Nutrition Activity Self-History Form: Fill & Download for Free

A primer on your height & what you can do about itYour height is determined between 60%-85% by your genetics. The remainder of that is environmental, primarily nutrition[1]. If you're malnourished during your growing years you won't reach your full potential. If you get enough nutrition you'll likely reach your genetically predetermined height, possibly a little taller.There is some indications that getting enough protein through your developmental years can add to your height positively. In Japan after the war, the population had access to more fish protein and the average height of the country increased 3 inches[2]. Denmark has become one of the tallest countries in the world, and it's rise in height is strongly correlated to it's wealth per capita .[3] The most likely take away here is that people that can afford to eat, and eat well, will be taller. It's no guarantee that you'll be taller through eating, but proper nutrition through your formative years, can maximize your genetic potential. A good, balanced diet of fats, proteins, and carbohydrates -- eat food, not too much, mostly plants -- you'll do fine.They've been doing some research on fraternal twins to try to determine what the specific gene is that determines height. The reason that they're looking at fraternal twins rather than identical twins is that their exact DNA is different but most of the environmental factors are the same (what the mother ate while they were pregnant, probably how they were treated after they were born, etc). They can then compare the genomes of the twins after they reach their height and see what is different between them. They do this for thousands of fraternal twin pairs to determine which parts of their genomes are different. As of writing this they think it's partly in the X chromosome and chromosomes 7, 8, and 20. Scientists haven't narrowed it down entirely, genes are pretty complex and it's not as simple as it's explained in your general science classes with recessive genes and dominant genes.[4]As you grow up, your bones get longer. Everyone has Epiphyseal plates at the ends of their bones. As you grow, these plates are added onto. When you go through growth spurts, particularly puberty, they are added onto rather quickly. Some people experience growing pains in their bones as they expand. When you're done growing (mostly by the time you're 18-25), your bones Ossify, the epiphyseal plates seal themselves, and you stop growing taller and longer. At that point you're done. No more growing. That's it.How do I know if my Epiphyseal plates have sealed?I’m going to quote this answer: Thomas Johnson's answer to How do you know when your epiphyseal plates are sealed (disregarding age)? (Please go and up vote his answer if you find this portion illuminating)When looking at an x-ray of your limbs, look for the line between the diaphysis (shaft of the long bone) and epiphysis (rounded articulation/ where the joint lies). Here is a picture of the epiphyseal plates of the distal tibia and fibula in an ankle:You can easily see the dark line above both "ankles" or malleoli. These are the epiphyseal plates you are looking for. Here is a picture when the "growth plates" are "sealed":You can see the white line on both sides of the knee, known as an epiphyseal scar. The white line means the area is more dense, whereas the dark line from before means it is the less dense, growing cartilaginous tissue. If the white line exists, it means the epiphyseal plate has "closed" and no additional bone will grow from the cartilage.Daily fluctuationsYour height actually decreases slightly through the day. In between your spinal disc s there are fluid sacs. When you stand up your head and shoulders put axial pressure on your spine and cause these sacs to compress. You can shrink by as much as 1% of your height this way (this will not accumulate beyond 1%, 1% is the most you will lose, even by standing up for a month straight) .Simply lying down will allow them to expand again.This isn't a big deal, though there are several sites out there than claim otherwise and claim that they can create extra space between your spinal bones. Additionally there are claims that stretching and hanging can increase your height. This is a quarter true. Hanging and stretching can reverse the compression, making you slightly taller until your spine compresses again. Spinal compression can reduce your height temporarily by 1%. In tall people this can be as much as a half inch. Stretching and hanging and lying down can restore this 1%, but won't make you taller.[5]For this same reason, astronauts can be as much as 2" taller in space. There's not enough gravity putting axial pressure against their spine to compress it. Additionally, the fluid pressure in the sacs can exceed any forces pressing against them allowing astronauts to expand past that 1%. When they come back to earth, they return to their normal height over the course of months.