuss a level of resources people should use rather than hindering peoples reproductive chances.  It literally doesn't matter about how many kids someone has if the consumption rates remain the same and if consumption rates declined then less children would be less of a problem.  It therefore seems less an argument about population and more a lack off argument against people that are fucking up the planets by flying to lots of different places and using gas guzzlers or having fucking pets.....these all seem much more humane areas to put effort into than stopping a women whose ovaries are a bit shit from having a chance of having a kid.

b) This is mad and quite disgusting if you actually spend anytime thinking about it.  So people have kids they cannot look after and then people that can't/struggle/don't have kids shouldn't be assisted to have their own but should look after these kids?  I mean it does nothing to stop the kids being born, many of which are unwell, disabled or damaged by drug use in vivo.  Then we have the children themselves, denied the initial innate bonding that human newborns require many grow up with problems relating to their natural identity possibly wanting to seek natural parentage or parents now reformed seek their children.  Then there is hereditary illnesses, legal aspects of care etc...you are talking about them like they are products you just acquire which is weird and quite frightening actually.

c) This is nonsense and seems likely just thrown in as way of making 3 points.  Most mothers although perhaps not enjoying the actual birth see the act of giving birth as a wonderful thing.  Go ask them and then go and sit with people that through no fault of their own that they cannot have children and tell them it is good as there are too many people in the world as it is.

Oh and in essence making out there is no moral fuckery by willfully stopping treatment for a person that essentially has what is in all sense is a disease (i.e. a part of their body does not work properly) is utter cuntery.


IVF is not destroying world ffs, don't be so daft and sort out whatever chip you've got on your shoulder.

PS - not to single you out as I did see someone else post something similar which all sounds a bit "we're full mate" imo.

touchingcloth

IVF is destroying the world. Planet's full, leave it to the dolphins.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: touchingcloth on January 06, 2019, 08:42:26 PM
IVF is destroying the world. Planet's full, leave it to the dolphins.

You are destroying the world.  You and your trenchant opinions.


I do like a dolphin though.

manticore

For some their youthful radicalism was mostly posturing, for others the machine catches them up and grinds them down, and they become creatures of the compromises and accomodations it forces you to make. I knew when I was 15 that nothing would undermine my basic philosophy, but it's probably helped that I've never had to get involved in office politics, push for any kind of promotion or have to be a dog eating dog to survive.

I wish some people would give up on pretending their desire for the deaths of 7.7 billion 'irredemable' human beings was terribly daring or outré. It's not, it's about as MOR and mainstream a worldview as could possibly be in 2019. Try proclaiming it at cocktail parties or your local public house - the noises of approval will echo around the room.   

pancreas

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on January 06, 2019, 08:43:39 PM
You are destroying the world.  You and your trenchant opinions.


I do like a dolphin though.

^ He's right, cloth. You're a trenchant buffoon, and you always have been. I'm regretting rolling out the red carpet for your return, if I'm honest.

Konki

The idea that IVF shouldn't be available because orphans is pretty reductive. Infertility is pernicious and can lead to massive emotional and physical strain including clinical depression and the process of IVF itself is invasive and often demeaning and not something one goes through lightly.

I speak as someone who has seen the person I love most in the world become almost broken over the last five years due to unexplained infertility and everything it entails. Luckily we've come out the other side and are expecting our first (and I suspect only) child in March. I respect others have different opinions on this matter however from my perspective IVF has been close to a life saver.

TrenterPercenter

Also I'm neither becoming more left or right wing as I age.  I was always left-wing and always will be because right-wing ideas are a load of selfish hogwash....I mean it's absolutely your right to have right-wing views but having a ideological belief in ones own self interest without a serious collectivist backbone, in a world/society based on communal living and existence, is just fucking dumb.

In 38 years I've still never heard an actual defence of the typical right-wing tropes that haven't quickly devolved into "because I am selfish".  Likewise most right-wingers are utterly miserable gits constantly concerned with what other people have and what they haven't.  It is frankly amazing that, even with the help of all the propaganda, right-wing views are seen as grown up when they generally have the faculty of a hormonal teenager.

