Nuttiest Letter Of The Weekend
A woman writes:
I desperately want a child. I want, my husband wants, we want. However, my husband and I purposely will not conceive a child. The reason is, we feel that what we want is not the most important thing. The most important consideration is toward the person who is most directly affected. The most important consideration is toward the child. Making a life-altering decision without consulting the one most affected seems wrong. Also, there is a chance that once the child is grown, he may look back and feel "I would have preferred non-existence. There, I would have remained safe from all harm." Also, any harm that comes to the child would be my fault and my husband's fault. If we had not conceived the child the harm would not have occurred. Do many other people think this way?
My reply:
If people all stop having children this will be a big, blue, empty ball. You try to do the best you can for a child, same as you do for yourself when you get out of bed every day. Would you prefer "non-existence"? Do you know anyone who would? You exist, you go on, you try to live heathily and happily. Did you take a lot of French philosophy in college? Is this a joke? Where did you get these ideas?
She writes back:
not a joke, did not take philosophy, the only other people i know who feel this way are a few from the internet. these ideas just came to me and my husband. you should see us: we are happy, in love for years, friends says they envy our good life together. still, how we feel is how i described in my email to you. yes, i would have preferred nonexistance: i would not have known the difference. a big blue ball with no suffering and no one would know the difference: sounds good.
I respond:
Well, you can always adopt a child who already exists.
Look, there are all sorts of dangers in the world, from radical Islam to hormones in the milk, but I'd still rather be alive than never born. Those who wish they were never born are free to kill themselves, thus lessening the numbers of people we'll have to pay off with Social Security.
"I would have preferred non-existence. There, I would have remained safe from all harm." You sure get 'em, Amy. Who, exactly, would have remained safe from harm? Would it be a boy, a girl, blue eyes, mentally agile or defective? Perhaps even a masochist who's now frustrated in a non-existing sort of way. How on earth do you compare existence and non-existence?
If people don't want kids, and they're old enough to choose, what's the problem?
Norman at April 14, 2008 4:13 AM
Didn't some bint write a whole preening, self-congratulatory article about this in the UK? Something about how it was selfish of her to bring a child into the world since the planet was dying of global warming?
There's a bad kind of crazy going through Humanity right now, and I hope we get it worked out before it does any real damage.
brian at April 14, 2008 4:30 AM
It's the woman's first sentence in the first passage you quote that's incorrect: Apparently she doesn't want children. And I admire her reasoning, having reached it in early days myself: This isn't a planet to which I'd invite someone I loved. But once you're in, you're in. Amy, you find The Void repulsive, she finds it attractive, and I think both of you miss the point. Norman nails it: The great thing about children not conceived is that we needn't pass judgment on the fates that befall them, and that includes their lack of existence.
Crid at April 14, 2008 4:54 AM
Exactly the kind of people who should never have children. Just stop obsessing about and live your lives.
Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg at April 14, 2008 6:01 AM
I love my girls, I cannot imagine my life without them. However, if I never had them, I wouldn't be worried about their safety, and well-being, and what the state of the planet is going to be in years from now. I also wouldn't be the proud mom who enjoys listening to one of them rip into a serious piano solo just because she can, or watching the other one create some of the most beautiful pieces of artwork I've ever seen come from a 12-year-old. They are both beautiful girls, and I'm glad I had them.
Point is, parenthood is a good thing for some people, and not so good a thing for others. If you have any doubt, by all means, feel free NOT to bring a child into this world, who will end up as miserable as you. On the other hand, if you think you'd be a good, caring, capable parent, go for it! I did. And my goodness, it's actually working out pretty well - much to my surprise! o_O
Flynne at April 14, 2008 6:03 AM
Amy, don't encourage her - this lady is a complete froot loop and should not reproduce!