[6]Your height and sportsBecause of the growth plates, and the fact that your spine can compress, people got the idea that weightlifting and high impact sports could cause you to not grow as much. They're not quite right. There has been no evidence that weightlifting can stop your growth[7] . The origins of weightlifting being a thing that stunted your growth came from a couple of places, most recently a 1970s study of Japanese child laborers. The children that did work all day ended up shorter than average[8]. The truth behind the stunted growth is, of course, malnutrition. Child laborers worked long hours and didn't make much money...not nearly enough to feed themselves well.Another reason people used to think weightlifting was bad for children was they didn't develop muscles like you do as an adult. Children don't have enough hormones yet for muscles to develop properly, but what weightlifting can do for them is put stress on the bones encouraging them to grow as well as help them develop their central nervous system allowing pathways to be created for them to do more work as they go into adulthood. A lot of lifting weights is in the head.Recent studies have shown that weight lifting at any young age can help build bones and stave off obesity for children leading into their adulthood. Weight lifting at a young age has also been shown to prevent injuries and osteoporosis into old age.Sports have a tendency to self select. I've seen so many questions:Can basketball make me taller?Can swimming make me taller?These questions are based on the fact that professional basketball players are tall and well known swimmers are tall. The well known players are tall because being tall gives them a distinct advantage in these sports. I swam for 15 years, all through my growing years. I'm 5'7". It doesn't work like that. Further, basketball is pretty high impact. Short sprints, stops, starts, jumps. If someone thought weight lifting would stunt your growth, basketball would too for the same reasons. Every time you jump you put several times your body weight against your muscles and bones. Much more than you would be weightlifting at that age.The same thing goes with gymnasts. They're not short because the sport makes them short, they're short because it's easier to be a great gymnast when you're short.[9]But it's not quite as simple as that, either. Studies on female gymnasts revealed that in their youth, they show slowed height growth, primarily in their legs. When they stop doing gymnastics, they are able to reach their full potential...gymnasts who start young have decreased bone age compared to people who start later, when they quit, their spine height and legs grow more and fully catch up to where they are predicted to be based on genetics within 8 years of quitting. Men did not experience this at all. Through out their entire growth within the sport, they don't suffer from abnormal bone ages or strange growth patterns and actually end up being as tall as they should be based on genetics even while continuing the sport[10]. The gymnasts they analyzed reached their full genetic height under the conditions analyzed. Most of them were actually just supposed to be short -- their parents were short. It's mainly a correlative link between the sport and the height, possibly connected to nutrition.Several other studies relating to particular sports (ballet, wrestling, distance running) linking to height issues. These sports, along with gymnastics, particularly for females, have rigorous training requirements limiting the time children have to eat. Additionally, the sports themselves put particular demands on the participants weight[11]. It's likely these growth impediments are due more to nutritional deficits rather than something intrinsic to the sport.Studies performed on swimmers, gymnasts, and tennis players also support the correlation to height but not causation because the participants are actually reaching their appropriate height, not exceeding it. As far as the sport goes, they're just self-selected for their height.Sleep During DevelopmentalThere have been a few studies that I was able to find relating to sleep patterns and growth. It's well known that when you sleep your body releases all sorts of hormones and most of your growth and recovery happens at this time.[12] One would think that a lack of sleep would cause stunted growth.For children aged 5-11 and 1-10 there were a couple studies done. One found a very weak negative correlation between sleep time and height. In neither study did the researchers concluded that the correlation was significant enough to say that sleep correlated with height growth at this age. [13] [14]Other studies involving interviews over a couple of years with adolescents found that sleep problems were correlated with lower "puberty scores" (that tracks their development to adult-hood). However, an association between height and sleep wasn't noticed, but the researchers noted that more needed to be done [OP Note: I could be reading that wrong, It's possible it wasn't tracked at all, if someone knows better, let me know].[15]Finally, and much more indicative of likely issues, A study performed on children diagnosed with sleep apnea showed their height was affected negatively by the apnea condition.