The Duggar family

[darkumbra]

We live in an increasingly over populated world.
A very good case can be built to define what they're doing as exceedingly selfish and immoral.

They're like the crazy 'cat lady' who lives up the street... but with children rather than animals.

[Huston]

We live in an increasingly over populated world.

Scientists have been espousing that fear for decades, so far, that excuse is pretty much bupkiss.

A very good case can be built to define what they're doing as exceedingly selfish and immoral.

Not really. According to science, morality finds its ultimate basis in biological ones and zeros - so who are Atheists to defy their own philosophical cages? And from a Darwinian point of view, the Duggar's are merely reveling in the "selfishness" of species propagation. So at the end of the day, the family is making a good use of their resources, they're raising healthy kids and they're not even impeding those in the meta to try and make the case (while contradicting themselves) that the Duggar's are what happens when "Christianity runs-a-muck."

[darkumbra]

We live in an increasingly over populated world.

Scientists have been espousing that fear for decades, so far, that excuse is pretty much bupkiss.

Have you visited Mumbai? Kolkata? Been to China Recently? What happens when the standard of living in either/both of India and China approaches that of the USA?

Have you heard about Peak Oil?

Do you know what the trend in Oil consumption is vs. known Oil reserves?

Just curious as to where you're drawing your complacency from.

[Huston]

Have you visited Mumbai? Kolkata? Been to China Recently? What happens when the standard of living in either/both of India and China approaches that of the USA?

Have you heard about Peak Oil?

Do you know what the trend in Oil consumption is vs. known Oil reserves?

Yup, heard 'em all...for decades. Each are now the fully grown poster children for population alarmism...they're like Macaulay Culkin, they were cute when they were kids, now not so much. The Chinese are in terrible shape. They're eating better, living better and buying up our debt!

The assumption of alarmists is that the technology of the last 30 years will not continue to inject efficiencies and new solutions into the equation.

Anyway, I doubt the Duggar's collectively have the carbon footprint per person as Al Gore and his energy gobbling palace in Nashville, or a number of celebs touting green issues while lining their pockets to build 10,000+ sq. ft. mansions. At least the Duggar's can justify the need for 7,000 sq. feet. What's Gore's excuse?

And again, while this is an interesting sidebar, you haven't proved any immoral or irrational behavior here when it comes to the Duggars.

[tirtlegrrl]

Huston wrote: Anyway, I doubt the Duggar's collectively have the carbon footprint per person as Al Gore and his energy gobbling palace in Nashville, or a number of celebs touting green issues while lining their pockets to build 10,000+ sq. ft. mansions. At least the Duggar's can justify the need for 7,000 sq. feet.

I have to say I agree with you. Also, said celebs often sport private jets...gas guzzling jets...

Re: Duggars and global warming, it's not so much that the Duggars are so bad for the environment. Rather, they're most likely taught, without any thorough investigation beyond extreme right-wing propaganda, that a) all scientists who think that humans bear some responsibility for global warming are WRONG and b) it doesn't matter anyway because Jesus is coming back in their lifetimes. I mean, just look at the nightly news! Wars and rumors of wars...increasing immorality...should be any second now. Screw the rainforests, we're getting beamed up to heaven before God blows the earth to smithereens.

[Mr. Sluagh]

Screw the rainforests, we're getting beamed up to heaven before God blows the earth to smithereens.

And they accuse us of cosmic treason...

[whoosanightowl]

Huston wrote:

Anyway, I doubt the Duggar's collectively have the carbon footprint per person as Al Gore and his energy gobbling palace in Nashville, or a number of celebs touting green issues while lining their pockets to build 10,000+ sq. ft. mansions. At least the Duggar's can justify the need for 7,000 sq. feet. What's Gore's excuse?