Pirate Jo at April 14, 2008 6:10 AM
"a big blue ball with no suffering and no one would know the difference: sounds good." Uh, wow someone has spent too much time in existential philosophy class. First you'd assume that all of our pets magically vanished with us. No humans and our pets are really screwed. The only way that the human race would cease to exist (I'm assuming that's what she means) is if we blew ourselves up. On person having or not having children will have little impact on it.
"Also, any harm that comes to the child would be my fault and my husband's fault." I think this is the key reason they are not having a child. They want to happy cuddly part of being parents without the responsibility. I'm torn as to them adopting or not. She seams a bit depressed ("i would have preferred nonexistance:") so until that's taken care of I'm not sure she should take care of a child. However she'd probably even when depressed do a better job than DSS.
Having vs not having a child is selfish any way you slice it. You choose to have or keep the child for your reasons, you choose to not have or not keep the child for your reasons.
With regards to the planet, there is a global climate shift not something we can really argue. Now what is causing the climate shift, human natural, we all have our theories. If/when the shift passes a certain point our population will start to decline rapidly. It's happened before in history, the last time had nothing to do with humans.
vlad at April 14, 2008 6:10 AM
These people are pathetic. If I had a choice between existence and non-existence, existence would be my choice even in the worst place on Earth.
Right now, I ask myself if we have reached that point where we are so philosophically inept up to the point of longing for non-existence. Do the whole Cocooning craze left us with weakling embracing the void instead of facing life with hope? How can someone can type things like "yes, i would have preferred nonexistance" and be serious? How can someone safely assume that "Not-Be" is better than being?
I guess this is where we are now; a state where whiners and weaklings are celebrated in their idiocy...
Toubrouk at April 14, 2008 6:19 AM
I guess this is where we are now; a state where whiners and weaklings are celebrated in their idiocy...
Right? And "political correctness" just feeds right into this.
Flynne at April 14, 2008 6:22 AM
Flynne, I agree with you; Political Correctness is a stepping stone for that attitude. What is the use of the first amendment and the freedom of speech if we need to sugar-coat everything?
Toubrouk at April 14, 2008 6:45 AM
I didn't say it to her, but I thought it: "Hey, if you'd rather not exist, maybe we can trade your life for that of my friend Cathy Seipp, who was rather desperate to continue existing."
If she were sincere about preferring to not exist, she'd kill herself, wouldn't she?
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 6:53 AM
That's an interesting point, and it underscores her detachment, I suppose. She doesn't want to kill herself, because that would be an active choice. She wants the universe to make the choice for her, because then it relieves her of responsibility for her own actions.
Of course, I could be completely full of shit on this one.
I think there's something to be said for this approach to having/not having children. If you're certain you'd do a crap job of raising a child, no matter how much you want one, you shouldn't do it. But she takes it to the point of illogic. It's impossible to consult the child before it's born about whether it wants to be born. And pointless, since that answer could change many times over a lifetime.
Monica at April 14, 2008 7:13 AM
> If she were sincere about
> preferring to not exist, she'd
> kill herself, wouldn't she?
No; once you're in you're in, and your departure can have horrible effects on others. You're equating dying with never living, and it ain't the same. You judge that it's better to be alive than to not have lived, but that judgment comes from having been born. The alternate universe with no Amy Alkon can't be meaningfully appraised
Besides, you're being snotty!
Crid at April 14, 2008 8:11 AM
As Monica pointed out, to be fair, you'd have to ask the non-existent child over all stages of their life whether they'd prefer to exist. So you'd have to catch them on their death bed and ask them if, overall, they'd rather have been or not been. This type of thinking has no logical place to exist except while sharing a big fat joint.
moreta at April 14, 2008 8:15 AM
These people either are complete fruit loops, OR they don't want to admit that they really don't want children because that might seem "selfish." Oy. The whole, "I didn't ASK to be born!" is something that most of us grow out of after teenagerhood. If you don't want children, accept that and own your decision.
