Sunday, December 5, 2010

Is Being Born in the Best Interest of the Child?

Thought I'd pass along something I received in the mail today.

Shout out to Brian for the link.

5 comments:

Curator said...

The first half of this paper is really, really bad.

It gets better toward the end, but I'm not sure how far you can get with incredibly flawed assumptions based on an outdated understanding of the history of human societies.

Curator said...

Maybe "French critical theory" is more accurate than "really, really bad," although they are generally synonymous.

I'm writing a response to it with my own questionable translations.

filrabat said...

Curator,

I think the point of the paper is the evolution of reproductive ideologies and there bases through the millennia - not to give an endorsement to the beginning. Naturally, the beginning of the paper assumes the truth of a theistic belief system (which one is free to take or leave). Still, the Buddhist basis for non-reproduction is sound, regardless of one's beliefs about religion. (notice I did not say religious beliefs. If Buddhism doesn't explicitly endorse antinatalism, it certainly permits it easily enough.

Curator said...

I don't see the author as advocating theism at all - I'd be very surprised if the author were not an atheist. What I have a problem with is his historical and biological inaccuracy on the way to his (laudable) conclusions.

Lurenbaum JC said...

About "The first half of this paper is really, really bad", my answer to Curator/Sister Y is there http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-cant-critical-theory-be-more.html

jc Lurenbaum
France