[16]Based on this research it looks like, based on the apnea research that there could be an issue related to height growth and a significant lack of sleep. In any case, based on the overall benefits of sleep, I'd recommend not skimping on sleep during your growth years, and getting checked out for apnea if you have noticed any of the symptoms.Myths Concerning Growing Taller and Stunted GrowthThere are tons of old wive's tales out there about strategies to grow taller. They might not all hurt you, but they sure won't help. If anyone has any studies that back up any of these strategies, I'd gladly move them from my myths section to my realities section:Skipping. How this is a thing I have no idea, particularly when you look at the myths (and realities) laid out earlier about gymnastics and weightlifting. If weightlifting makes you short (myth) and gymnastics makes you short (partially true, as detailed above), how would skipping (relatively high impact asymmetric leaping from one foot to the other) make you taller?Sports like: Swimming, basketball, cycling, any others, making you taller, dispelled above. They're amazing activities and can help you grow stronger, faster, smarter, and build team work and leadership skills, but they won't make you taller.Stretching and yoga. Things like "Growing Tall 4 idiots". They can help your posture, but as you're growing they won't add inches, they'll just help you express your height.Hanging exercises. They'll decompress your spinal disks allowing you to gain as much as a half inch in the middle of the day, but the gains will only last a few hours.Salt in your shoes.Praying and wishful thinking. They might make you feel better, but you won't get taller as a result.Miracle pills -- things like Ayurvedic Urea, Ayurvedic "Step Up". Snake oil is a unsubstantiated claim applied to medicines and supplements. Even actual Ayurvedic practitioners will tell you that there is nothing in any Ayurvedic textbook on height increase. All height increase supplements are snake oil.Binaural Beats. This is utter pseudoscience that confuses the causality of brainwave synchronization.[17]Particular diets and foods (milk, etc) will make you taller. While eating enough is essential to realizing your full potential, there's no evidence that any particular food will have more effect than anything else. There's also no evidence that other animal's growth hormones (like trace amounts of bovine growth hormone in milk) will help you grow taller or stronger. The only diet you need is one that contains a good balance of carbs, proteins, fats, and contains all the vitamins and minerals you need.Particular foods will stunt your growth. There is NO evidence that coffee stunts your growth[18]. Diet coke does not stunt your growth[19]. The major problems with diet drinks and coffee are that they contain very little in the way of nutrients and can fill up a kid's stomach. Plus, caffeine can be used as an appetite suppressant. All of this adds up to a child not getting enough nutrients. Sodas aren't great because they're packed with sugar. While you need sugar, you don't need the amount a couple sodas give you, and you need other nutrients just as much: proteins, fats, vitamins and electrolytes like potassium and calcium. I kept my kids away from these drinks to keep their appetite going so they have enough room to eat.That particular activities like weight lifting will stunt your growth, as mentioned above.Exercise releases HGH which will help you grow. Studies on this phenomenon have shown that HGH release through exercise only has an effect on the localized areas that are exercised. Lifting legs releases much more GH than lifting arms. If you work legs and arms in the same day, it will not make your arms stronger than if you lift your arms by themselves even though your body is coursing with GH[20]. There is no reason to think that your height will be affected by GH released through exercise for that reason and there is no evidence to back up that claim. Exercise and weight lifting during puberty is a great thing, it could possibly set you up to be much stronger and healthier throughout your life...just not taller.Further, the HGH release through exercise is about 100 times less than it is during normal puberty. The notion that nanoliters of GH per liter of blood can make a substantial difference in comparison to milliliters of GH per liter of blood is outrageous.What can actually be done about your height?There are few things that can be done, and most of these treatments are only responsibly given in cases of abnormalities. As stated above, the best thing you can do is strive to be as tall as you can naturally be by eating properly through your childhood. As mentioned above, by eating a balanced diet with plenty of protein, carbs, and fat, you may be able to exceed genetic expectations by a small amount -- possibly more over several generations of proper eating. Exercise and sports can be helpful in keeping you healthy and generating strong bones, but in the end it won't make you taller than your genes say you will be.Hormone treatmentOccasionally, there comes along a case where a child is short, inexplicably (this is known as Idiopathic Short Stature). When you bring a short kid into see the doctor, they'll eliminate diet first. Most of the time if the child isn't eating right and then they start eating properly, they'll shoot right up. Some cases, the kid is eating right, but they just aren't growing. To qualify for these cases you usually have to be in the bottom 3rd percentile of your age but you should be higher, based on genetic predictors. In those cases HGH treatments have shown that they can grow over 9 centimeters over the adjusted predictions, sometimes reaching the predicted height based on heredity, sometimes not. [21] If this is the case for you, see a doctor and ask them about it. They'll usually do tests to determine if your body isn't generating enough hormones. If it is generating enough, a responsible doctor won't give you more.It should be noted that HGH treatments for otherwise healthy children does not result in substantial or necessarily any additional height grow and could have adverse effects like predisposition to diabetes, cancers, and scoliosis.There is also a condition known as Laron’s syndrome where your body is HGH resistant. This can be treated with Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1), but is only effective if administered before puberty.