However, I'm not sure adoption is really an option for them. People who want to adopt tend to have to jump through hoops, and one of those hoops is an interview with a social worker who is on the lookout for people who say they want to adopt because they want to save the world - because that's supposed to be a MAJOR red flag. No, it's not inherently horrible to want to adopt because you think it's better for the world than biologically reproducing - quite the opposite - but kids need to be treated as valued (disciplined, but valued!) members of the family, not as social projects. Dan Savage has a bit on this in his book on adoption.
I do think this is sort of a funny story, Amy - I'm guessing she e-mailed you because you're proudly childless and she thought you'd be all sympathetic to her First World philosophical agonies. Hah!
marion at April 14, 2008 8:19 AM
> If she were sincere about
> preferring to not exist, she'd
> kill herself, wouldn't she?
Well, most of the ways of killing yourself kinda hurt - or at least aren't exactly pleasant or un-scary. So one can "philosophically" say they'd rather not exist, and still not be willing to "un-exist" themselves. Makes them a whiner at the very least.
If her life sucks so badly that she'd rather not exist, she should DO something about it rather than wax philosophical. Being Emo isn't even that cute when they're a teenager. Adults just look stupid being that way.
Jamie at April 14, 2008 8:42 AM
Bravo on suggesting adoption. I really feel that this is a very important and most people don't give it a second thought.
I really dislike how rarely people think of this as an option. I dislike when people say, "they can't have kids." I understand there's a certain amount push to concieve your own child, but there's plenty of kids who need a loving home.
Especially for those who couldn't bare to bring a child into the world, well how about one who's already here? Why not make his or her existence a little brighter.
Plus you don't (or your wife doesn't) have to get fat! Double bonus! Boo-yah
(by the way I'm not adopted, but if I do have kids, I'm adopting at least one)
flighty at April 14, 2008 9:21 AM
I really dislike how rarely people think of this as an option.
I don't think it's rare, I think that some people, once they start looking into the process, get discouraged when they see how involved it is. And too, there are the state agencies that try to persuade you to adopt the "unadoptables", the kids that are older and less "cute" than widdle babbies, who have been so caught up in the system for years, that they are "wanted", like the younger ones are. And would-be adoptive parents looking for a little baby aren't interested in a child that's older, and could come with a lot of emotional baggage that they wouldn't feel equipped to handle. I've seriously been thinking about being a foster parent, but I have to take into consideration all aspects: how it would effect my kids, my lifestyle, my current job; insurance issues, emotional issues, whether I can help the child(ren) emotionally, physically, etc.; there are children in the "system", as it were, that are severely emotionally damaged and have a lot of issues, and I think I may have just talked myself out the foster care thing. Dang.
Flynne at April 14, 2008 9:35 AM
Sorry, are should be aren't - aren't wanted...
Flynne at April 14, 2008 9:36 AM
Flynne, you're right. The state does try to push the clearance rack kids. I have a dear friend who was not told of her son's extensive history of psychiatric issues (he became part of her family at the age of 6). Now that he's 12 he has threatened to kill her, been in and out of the psychiatric home, running through meds like you wouldn't believe.
But he is her son. And she's not giving up on him.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, I was adopted at 3 weeks of age, have no diagnoses whatsoever, and my mother won't have much to do with me (apparently she hates my husband).
Sometimes, it's not the kids. Sometimes, it's the parents. Thank goodness the "Nuttiest" poster has opted out of the equation. I applaud your thoughtful consideration of foster parenting, that's far more than most of the kids get. It's not an immediate decision, don't jump into it until it feels right, and get comfortable with the idea that that may not be your style.
juliana at April 14, 2008 10:57 AM
I really think that if I had twenty minutes with this woman, I could convince her that she doesn't really exist, her and her husbands whole life is nothing but an imagined script for a screen play being virtually hologramed by two beings on the planet Magrathea and that part of the energy from the vortal reception nerve leaked out into a the piece of lint which she's been staring at in her belly button for the last thirty years.