You're right, there is no excuse for Gore's extravagances, he's got to be the biggest hypocrite there is concerning the global warming issue. I don't think he honestly even believes it himself, or else he just thinks he's so far above everyone else that he doesn't need to heed his own warning.
However the Duggar family will consume an astronomical amount of resources if each of the 18 children continue in their parents footsteps of letting God decide how many children they will have. But perhaps some of them will at least consider using a natural method of birth control (not as effective, but if done right it can work) to space their own children.

[Huston]

However the Duggar family will consume an astronomical amount of resources if each of the 18 children continue in their parents footsteps of letting God decide how many children they will have.

Do you really think that's going to happen? I don't and frankly the over-population scare mongering here just doesn't wash. World population in 1975 was 4 billion and scientists were running around yelling and screaming about the end of the world due to over-consumption. 2.8 billion people later, we still have the alarmists decrying the end of civilization while none of the dooms day scenarios predicted 30+ years ago have panned out. World hunger is a serious problem. I don't make light of it, but if you compare the "science" of yesterday in this area to today you'll quickly realize how silly this argument strikes me. Furthermore, the science is far but settled with AGW. What once was "global warming" - is now called "climate change" with an avalanche of excuses about the lack of warming over the last 10 years, scientists recanting their former stances, bogus models emerging, etc., etc. And given the the scientific community's constant propensity to make complete fools of themselves when it comes to predicting the future, I'm leaning towards history repeating itself.

By the way, my Dad came from a family of seven. They were agnostics and practiced zero birth control. My Dad had two kids. I have two kids with no plans for more and my brother is unmarried with no kids, but something tells me if this was a family of 18 with Atheist or Agnostic parents we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Anyway, the Duggars clip coupons, as Brittney Spears Inc. burns ten times the electricity the Duggars consume combined and her concerts sell more unnecessary food in a year than the Duggars probably eat in a decade. So when Brittney gets her total carbon footprint down to 1/2 that of all 18 Duggars combined then, maybe then, you can argue this line of thinking with some credibility. Until then, you guys should be decrying the "green evils" of Hollywood hypocrisy that could probably power and feed Cambodia.

Fact of it is, you guys are making an issue of the Duggars because they're practicing Christians, not because of any real concerns for over-population. After all, there's 2.3 billion Hindus and Buddhists in India and China that are growing at an alarming rate against their base populations and the U.S. ranks 131 in population growth out of 230 countries according to the United Nations World Population Prospects Report. But hey, let's focus on a single, small, outlier that we think not only represents the U.S. population but Christians in general...and that's called bigotry folks...if you were wondering.

[tirtlegrrl]

huston wrote: Fact of it is, you guys are making an issue of the Duggars because they're practicing Christians, not because of any real concerns for over-population.

Actually, the original question at the beginning of the thread was more "What will become of the Duggars?" as opposed to "Are they bad for the planet?" I'm not "making an issue of the Duggars" because they're Christian (ok I lied, I think they're interesting because I used to share most of their beliefs, minus the no alcohol and dancing thing) but because they have a weird interpretation of the Bible and I think that they overshelter their kids and don't encourage them to thoroughly investigate scientific and religious topics from more points of view than their own.

[Huston]

"...but because they have a weird interpretation of the Bible and I think that they overshelter their kids and don't encourage them to thoroughly investigate scientific and religious topics from more points of view than their own."

So you don't believe that Christians in general are guilty of each of these things?

[tirtlegrrl]

huston wrote: So you don't believe that Christians in general are guilty of each of these things?

I would say that the super conservative homeschooled evangelical ones often are, but I can't say for each of the other branches of protestant Christianity and I can't speak for Catholics at all.

Perhaps each branch of the faith is guilty in some respect of each, but I doubt most Christians are guilty of all at once.