[22] [23]Spinal ConditionsThere are a number of conditions that can make you appear shorter.Scoliosis:Kyphosis:Getting these conditions diagnosed and treated can add several inches to your effective height, making you appear the height that you are.PostureAdditionally, a lot of people experience bad posture. Later in life you won't grow taller, but if you get in the gym, start being active and focus on standing up straight and tall you can fully express your height. There's no special exercise you need to do (back exercises can help like Straight Leg Dead Lifts) but it's more a focus on being active and standing tall.Keep your head level, looking forward, not up or down.Chest outShoulder blades back and tucked down, like you're trying to make your neck longerSlightly flexed abs for supportPelvic floor neutralSurgeryThere is a controversial, expensive, painful, high risk surgery with a very long recovery time called Distraction osteogenesis. They break your tibia and fibula then affix a device to keep them separated:You while this is taking place you cannot put weight on your bone and you have to undergo 1-2 hours of physical therapy daily to keep the bones from getting stiff. This process can take months to complete. After the new bone is formed there is another 6 months strengthening time period where you need to carefully strengthen the bone without the lengthening device. The entire process can take as long as 2 years. Even after all that there are dozens of complications:The new bone may not form solidly and there's a good chance of breakage within 2-3 monthsThe new bone may not form in the proper angleYou might not grow the expected 2-3 inchesYour leg lengths may not be even afterwardsAn infection can be catastrophicNerve damage could cause you to lose the leg entirely.Usually the only time they do this surgery is to correct cases where one leg is significantly shorter than the other. Because of the recovery process any credible doctor will have the patient go through a psych evaluation prior to the surgery to validate that they can handle the recovery process. Personally, it sounds dangerous, risky, and pointless. [24]Look TallerThere’s a few strategies to help you appear to be taller as well.ShoesWear shoes with bigger heels.At certain point you could be pushing the bounds of traditional fashion, but if you feel like you can rock it, by all means:Insoles/RisersYou can get insoles called risers that can make a normal shoe act like high heels and push you up without having anything look different externally.Combine the two and you could add several inches.Clothes that fitWhen you wear clothes that actually fit you, it can make you appear longer than normal, particularly skinny jeans and shirts that aren’t baggy.Going along with that one:Working outYou don’t need to get massive or muscular and you don’t need to get super skinny. Keeping your body fat down can contribute to your looking lean (not to mention being and looking healthy).Getting your body down below 20% body fat for a man should be a goal for both health and looking good. At this point clothes will fit better and give you longer lines.Wear horizontal stripesThis one’s a little counter intuitive, but it’s been backed up by science [What Makes You Look Fat: Vertical or Horizontal Lines?]Horizontal stripes actually make you look thinner and taller than vertical ones.Taller hairPutting your hair in a more vertical alignment will make your face look longer helping give the impression of height.Exude confidenceEasier said than done, but a self-confident person always appears larger than they actually are.When all else fails:Get some painting stilts.The OutliersFinally, in contradiction to everything I said above, there are some people who have conditions like a tumor affecting their pituitary gland which controls certain growth hormones. They often experience uncontrollable growth.The tallest man in the world, Sultan Kosen -- Tallest man - livingBefore you start researching how you can give yourself a pituitary tumor, people afflicted with this after puberty will see their hands and feet grow continuously along with their skin thicken, soft tissues grow and organs increase in size. It's not a pleasant condition.[25]Height is not everythingIn closing, there's nothing wrong with being short. Some of the most powerful men in the world have been short. Your height doesn't make you a better person, it doesn't make you more attractive or less attractive, at least to people that matter. What matters more than anything else is how you project yourself. The more confident you are, the more you can accomplish and that has nothing to do with your height.Tom Cruise 5'6"5'5"(4th President of the United States and Father of the US Constitution, only 5' 4" (the statue on the campus of JMU is supposedly true to life, he was short, but powerful)Nick Saban 5′6″, Current Football Coach of Alabama Crimson Tide, rated by Forbes as “The Most Powerful Coach in College Sports”, highest paid public employee of the State of Alabama, only coach lead 2 schools to 5 National college football championships.Muggsy Bouges, 5'3" 15 year NBA veteran.Make the most of who you are, it doesn't matter if people physically look down on you right now if you can make your mark on history.Footnotes[1] How much of human height is genetic and how much is due to nutrition?