"The world will be a better place if people didn't get benefits.........."

No it wouldn't you mug, it would just kill and cause misery to a load of other people, contributing to the killing and misery of others doesn't make you happy unless you are a fucking sociopath.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Konki on January 06, 2019, 08:55:33 PM
The idea that IVF shouldn't be available because orphans is pretty reductive. Infertility is pernicious and can lead to massive emotional and physical strain including clinical depression and the process of IVF itself is invasive and often demeaning and not something one goes through lightly.

I speak as someone who has seen the person I love most in the world become almost broken over the last five years due to unexplained infertility and everything it entails. Luckily we've come out the other side and are expecting our first (and I suspect only) child in March. I respect others have different opinions on this matter however from my perspective IVF has been close to a life saver.

Great to hear Konki! Congratulations : )

Thursday

I've shifted further to the left if anything in the last few years. I think at some point in my mid 20's, I made some very minor steps towards "what you're supposed to think, and what seems practical and reasonable" Because it seemed like that was part of maturing. But nah those are all just falsehoods that have been ingrained into us.

I always saw New Labour centrists as miserable compromisers, cowards, sellouts, and while that's still true, what's been eye-opening is how they're utterly, passionately devoted to these miserable failed neoliberal policies, and just how much they hate the left.

flotemysost

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on January 06, 2019, 08:38:23 PM
This is a whole load of lazy fucking crazy misanthropic nonsense though.  This absolutely is the liberals blind spot as I've heard a few seemingly liberal people suddenly start acting like authoritarian kniggets when it comes to population growth.

a) The planet is not over crowded it is over processed, the bulk of population growth is in places like Sudan but each person there uses about a 13th of what a US person does.  So you need to first decide whether you want to discuss a level of resources people should use rather than hindering peoples reproductive chances.  It literally doesn't matter about how many kids someone has if the consumption rates remain the same and if consumption rates declined then less children would be less of a problem.  It therefore seems less an argument about population and more a lack off argument against people that are fucking up the planets by flying to lots of different places and using gas guzzlers or having fucking pets.....these all seem much more humane areas to put effort into than stopping a women whose ovaries are a bit shit from having a chance of having a kid.

b) This is mad and quite disgusting if you actually spend anytime thinking about it.  So people have kids they cannot look after and then people that can't/struggle/don't have kids shouldn't be assisted to have their own but should look after these kids?  I mean it does nothing to stop the kids being born, many of which are unwell, disabled or damaged by drug use in vivo.  Then we have the children themselves, denied the initial innate bonding that human newborns require many grow up with problems relating to their natural identity possibly wanting to seek natural parentage or parents now reformed seek their children.  Then there is hereditary illnesses, legal aspects of care etc...you are talking about them like they are products you just acquire which is weird and quite frightening actually.

c) This is nonsense and seems likely just thrown in as way of making 3 points.  Most mothers although perhaps not enjoying the actual birth see the act of giving birth as a wonderful thing.  Go ask them and then go and sit with people that through no fault of their own that they cannot have children and tell them it is good as there are too many people in the world as it is.

Oh and in essence making out there is no moral fuckery by willfully stopping treatment for a person that essentially has what is in all sense a disease (i.e. a part of their body does not work properly) is utter cuntery.


IVF is not destroying world ffs, don't be so daft and sort out whatever chip you've got on your shoulder.

PS - not to single you out as I did see someone else post something similar which all sounds a bit "we're full mate" imo.

Yep, these are all fair enough points. I wasn't really attacking IVF/fertility treatments though, it's more that I've been thinking recently (admittedly in a very broad, abstract, daydreaming type way) about how lots of people seem to see the idea of having children, starting a family etc. as being a standard, expected stage in life for most adults.

I do know people who've desperately wanted children and have been unable to conceive and I know that this has been a source of terrible grief for them, which I wouldn't wish on anyone. I guess it's just not something I've ever been able to relate to personally, but who knows, that might change at some point - maybe when it's too late for me.