[whoosanightowl]

Huston,
I agree with tirtlegrrl, most traditional, mainline Christians probably do not fit the Duggar family mold, it seems that more fundamentalists do than other denominations, especially within home school families. I don't know if each Duggar offspring will bear 18 children, but say they have an average of 5 kids each--which is a low estimate, that's 90 children! And if those children have an average of say 3 kids each, that's a 180 more! An average family of 2-3 children would take several generations to produce this amount of people.
Since we do not have an endless supply of natural resources on this planet, I think it's irresponsible and selfish to reproduce without consideration of that fact. And I would think it just as irresponsible no matter what religion the families happened to be as long as they had access to birth control and were indeed being negligent.

I agree too that these types of Christians (and fundamentalists from other religions as well) tend to keep their children in "protective" bubbles of ignorance that do not encourage or even give them the opportunity to objectively interact with and understand the rest of the world and it's different worldviews. It is instilled in them their entire lives by everyone they have contact with that the world is evil and they should avoid it and not listen to anything contrary to what they've been taught no matter how reasonable it sounds.

That's what is most frightening for me.

[stickmangrit]

they're milking media notoriety for every penny they can(and with eighteen f&*king kids i can hardly blame them), thus turning the whole enterprise into a strange self-fulfilling loop

So they’re doing what they love, telling the world about it and the world is paying them after 16 kids…that’s hardly milking it. Have you ever heard of a rock star? How about Richard Dawkins? His love is to preach atheism to the world and he gets paid for it. Is it only different when “the milking” doesn’t offend your sensibilities?

I think the family is little weird too, but being odd or unconventional doesn’t make them immoral. Here you have 18 healthy kids and a mom and dad who love each other. I would think that atheists would be celebrating this robust example of propagation first before attacking their religious views.

as i stated, with the cost of raising 16+ kids, i'm not about to blame them for seeking funds any way they can. the fact remains that they are not living on limited means.

and as for Dawkins, whilst he's a brilliant biologist, he's a fucking moron for trying to "disprove" god with science. it can't be done, the creature is by definition beyond the realm of human comprehension, and trying to disprove it with observational methods is a lost cause. he's allowed a grudge brought on by the modern Christian attack on science and evolution to cloud his judgment, and as a result has taken the argument further than the evidence will carry him. i respect the man, but he should fucking know better.

personally, i don't agree with it

Eh, okay, but that's just your opinion.

hence the addition of the word: "personally." anything else you care to comment upon Captain Obvious?

i can only imagine what it's like for their older kids.

But you can't really imagine it. You grew up in a different family, in a different time and in a different place. Or are you saying that your household experience is the quintessential, universal experience of all children?

bullshit. i can relate on a basic level to the responsibilities faced by the oldest sibling in a large family, and i can multiply my experiences to gain some vague grasp of how hard it is for them. i love my siblings dearly, but i long ago accepted that i was less a brother than a third parent to the lot of them. additionally, as i have experience as an after-school program volunteer, i know the hell that is wrangling 20+ kids to behave. to deal with that shit on a 24/7 basis is something i can only tangentially grasp, but it scares the shit out of me none the less.

/why yes, i do resent that my mother chose to cling to the "condoms are evil" portion of catholic dogma, why do you ask?

Bizarre. I didn't. I think you're projecting your personal experiences onto the conversation and injecting your feelings about it into your reasoning.

obviously you haven't been around here long enough to understand my sense of humor. also, you're clearly not a Farker, so i'll let that one slide.

[Richard]

Scientists have been espousing that fear for decades, so far, that excuse is pretty much bupkiss.

To me, the alarmist position seems reasonable, thou maybe exaggerated. I see the argument straigtforward:

Premise 1. Exponential increase in population requires exponential increase in resources.
Premise 2. If required resources are significantly larger than available resources, large scale death and suffering is inevitable.
Premise 3. On one planet, exponential increase in resources can only be provided by exponentially advancing technology.
Conclusion: If population continues to increase dramatically and if advancing technology fails to provided required resources, large scale death and suffering will occur.

There are some ifs in the conclusion which can be argued will not happen, but those arguments are unconvincing to me, at this time. Therefore, the responsible position is to focus on a sustainable future.