[2] Inside Japan: Surprising Facts About Japanese Foodways[3] Why the Dutch are so tall[4] Height Hopes | Understanding Genetics[5] 3 Types of Spinal Disc Problems[6] My How You've Grown![7] There is no need to avoid resistance training (weight lifting) until physeal closure.[8] Phys Ed: The Benefits of Weight Training for Children[9] Page on researchgate.net[10] Female Gymnasts: does their training reduce growth rates, delay maturation and increase the risk of long-term skeletal injury?[11] Are There Exercises that Stunt Children's Growth? | LIVESTRONG.COM[12] Sleep deprivation effects on the activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal and growth axes: potential clinical implications.[13] Page on nih.gov[14] Sleep duration from ages 1 to 10 years: variability and stability in comparison with growth.[15] The association between pubertal status and sleep duration and quality among a nationally representative sample of U. S. adolescents.[16] [Study on the height and weight in children with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome].[17] Brain Wave Pseudoscience[18] It's a Myth: There's No Evidence That Coffee Stunts Kids' Growth[19] Does soda stunt growth?[20] Research Review: Anabolic hormone release = more muscle? | Precision Nutrition[21] Bart Loews's answer to Why is HGH an uncommon and unheard of supplement for helping a child to grow taller?[22] Regulation of Growth[23] Laron syndrome - Wikipedia[24] #getArticle.articleTitle#[25] Pituitary gigantism

Wow… so many many things.Problem:The castle is basically alive with moving staircases, secret passages, things that only happen on Thursdays of odd number years, not to mention the HUGE amount of magic that goes on there which is shocking even to a pureblood.Solution:Orientation week. There is an orientation week for all new students where they get to know the castle and everything in it. Returning students also have this week, but it is used for organizing schedules, quidditch tryouts, club organization, and just general preparedness for the new year.Returning students would have the option to skip this week and arrive just in time for the welcome feast.Problem:How many students have friends in different houses? Not many. As soon as they enter the school, they are immediately separated and each house has rivalry or even hatred of another house.Solution:Put a 5th table in the great hall that goes horizontally across the front of the hall by the teacher’s table. First years sit at this table.Students do not get sorted until their 2nd year. This allows them to develop friendships with everyone in their year. They are effectively a 5th house. First years take all their classes together. They are not allowed to wear any house colors on their robes. They have a dorm all to themselves.To encourage house unity, first years also get the opportunity to earn house points towards the house cup.Every week, they get 2 prefects in a rotating order from the other houses who will teach them about the school and the values of their house, tutor and assist them.They have a whole summer after their first year to stay in contact with their friends of their year. Then they return to school and have the orientation week I mentioned above to see all their friends again and then they get sorted prior to the welcome feast.Problem:Security is a joke. Polyjuice, imperious curse, and tons of other things can affect students and teachers and cause a security problem that isn’t addressed at all.Solution:All students and teachers need to go through a security check when entering or re-entering the school. This involves a basic security check plus entrances should have Thief’s Downfall (probably in a mist form rather than a waterfall) to make sure no one is entering the school disguised or without their free will.A forbidden forest that you can just walk right into? We already know that age lines exist, and warding… those are just two possible solutions.Problem:Dangerous spells being used at school. Some spells are certainly more deadly than others and should be illegal to use at school. Dark curses and highly dangerous spells.Solution:Just like Voldemort used the Taboo curse to find people using his name, the incantations for various dangerous spells should be Taboo in the school. The students should be made aware that dangerous spells are under the Taboo but aren’t told which ones so they will adhere to the side of caution.Problem:Students lose touch with friends over summer, students in muggle areas can't practice magic or study over school breaks.Solution:Sumner camp. Either done day to day or longer periods, it gives a chance for students to meet up over summer and be in a magic rich environment, get help with summer assignments, and have fun. Also would allow muggle parents to be able to see what their kids can do when they would normally be isolated from their kids education.Problem:Students need more encouragement to use magic creativelySolution:Encourage students to use magic to enhance their lives. Do this by starting all students with the bare minimum in their dormitories, with their school