I wasn't suggesting that children growing up in care or being born to unsuitable parents is a good thing at all, quite the opposite and I find it heartbreaking - but I'm sorry if that was unclear. Again, I wasn't really talking about fertility treatments but more people having children in general. (I also realise adoption isn't just some easy answer to people who can't have their own children, I know the practical and emotional areas involved are insanely complex and difficult even in the best circumstances).

Re: people fucking up the planet, I guess that was my point - willfully creating future generations means willfully creating more people who will to some degree, by their very existence, further damage the planet over the course of their life. And I do think ecological reasons form part of many people's choice not to have children - my mum said she dithered for ages* over having children for this reason - but as you say, maybe that effort is better directed into reducing one's own impact on the planet.

tl;dr - I don't think IVF should be banned but I do think we need better sex education and maybe a general rethink in attitudes towards procreation.

*jokes welcome

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: flotemysost on January 06, 2019, 09:09:04 PM
tl;dr - I don't think IVF should be banned but I do think we need better sex education and maybe a general rethink in attitudes towards procreation.

I think that is a much more balanced post.  It still comes aground in two major areas for me though.

1) The Earth is not our friend and it doesn't exist in any meaningful way when the last human mind disappears to perceive it.  Procreation is part of existence, you are arguing over our quite unique ability as humans to predict the future and see our own fates.  This is where it all gets very confused do you only care about the Earth existing exclusively to humans? or that humans need to get better at surviving on the Earth they inhabit?  Reducing humans down to just a damaging interaction with the Earth is just as nonsensical as it is bleak, the Earth will damage itself with volcanic eruptions, the sun will expand and destroy everything, shit, invariably, happens.  It is what you are going to do about it that matters and stopping people having children is such a knee-jerk stupid idea that is a) unworkable in any real sense (China? No stopped the policy as it was quite damaging and also resulted is great misery and "illegal births/adoptions of mainly girls) b) is not necessary.....very few people, in the UK that is, want to have more than 2 kids (cultural beliefs aside).  It is consumption stupid religious doctrines and poverty and lack of access for female education or rights that is causing the problem.

Western populations are mostly in decline they just consume way too much and poor people in other countries need more children due to deaths in childhood and collectivist notions of the family and later life support.

2) Although we can predict the future somewhat we cannot, at conception, know what a child will bring into the world.  So to say children by their definition a damaging force on the world is actually an unknown.  I mean is the invention of penicillin a bad thing because it absolutely was damaging to the planet? yet I doubt you would refuse it if you got sick.  Going around seeing humans are "problems" is a horrible mindset to live in (very similar to right-wingerism in that aspect) and this nativist Gaia based belief of the world is a completely human creation.  That isn't to say it is not about survival and extinction rebellion do not have point.  We absolutely need to save ourselves, for ourselves and that means letting people choose what they do with their own biology the consequences of not doing so are very dangerous from the macro political level to the micro bio-chemical level.

PS this is why left-wing collectivist views are seemingly the only solution to this but you know right-wingers want whatever they want, and there choices are more important than other peoples even when it comes to frying themselves on the same planet.

touchingcloth

Quote from: pancreas on January 06, 2019, 08:51:09 PM
^ He's right, cloth. You're a trenchant buffoon, and you always have been. I'm regretting rolling out the red carpet for your return, if I'm honest.

Well I was biting my tongue because I'm nice, but you're the reason I've been away so long. You're a domineering gobshite whose overbearing omnipresence makes this forum actively unpleasant to use.

touchingcloth

I think they shouldn't just ban IVF but also make it illegal, and couples who want a child but can't conceive should be allowed a choice between adopting or a discounted tamagotchi.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: touchingcloth on January 06, 2019, 09:48:45 PM
I think they shouldn't just ban IVF but also make it illegal, and couples who want a child but can't conceive should be allowed a choice between adopting or a discounted tamagotchi.

Or how about option three they can have IVF if they sacrifice another human being that is making the world a more miserable and generally shitter place?

1 in 1 out kind of thing.

touchingcloth

That would be acceptable. One out, one out, and you're not leaving that womb without shoes and a shirt.