My god, I hope this woman does not reproduce. And what kind of a nutless fart in a windstorm man is she married to? Jesus KEErist. I never wanted to have children but I know why I never wanted to have children. I love kids, (taste like chicken), but I detest the idea of being a parent. I had three younger brothers which I had to spend a lot of time raising as a kid because my widowed mother had to work a lot to keep us fed. So by the time I was fifteen, I was DONE with parenting. I wanted nothing to do with diapers or snotty screaming little bastareds anymore, all I wanted was a little peace and quiet and to have things that weren't smashed up. When I go to my friends houses who have kids, it's like going to the zoo to look at the animals. I can pet them and feed them and watch them do tricks, I'm fine with that.
I would love to aske this woman, "If you truly would have chosen not to exist, isn't it better for you to never make any decision at all lest you make the wrong decision and not be able to correct it?" How is it possible that this woman has not been found by Jesus yet? I could go on but my brain would explode...again.
Bikerken at April 14, 2008 11:01 AM
And speaking of "whiners and weaklings", I just got a letter from one of the "staffing solutions" companies in my neck o' the woods - they're giving a seminar on "Managing Across Generations." There is an accompanying article in the newsletter about "Generation Y A Challenge." It relates a story of a client who asked a Gen Y employee to take some work home in order to meet a deadline. The new employee "looked shocked" and the manager "felt his response was negative and wondered if she had made a mistake in hiring him." The article continues with discussions about managers having labeled this generation with a "sense of entitlement" and the evidence to support this view comes from a 2007 "Gen Y" at Work survey of 2500 Human Resources Professionals that demonstrates that of the "Gen Y" workforce:
74% expect to be paid more
61% expect flexible schedules
56% expect promotions within a year
50% expect more vacation or personal time
and
37% expect acess to state-of-the-art technology.
Then the article suggests that the surveys also indicate that these "Gen Yers" "have high expectations of themselves and their employers, that they're goal oriented, willing to work hard, and will do so in the "right environment." But it also states "influenced by corporate restructuring that rewarded their parents' personal sacrifices for the company with layoffs, they are not willing to work 60 hours a week and they don't believe it is necessary to achieve their goals."
Supposedly, their motto is "work hard and work smart".
Hmmm...
"They like flexibel hours best." Well, who wouldn't?
"Unlike their parents, they put personal interests before work." Why am I not surprised?
"However, they are well educated, open minded, talented, achievement oriented, collaborative and...they are incredibly connected (with the click of a mouse) to thousands of others." And the proof of this is...where, exactly?
The piece ends with "We need to prepare ourselves particularly our Gen Xers and focus our efforts on creating work environments designed to enure we attracted and retain this segment."
Somehow, I don't think so...oh wait,I'm not being Politically Correct, now am I? Sheesh.
Flynne at April 14, 2008 11:52 AM
I would say I'm glad to see a couple that has thought out the pros and cons to having a child, but, unfortunately, those two took it to such a wild extreme that it's laughable, not laudable.
"Do many other people think this way?" Followed up by (in the rely): "... the only other people i know who feel this way are a few from the internet." She already knew what the answer was-- No, many people do not think this way. (And if the only people you know who think the way you do are all from the internet, boy are you ever in trouble!)
I think one question to ask would have been this: How did this woman and her husband, with their happy, enviable relationship, get married in the first place? It sounds like they didn't worry the possibility of marriage into nonexistence! Why do this to something else that they seem to (desperately) want?
Jean Moczy at April 14, 2008 11:53 AM
SeanH at April 14, 2008 12:21 PM
I've wondered what kind of idiots become breathatarians. Something about this woman suggests she'd make a great one.
Kimberly at April 14, 2008 12:48 PM
I wonder if the LW understands either the relationship of cause and effect or the concept of determination - where selected actions produce a given range of effects. In religious argument, a lot of people bark on and on about "free will" without once realizing their own limitations - and abilities.