supplies, robes, etc. From there they can use magic to make their living areas and daily lives better and more attuned to their tastes. They can get assistance learning what to do, but any actual alterations need to be done themselves.Have students form yearly projects to try to create something new or interesting using magic. Encourage muggleborns to develop magical versions of things they know from their world.Problem:Horrible teachers. Snape, Trelawney, Binns, Hagrid (to a degree), FilchSolution:The wizarding world is world-wide and travel isn’t an issue, so teachers should be recruited from all over the world. Teachers should have minimum requirements in their background and teaching experience. Hogwarts is the premier British Wizarding school, but there must be others, because they never say it is the only school. At the very minimum, teachers should have the experience training apprentices or something similar.Get an accreditation program for experts in their fields to take to make sure they know how to teach before they get the job. You could be the foremost expert in the world in charms and still be a horrible teacher.Teachers should also not be able to set their own standards for the grades of students they are able to accept into their NEWT classes.Hagrid is good for keeper of keys/grounds/animal handler… just not a teacher.Filch needs to be fired. Why have a custodian of a magic castle who can’t do magic.Problem:Professors have not enough time to do everything their job requires. Heads of house, as they are also professors have even less time. Someone like McGonagall, who is a professor, head of house, and deputy headmistress… have negative time. All of this creates issues as responsibilities and problems fall through the gaps.Solution:Every employee has one job. Heads of house have just that one job, to manage their house and the students in it. They are in charge of discipline, study groups, activities, and anything else the house requires.Professors need their own deputies and student teachers. As part of teacher accreditation, they should need to spend time under the instruction of an acting professor before working on their own. This will give the professor more time to focus on their job, even if it is just by handing off responsibilities for grading tests and other minor things.By having additional help, the senior professors may also be able to teach advanced elective courses in their subject or have the time to teach specialization courses to smaller groups of students.Problem:Students aren’t told about jobs and their future electives until after their O.W.L.sSolution:Students should have in their first year general seminars on all the various fields of magic.Students in their second year should have much more specific seminars on all the fields of magic and education they have the chance to study.The second year seminars will include details on how each field can be used as a career and what fields combine the best for specific jobs.If enough students want to study a subject that isn’t offered, the school needs to start looking for a teacher a year in advance. Second year seminars are mandatory for all second year students and open for all other students as well who are interested in learning more or switching electives.Electives in 3rd year and higher also come with field trips to futures associated with their course of study.Problem:Muggle studies is outdated, and very important to learn about.Solution:The entire class is to be re-vamped and can only be taught by someone who has lived in the muggle world for at least 5 of the last 10 years, and preferably lives among muggle during summers or the school funds them to travel the world as a muggle in the summers.Each year, there is a week long field trip in the muggle world for all students, by year, for 3rd year and up. There is preparation and students in muggle studies and muggle born/half blood are given leadership roles in the trips. Students need to surrender their wands while on the trip. Teachers and proctors will be accompanying them with theirs.Problem:History of Magic is a joke, when it has so much potential.Solution:Hogwarts had the right idea with Professor Binns teaching history, but he seems to be only knowledgeable in Goblin Rebellions, but only that.I would create a full curriculum of history and find different ghosts and portraits to teach the subjects that are over 100 years old. Since wizards live a very long time, subjects less than 100 years old will be taught by living teachers and possibly ghosts and portraits of those who died in the events being taught.History will be mandatory for all 7 years with elective history classes available after OWLs. Those would include Goblin Rebellions with both Binns and a Goblin teaching sections of it, different sections of the world history, history of dark and light lords, history of Magic in cultures before wands, and more.Problem:Prefects, head boy/girl seem to be chosen way too arbitrarily (at least in Gryffindor/Slytherin)Solution:Let all students know that there are qualifications to being chosen as a prefect or a head boy/girl position from their first year. Some of these qualifications are:The minimum grade level with no final grades of P or T in any core subjectCompleted courses in self defence, with standards increasing each yearCourses completed in basic healing and first aid, with standards increasing each yearDisciplinary record standardsSome sort