TrenterPercenter

Quote from: touchingcloth on January 06, 2019, 09:53:42 PM
That would be acceptable. One out, one out, and you're not leaving that womb without shoes and a shirt.

I will begin building the pyre.

Do you want to put your Bayern Munich kit on?

pancreas

Quote from: touchingcloth on January 06, 2019, 09:46:12 PM
Well I was biting my tongue because I'm nice, but you're the reason I've been away so long. You're a domineering gobshite whose overbearing omnipresence makes this forum actively unpleasant to use.

a single tear courses down my plump red cheek

the wind howls

king_tubby

People are against IVF? Blimey. Is that right wing though? Or just cunty?

manticore

I thought the OP was a joke. Was it not a joke? Oh well.

In recent years I've became clearer, more radical and libertarian (in the original sense of the word) in my ideas in response to some trends in 'progressive'/'left' politics which are conservative, authoritarian and neoliberal at the root.

Unfortunately the formidable prospect of the burning of the world and ecological catastrophe has made me realise that the kind of society I would hope for would have to take a different form than I would have vaguely envisaged before - yes indeed Trenter, Extinction Rebellion do have a point, they have the most overwhelmingly important point.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: king_tubby on January 06, 2019, 09:59:34 PM
People are against IVF? Blimey. Is that right wing though? Or just cunty?

I guess it is right-wing if it's "I don't think MY TAXES should go to other people having IVF" and believing that all the people are using it to have their 7th child...

I don't know though children are a scary concept for some people and this seems spill over into nasty stuff for some reason - I've heard this a lot from otherwise "liberal" people.

Alberon

I've shifted upwards, just so I can look down at everyone else in disdain.

I'm more cynical and less idealistic, but I don't think it's shifted me left or right. Everything is just a lot more complicated than I thought back on, for instance, that glorious night in 97 when Blair and New Labour trounced the Tories.

touchingcloth

My OP was a joke, but my first mention of IVF was sincere, and on reflection an opinion which was probably too poorly thought out and stated more stridently than it needed to be.

My new opinion is that we should sterilise people at birth and not reverse it until they pass a parent test or their income reaches a certain threshold.

bgmnts

Conversely, it could also be seen as left wing if objection is motivated by not wanting to increase population, thereby straining an already broken system, in which its always the poorest and most vulnerable suffer.


canadagoose

To be honest, I just think folk are weird. Half the time I just leave them to their weirdness, and hope they'll leave me to mine.

Quote from: touchingcloth on January 06, 2019, 10:08:37 PM
My new opinion is that we should sterilise people at birth and not reverse it until they pass a parent test or their income reaches a certain threshold.

Meritocratic eugenics. 

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: manticore on January 06, 2019, 10:03:53 PM
I thought the OP was a joke. Was it not a joke? Oh well.

In recent years I've became clearer, more radical and libertarian (in the original sense of the word) in my ideas in response to some trends in 'progressive'/'left' politics which are conservative, authoritarian and neoliberal at the root.

Unfortunately the formidable prospect of the burning of the world and ecological catastrophe has made me realise that the kind of society I would hope for would have to take a different form than I would have vaguely envisaged before - yes indeed Trenter, Extinction Rebellion do have a point, they have the most overwhelmingly important point.

Yes continual growth is not compatible with a finite world, it is almost as if some kind of consensus lead political movement, that seeks to try and provide for people needs, and controls for things like rich people murdering us all might have had a point beyond being able to label yourself an otherkin.

Socialism, for the 99% of people on this planet is about survival it is "nice" but that is just a consequence of what makes us survive and not the other way round.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: touchingcloth on January 06, 2019, 10:08:37 PM
My OP was a joke, but my first mention of IVF was sincere, and on reflection an opinion which was probably too poorly thought out and stated more stridently than it needed to be.

My new opinion is that we should sterilise people at birth and not reverse it until they pass a parent test or their income reaches a certain threshold.

Come on Ribery less speaking and more eating of the firelighters....

mothman

I subscribe to PJ O'Rourke's summing-up of polulation growth alarmists' views: "Way too much of you, just the right amount of me."

I've actually got a lot of time for Ken Clarke.