If you don't want kids, just say so. The work involved in raising them correctly is far more significant than any ethical question as to what they're going to do with the world they find. Every generation has been the "most modern". All of them have horrible things going on. It's possible that the offspring of the LW will be so fundamentally disturbed by the inability of her parents to cope with anything that she invents a way to fix everything. It's also possible that nothing will happen to them their whole lives but that they get old, infirm, and die. But nobody will know until they do it.
Radwaste at April 14, 2008 4:22 PM
I think that some people, once they start looking into the process, get discouraged when they see how involved it is.
Involved and often expensive. If you're getting into the process to "help a child," well...in the U.S., most newborns whose parents don't want to raise them and are willing to give up rights are snapped up in a blink of an eye. (There are some exceptions, which I'll discuss in a bit.) The kids who *need* parents do tend to be older and have issues. I read a few blogs by parents who have adopted passels o' older kids - one's adopted almost 40 of them over the years - and dealing with those issues is incredibly demanding. Kids with fetal alcohol syndrome - not uncommon among older adoptees - often either struggle with or just can't comprehend the idea that actions have consequences. Adoption overseas can get you a baby or a toddler without FAS et al...but it's extremely expensive, and there are unknown factors there, too.
Now, if you really, really want to adopt a healthy newborn...there are such babies available in the U.S. Really. If you're willing to adopt a minority baby - specifically, an African-American baby - and you pass all the tests, you probably won't have to wait years and years. Some parents aren't confident in their ability to parent a child in a way that incorporates that child's different birth culture. Others want children that look like them.
The thing is, though, the kids in the U.S. that desperately need homes are the ones that tend to have the most issues. And at the heart of every adoption is a loss to the birth parents. The birth mother may not care if she's perpetually high on crack, and most of us are not likely to care that much about her feelings if she's a chronic child abuser who tried to strangle her kids, but kids from both of those situations are likely to have ongoing issues that not everyone is equipped to deal with. The kids least likely to have problems are the ones, typically, whose birth parents feel the worst about giving them up and are the most sympathetic. Contrast that to having sex, getting pregnant, seeing a waving hand on the ultrasound, and birthing a kid who looks amazingly like his Aunt Griselda did in her baby photos. No social workers. No homestudies. No fingerprinting. No loss. No emotional pain. No figuring out if you use "first mom" or "birth mom." No additional parties with all-powerful autonomy. Just two adults and one kid. Much simpler.
Having said all that...I'm a huge fan of adoption. No, really. I think it's a great thing that more people on both ends of the equation should consider. I know quite a few people who have wonderful raised-since-youth stepkids and adopted kids but awful bio kids. I think we place way too much emphasis on biological parenthood. Unlike IVF, if you are willing to persist long enough and spend enough, adoption is pretty much guaranteed to get you a child of your own. But I also know that "Reproduce, or your genes will disappear from the population" is a powerful imperative - not all-powerful, but powerful - and that many more people dream about having children with their nose sand the other parents eyes than dream about the perfect adopted kids. Not everyone can handle being a good adoptive parent. I've known kids who were adopted by that type of people.
I don't think the people mentioned in this letter are capable of raising a functional colony of fruit flies, much less of raising a child, but I also think that if they try to adopt the door will be slammed on them during some part of the long, Kafka-esque adoption process, because social workers are on the lookout for crazy people who want babies.
marion at April 14, 2008 10:01 PM
Oh come now, there are plenty of painless ways to end one's life.
A cup of hemlock a la Socrates comes readily to mind.
There's hanging, which, done properly, is immediate.
That is just two that come to mind.
I've never really "gotten" suicide though...oh I understand it in the technical sense of ending one's own life.
I even understand it from a rational standpoint for those whose lives are filled with pain and suffering from an incurable illness, why live only to suffer more?
But for virtually all others, it strikes me as the action of someone determined to be of no use to the world. If one has lost everything, then why not try to help someone else build something? There are countless people in this world who are in need of the assistance of those who have either knowledge or a strong back, whether to teach or to dig a well, if one sees no value in their own life, why not make it valuable to someone else at least?