of service project completed for the school. For the 5th and 6th year they need to have been involved in one, for 7th-year prefect or head boy/girl position, they will have needed to organize one themselves with basic oversight from their head of house.Being Harry Potter’s friend/enemy doesn’t give an exception to any of these standards.Problem:Teachers have too much power, same with prefects or head boy/girlSolution:Students have the right to appeal detentions or loss of points. Teachers and student reps have a standard on how much they can give or take away for specific awards or demerits. All appeals are kept on record for the teachers and the students. A disciplinary board is formed with rotating members for this purpose.Problem:House point system is ridiculous, leads to too many or too few points being given or taken away for various reasons.Solution:School rulebook.A list of all school rules, along with the penalties for breaking rules. Includes a range of points that can be taken away for infractions. Also which rules have mandatory point losses.A list of general things that can garner point gains, additionally certain activities and projects that can be done for the school to earn extra points for your house.Teachers will include a list of ways to earn additional points in their classes specifically.As stated previously, students have the right to appeal point losses. They also have the right to appeal unfair point awards if they see it happening. Like if a teacher only gives points to their own house when another student does the same thing and gets nothing.Problem:Lazy wizardsSolution:Physical education. Seriously. I don't understand how wizards stay in shape. Magic? You might develop strong thighs and forearms from Quidditch, but that’s not really staying in good shape when only 7 members of each house play. Ward off a section of the lake from aggressive creatures for swimming. Get a crew team. Mandatory physical fitness classes. Nutrition classes.More wizards moving around will probably lead to more than just one national sport too. You could probably create with magic Mario Kart using brooms or magic carpets.Problem:The wizarding world is more than just BritainSolution:Hogwarts will offer study abroad and summer study programs for older students at other schools around the world. Hogwarts will also host similar programs.Exchange programs will also be offered for 3rd year and up.Pen pal programs will be available to all students.Problem:Quidditch in generalSolution:Allow for intramural teams as well as a mixed house team to compete against the house teams.School teams will be issued brooms by the school. If some rich kid wants to buy brooms for his whole team, he must do it for all the teams, those brooms will belong to the school; not the individual child on the team.Personal brooms can be used for intramural games.Also, the rules of quidditch are stupid: Reformulating the Rules of QuidditchProblem:Too much time researching things.Solution:There must be some kind of spell to organize libraries, search and retrieval spells, etc.Additional ideas:Yearbooks: You live in a society with moving pictures and animated books, and no one has thought of making a yearbook? Colin Creevey seems to be the only person at the school with a camera where wondrous stuff happens all over in and around a huge fantasy castle and no one seems to want to keep pictures of it?Additionally, a yearbook would be able to better track students and what they were like when they attended school. Not to mention people may want to form more extracurricular clubs and activities to be part of the yearbook.School Newspaper: Teach real journalism at school so the quality of journalism in the outside world will improve over time. Also, accurate reporting might prove to thwart some of the more stupid rumors at school. People will go to the newspaper for truth rather than gossiping… at least a little bit.Boxing Day: Or some variation is celebrated while school is in full session to give thanks to the Owls, House-elves, Caretaker, and Groundskeeper at Hogwarts. Students should learn to respect those that assist them in their everyday lives whether they are animals, magical creatures, squibs, or other wizards. A ceremony will be held particularly for the house elves, presenting them with some kind of plaque, or emblems for their faux-clothing depicting the work they do and how long they have served Hogwarts.Additionally, students who are found to be disrespecting any being giving them service at Hogwarts will lose the privilege of having that service given to them and need to do it themselves - wash their own dishes, laundry, no mail, mow the grass, clean the halls.House-Elf exchange: To add a little variety to the menu, create an exchange program with house-elves around the world to trade schools and teach other elves foreign recipes. Expanding on the students' diet will also encourage them to travel more and seek out things they aren’t familiar with.

