True enough! I admit the choices of what I hope to be good are often tough. To figure out better still; forget about it. I struggle with what I believe to be right actions and more and more feel the desire to let go and be led. It’s not that I see hardship as better, only that it can be the necessary catalyst to better. There needs to be the contrast. How many great leaders scientists athletes note the value of failure? Is humility better? Maybe the way we act ought not be based so much on the betterness of the outcome, and instead the betterness of our motives and means.

We generally have a reasonable idea of what ‘better’ means. Given that our conceptual landscape shifts what is ‘better’ is never known in any pure sense. It’s simply a matter of balancing the immediate benefits with future benefits ... given that we’re not able to know our future and that we’re burden with the emotional contents of the present, our estimates may be incomplete but we can usually make progressively ‘better’ choices as we fumble along.

What is ‘better’ is generally understood from a human perspective not from pure logic. — I like sushi

A fumbling along with incomplete estimates related to the immediate emotionally burdened circumstances amidst shifting conceptual landscape methodology for describing better does not sound reasonable to me at all. We don’t know what better is often until we can see things in hindsight. And, what things we perceive as bad, could be better in the long run for us; if we can change ourselves and our perception. The better off that we are today at to technology and comfort and wealth may in all actuality be the worst things for us, to the extent that these things tend to take our eye off the ball. Or are these creature comforts the ball? I suppose better is determined by what your ball is. Maybe, instead of what is better? Would it be better to ask what is the ball? Or better still; would it be better not to ask at all? Where but from a human perspective does pure logic reside?

I guess the spot where this premise breaks for me is the idea of, “better.” Better seems so dependent on worse. It’s because of the worse that we appreciate and seek better. And it feels that this fluctuation necessarily be ongoing lest we lose humility. One might argue for instance that the effort to eradicate bullying has resulted in a general lack of toughness in kids today as they do not test and sharpen each other as in the past. Passing through trials is a perhaps better way to live? Hard manual labor with low pay and no cell phone may very well be a better way to live. What matters more that a child be brought into a particular level of comfort and security or that they learn how to treat others with love and kindness?

It seems that for a topic such as this what are and what are not “actual” rights needs to be agreed upon and hashed out. I agree of course that children ought to be raised in homes in which they have the love and care necessary for them likewise to give the same in their turn to others. The means by which this is encouraged and fostered is significant particularly assuming what are indeed the rights we have either as children and as a society. Even to judge based on money is tricky business. I don’t care much for the use of the word judge in these contexts as the potential of a human life born into any circumstances is not something we can judge or foresee. If we value that potential then the question becomes what are we willing to do to help. If a child is born to those less fortunate how can we help it and the parents reach potential. Are we value and seeking to help others? Are we seeking and valuing the potential for good? Or are we trying to safeguard our own security at the expense of judgment on others?

So, children have a 'right' to a good home and a healthy upbringing. — Bartricks

Can you please clarify and explain on what basis you make this claim? For all of human history children have been born in all kinds of situations on all ends of the spectrum from “good to bad” and may likely live a life that ends up on the opposite side of the spectrum. There is no way to weight these things. How do you draw the line for what does or does not constitute a “good” home?

Don’t play games — Brett

No offense intended to Mr. or Miss Bartricks, but I’m wondering if one sets the premise as; why don’t we require licenses to have kids? And, we engage that premise I feel maybe we might have heard someone yell, let the games begin! Nonetheless, it is a fun game; or thought experiment. It’s a bit strange how some assign value to one thing over another. So many born with low IQ can contribute so very much and can bring incredible good to the lives of others. Arguably those with the highest intelligence can be capable of the most harm. I hope in these discussions we can help each other be less quick to judge and assume.

Thank you for your response. On what basis do you assign an opinion merit? If we are each expressing opinions on what a radically different approach might be in addressing what you at least perceive as a problem for society to solve, then to my mind a solution involving love and support for both parents and children born into less fortunate situations might be better than the a punitive regulatory approach.

As for the pilot analogy, I’m sure you can see why that may not be such a hot comparison as not everyone can just fly a plane whereas people like all creatures can procreate. And even in the less desirable instances (which I do not assume) most folks don’t jump right to thinking fiery deaths necessarily lie ahead for all those whose paths cross said unlicensed baby. You’ve mentioned rights a few times as a given, by what means do you assign rights? Would you not say that people have the right to have sex and have children with whom they wish? Assuming of course they are consenting adults?

Again, I assert the claim that some of the most evil people and negative outcomes for the many people can and possibly have come from situations that you might promote and license. Whereas many of the most positively beneficial and strongest proponents for the good of many likely have arisen from situations you’d seek to ban. How can you; how can we help things to work toward good? I know you say my opinion of love has no merit, but if applied freely and liberally I do believe many of those fiery deaths might be avoided.

“Badges!? We don’t need no stinking badges!” Love on all those unlicensed folks who are gifted with a life to learn from while raising them. Why not help them? Whose to say what good can come from a bad choice? Whose to say how suffering for a time might inoculate for hard times to come?

I don’t know if there’s reason to be discouraged, who’s to know what will come out of these things? Teaching is tricky in that we can do only so much to equip these kiddos for a quickly changing world. The technology is very scary as it results in such a focus on immediacy and ironically is a constant distraction from the here and now.

Capital is largely responsible (it's the key) CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. Why? The reason is that capitalism is, by its nature, based on exploitation of resources, growth, expansion, and profitability. — Bitter Crank

Are there places that do not have a capitalistic society that have in the past or are currently behaving in a manner that similarly seeks to exploit resources for the sake of growth and profit? By what means do you think the sharp turn around that you suggest is required be achieved? What system other than capitalism would work?

You make an interesting point. I can’t help but feel that all the finger pointing is diverting attention away from important issues that are suddenly deemed irrelevant”. Why the finger pointing? It’s as if we all want an enemy, someone we can blame for all the areas we may have fallen short on, like community, family, caring, sharing and loving. — Brett

Yes I agree, assuming the climate was doing fantastic and all else was proceeding as is I’m not sure we’d really have less to be concerned over. It’s odd how on so many fronts we see to be more and more polarized. I feel as if a storm is brewing or a battle. I pray we’ll help each other through wisdom to weather the storm. If a battle is coming I’ll put my trust in the belief that all things can and do work together for good and try to do what is good for others. Part of that is probably learning to point the finger in the right direction: at ourselves.

I’m new to this forum and have enjoyed reading this discussion. Thank you for posting the topic. I am a teacher also, and think the tone regarding consensus and those who wish to further discuss or question the consensus is concerning given all the historical examples of a consensus of experts being very wrong. It seems that how and why we solve the problem, assuming it is a problem and that it is ours to solve; is very much within the realm of philosophy. And, I imagine discussions like these may very likely contribute to the good of others. I wonder if there are underlying issues that must continue to be addressed and resolved if we are to get anywhere on the climate, again assuming we could or should. Whether you are a theist or anti-theist, believer in free will or determinism an argument could be logically made that the world is as it should be. That is the philosophical question that has been nagging at me for a while. I wonder if the state of things in the world/universe are meant to be as they are for a reason. I am a believer in purpose and reasons for things. Perhaps climate change is a problem better solved by diverting to more basic issues such as why and how we ought to love each other.

Is it possible that capitalism may largely contribute to solving the problem?