I ramble. Pleasant days.
Robert at April 14, 2008 10:25 PM
I believe hemlock is quite an unpleasant way to top yourself. Personally, I'd prefer carbon monoxide from a charcoal burner in a closed room. But then you can't have the company of your nearest & dearest, unless they are wearing scuba gear.
Norman at April 15, 2008 12:52 AM
This woman doesn't need a kid, in fact, she doesn't even want a kid. What she wants is the fantasy of a child, and the fantasy of problems later on.
Because here's the truth: they're a lot of work when they're young. They exhaust you as babies and toddlers, keep you going when they're 12 and under. When they're teens, they realize you're not so hip, and as they ease into 17, 18, they wish that YOU never existed. When they're in their 20's they'll think you're old and irrelevant. Later on, they'll think you're "quaint."
And each step of the way, they'll ask for money.
But her? She's asking for deep philosophical thoughts on existence of a twenty year old who really just wants to get laid and drive a car? My recommendation: Get a CAT! Get TWO!
callie at April 15, 2008 1:02 AM
> Personally, I'd prefer carbon
> monoxide
Thermonuclear detonation. I'm a pussy about pain, you see.
Crid at April 15, 2008 1:08 AM
What she wants is the fantasy of a child [...] How about a Tamagotchi?
Norman at April 15, 2008 3:47 AM
Thermonuclear detonation. I'm a pussy about pain, you see.
Crid, stop watching the "Terminator" movies. We're not going down that way, I forbid it! o_O
Flynne at April 15, 2008 8:28 AM
For a defense of LW, I think she is concerned that her possible child was robbed of the opportunity to decide to participate the game of life or not. There is no way of asking it in advance, so better not risk it.
To me, life is a game, mainly involving hunting and mating as the Mother Nature intended. However, the human life on earth is somewhat meaningless as they rarely be eaten alive by other species. We killed all of our possible predators and I think that is cheating. Eventually, the Mother Nature will take care of the cheaters, who are not following the rules.
I somewhat sympathize with the LW as I think the earth would be better off without humans.
Chang at April 15, 2008 9:15 AM
"I somewhat sympathize with the LW as I think the earth would be better off without humans."
Yeah, I hear Mars and Jupiter are doing just fantastic.
What the hell do you mean the Earth would "better"? Better for/ than what? How do you quantify that?
Elle at April 15, 2008 10:55 AM
"What the hell do you mean the Earth would "better"? Better for/ than what? How do you quantify that?"
It would be better as it will create an even playing field in terms of hunting and mating involving all the species. Right now, a lot of species are benched because of the humans.
Evolution is arms race between the prey and predators. However, the preys are not allowed to kill off the predators and that is the rule Mother Nature will enforce it at any cost.
And humans broke the rule. Any society is better off without the rule breakers.
Chang at April 15, 2008 11:26 AM
"However, the preys are not allowed to kill off the predators and that is the rule Mother Nature will enforce it at any cost." Um, why not? Also we did not kill all our predators we just killed the large ones, disease is till quite there and prevalent. Also how do you know that there would not be some other different species that wouldn't do the same. We became the alpha level predators. The mother nature argument would be mute due to Tigers, Polar Bears etc. With the exception of man they have no predators.
vlad at April 15, 2008 1:32 PM
Are you saying humans are not subject to natural laws, Chang?
Norman at April 15, 2008 2:11 PM
"Also we did not kill all our predators we just killed the large ones, disease is till quite there and prevalent."
A lot of doctors are working on to kill the all of the disease, Mother Nature sent to destroy us. I am afraid that they will succeed eventually.
"The mother nature argument would be mute due to Tigers, Polar Bears etc. With the exception of man they have no predators."
Yes, they do. They kill each other and eat each other. Big tigers will eat small tigers. Big bears will eat small bears to keep their population in check. If humans had kept the custom of cannibal practice, we could have the shot at getting the mercy of the Mother Nature. But I think She is done with working with us.
Chang at April 15, 2008 4:42 PM
"Are you saying humans are not subject to natural laws, Chang?"
Points taken. I see that humans are the latest product of natural laws. It is possible that it is Mother Nature's intention for humans to take unfair share of playing field on the earth.
However, whenever I open the newspaper and read about the food shortage and armed conflicts around the world, I feel that Mother Nature is behind all of this to get rid of us from the earth after She realized that She made a mistake.
Chang at April 15, 2008 4:53 PM
Chang, you're insane. Food shortage? Every famine in recorded history has happened not for lack of food, but for the inequitable distribution thereof by despotic governments looking to "decrease the surplus population".
That you see some Gaia conspiracy behind it is kinda amusing, actually.
Bears and Tigers don't commit infanticide for population control reasons. Tigers and Lions do it to eliminate the offspring of the competition. Bears (especially polar bears) do it because it's easier to take down a cub than it is to hunt a seal or a whale.
You really ought to watch more Discovery and Animal Planet.
brian at April 15, 2008 6:44 PM
It's really fascinating why some animals wlll kill their own young. (Check out http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/522936)
In short: Life is brutal, and this woman seems arrogant enough to believe that she can eliminate suffering by refusing to have children. I guess she can, in her own small way, but I'd hate to live life with so much constant angst.
Monica at April 15, 2008 7:29 PM
Damn. The link above included the end parens. Make that http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/522936
Monica at April 15, 2008 7:33 PM
Her momma shoulda swallowed her.
Bikerken at April 15, 2008 8:48 PM
I need convinced that Chang is serious and not just trolling before I continue.
Norman at April 16, 2008 12:03 AM
"I need convinced that Chang is serious and not just trolling before I continue."
Norman, I am serious and in fact I am dead serious.
Humans usually do not become a part of food chain while they are alive. I just do not think that is what the Mother Nature intended. Most of species on this planet constantly look for food while they try not to become food themselves. But most of them end up becoming a food after deadly struggles. And that is exactly what She wanted to happen on this planet.
Humans are the exception to that rule. I eat Kung Pao chicken at a Chinese restaurant without worrying about being eaten alive by the wolves. Do I like it that way? Yes. Do I think that is a fair deal to chickens or wolves? No.
And I think that the Mother Nature will eventually do something about this injustice done by humans.
Chang at April 16, 2008 5:18 AM
"Her momma shoulda swallowed her."
I think I will taste like chicken because I eat a lot of chickens. I will be good for snacks because I do not have a lot of fat or meat.
Chang at April 16, 2008 5:31 AM
Can you explain why you are talking about something called Mother Nature as if it were a person with plans, desires and goals? Any relation to Father Time? Or Brer Rabbit?
Norman at April 16, 2008 5:46 AM
Marion, what is a "birth culture"? Is it similar to "learned genetics"? At last, Lysenko is vindicated!
--
phunctor
phunctor at April 16, 2008 9:16 AM
Amy, you should take a swing at the exterminationists, as exemplified by Chang, "Life after People", etc. It's almost impossible to believe these folks are serious, but they are.
Ever since "Bambi", I've been gagging at the Gaianic / breathatarian spin in early childhood media.
It's not actually very safe for a culture to leave the ground-floor furnishing of young minds to mass communications. The diversity of parental cultures stands in healthy contrast to the fascistic uniformity of the Greenie Message.
--
phunctor
phunctor at April 16, 2008 9:35 AM
"Can you explain why you are talking about something called Mother Nature as if it were a person with plans, desires and goals?"
I do think Mother Nature is a corporation with a profit motive using all of us as employees to boost Her profit margin.
How She measures Her profit at the end of fiscal year? By counting all of Her alive employees. The more, the better. To ensure that, She will not allow one employee monopolize all of the assets of Her corporation.
We still have yet to see what is Her major displinary action will be against this one bad employee. So far, I have seen many minor warning signs from Her. So, I think it is crucial for humans to make a deal with Her before the final displinary action becomes fatal.
Chang at April 16, 2008 11:21 AM
Chang, I don't think we have enough common ground for an exchange of views. In other words, I think you're nuts. Best wishes to you and yours.
Norman at April 17, 2008 1:44 AM
"Chang, I don't think we have enough common ground for an exchange of views."
Norman, that is so British. That is a cop out. They said the same thing to a lot of people and nations right before they invaded them in 1800s.
How we are going to find out who is the real nut unless we debate it out?
Norman, I think you are nuts and I think you are wrong. In fact, I think you are dead wrong. But you have the right to your wrong opinion and I will drink to it. Cheers.
Chang at April 17, 2008 5:11 AM
Exactly. I don't count invasion as "an exchange of views." But thanks for the "British" compliment!
Norman at April 17, 2008 5:48 AM
Amy - Check out Carry Tennis in Friday's salon.com. I was reading the latest letter to him and thinking, "This sounds so familiar." It hit me almost immediately: It's the crazy letter you already responded to days ago.
JulieA at April 17, 2008 11:18 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/14/nuttiest_letter.html#comment-1540827">comment from JulieAI just printed it out. I find him unreadable. Perhaps this sentence will seem more like comprehensible English in the morning:
Many other people may not think this way but it is an interesting way to think because it hints at a world in which existence and nonexistence are inverted, in which not only can you have empathy for beings who do not yet exist but they can take revenge on you later even though you did not know exactly what you were creating.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2008 12:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/14/nuttiest_letter.html#comment-1540852">comment from Amy AlkonOh, by the way, here's a later exchange I had with the woman:
---- AdviceAmy@aol.com wrote:
> Well, you can always adopt a child who already exists
In a message dated 4/14/08 5:10:17 AM, DELETED writes:
you hit the nail on the head: we probably will. i can see why you write advice: in both your responses to me, you cut to the meat of the matter instantly, clearly and concisely. i'm going to tell others about you. thank you for letting me get all this off my chest. i feel better.
MY REPLY:
Thanks - glad you do. Best,-Amy
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2008 2:10 AM
Well done, Amy!
Norman at April 18, 2008 6:04 AM
http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2008/04/18/have_a_kid/
Wendy B at April 18, 2008 9:35 AM
Hmmmmm....I was thinking today's Cary Tennis column sounded AWFULLY familiar.....
(see above link)
Wendy B at April 18, 2008 9:36 AM
I answered this on the fly - just seemed to tedious and ridiculous to answer for my column. Still, I came up with what I thought was an obvious and practical solution: adopt.
I haven't yet read Tennis' response - I just skimmed it last night and looked again at it this morning -- just accidentally put it out in the recycling. Or was it an accident?
I'm not saying this because he writes an advice column, because I like Savage, and I can read lazy, matronly Amy Dickinson just fine. Carolyn Hax, however, and Tennis, even worse, I just find tedious and unreadable...perhaps because I'm kind of a good-time charlie as a reader. If it's not a study that I HAVE to read for my work, if it's not interesting and/or entertaining, I just don't have the life to waste on it.
Anyway, for those who HAVE slogged through Tennis' response...what do you think?
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2008 9:54 AM
Sorry, forgot that I put that "adopt" suggestion in the original.
I mean, this wasn't genius advice. I have a hard time figuring out why this didn't occur to the woman herself.
Or to Tennis.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2008 9:55 AM
I do not know if it's just me or if everybody else experiencing problems with your blog. It looks like some of the written text in your content are running off the screen. Can somebody else please provide feedback and let me know if this is happening to them as well? This might be a problem with my web browser because I've had this happen previously. Kudos
{children custody|battle for custody|custody agreement} at March 31, 2011 1:01 AM
Leave a comment