The question asked is the question whether human beings should continue existing or not.Given that there is a large amount of suffering in every human life, and that bringing a child into this world therefore implies exposing a human being to such suffering, one might argue that childbearing should be avoided and the human species should thus be allowed to grow extinct. In fact, there’s a philosophical position called anti-natalism, which maintains just that. See the page Antinatalism - Wikipedia and David Benatar’s article ‘We Are Creatures That Should Not Exist’: The Theory Of Anti-Natalism. Benatar is Professor and Head of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and the author of Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence (Oxford, 2006).Having lived for at least the past 19 years with a recurrent illness that causes immense suffering (see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Life: What is the worst thing that can happen in life?), I have often thought about the anti-natalist position. In fact the thought that it’s reckless to bring a child into this world, and thus expose a human being to the risk of horrible suffering, occurred to me before I even knew that there was a philosophical position called anti-natalism, and was what prompted me to find out whether other people also had such thoughts.Prof. Benatar lists a number of "Statistical effects of creating people", according to Antinatalism - Wikipedia, which I shall comment below."more than fifteen million people are thought to have died from natural disasters in the last 1,000 years": a rather modest estimate. Natural disasters, including famines not caused by human agency, caused 136 million deaths in the 20th Century alone according to David McCandless’ 20th Century Death — Information is Beautiful infographic, vs. 1,680 million deaths from infectious diseases (a figure too low rather than too high as it includes an underestimate of deaths from tuberculosis, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Which is the world's most dangerous disease? Why?), 530 million deaths from cancer, 1,970 million deaths from non-communicable diseases other than cancer and 980 million deaths attributed to "Humanity". The last of these figures is much too high as it contains a number of double-counts besides those identified, which I have brought to McCandless’ attention."approximately 20,000 people die every day from hunger": currently more than that, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics."an estimated 840 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition": currently less than that, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics. In this context one should also mention that the percentage of people who are undernourished has decreased considerably since 1990, see Max Roser, "Hunger and Undernourishment". The number of famine deaths also declined sharply after the Great Chinese Famine, see Max Roser, "Famines". And the share of the world’s population living in poverty and absolute poverty (which was, respectively, 94 % and 84 % in 1820) has been steadily going down and is currently at an all-time low (see Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Max Roser, "World Poverty", especially the chart "Share of the World Population living in Absolute Poverty, 1820–2015")."between 541 ce and 1912, it is estimated that over 102 million people succumbed to plague": another estimate on the low side, considering that the Black Death alone may have reduced the world’s population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century, a loss of between 75 and 100 million or between 17 % and 22 % of the world’s population in 1300. In Europe the proportion of deaths during the peak years (1346-1353) is generally assumed to have been about one third of the population, but it may have been higher. According to medieval historian Philip Daileader in 2007, quoted on the page Black Death - Wikipedia, the trend of recent research is "pointing to a figure more like 45–50% of the European population dying during a four-year period". Norwegian historian Ole J. Benedictow ("The Black Death: The Greatest Catastrophe Ever", published in History Today, Volume 55, Issue 3 March 2005; cf. Benedictow, The Black Death 1346-1353: The Complete History, pp. 380ff.), estimated that the plague killed about 60 % of Europe’s population between 1346 and 1353, or about 50 million out of 80 million inhabitants. This would be far more than World War II in Europe (about 42 million, according to Matthew White’s page Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls) even in absolute terms, not to mention in proportion to the population. Even assuming that the Black Death killed "only" one third of Europe’s population, and that it had the above-mentioned worldwide impact of a reduction by 17-22%, the Black Death was the largest demographic catastrophe ever, if you consider Europe and the world as a whole (in the Americas, however, there was a proportionately much larger demographic catastrophe in the 16th and 17th centuries, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Was the colonization of North America the worst genocide in modern human history?). Nothing before or after killed so large a percentage of Europe’s or the world’s population, and reduced the world’s population like the plague of the 14th Century. The only man-made disaster that could equal or surpass the Black Death in terms of proportional worldwide mortality is one that will hopefully never happen – a global thermonuclear war, see my blog Germs vs. guns, or death from mass violence in perspective and Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to How would everyone really die in a nuclear war (see details)?. In fact, the impact of a nuclear war has been compared to that of the Black Death by history professor William L.Langer, see Peter R. Kann, "Langer says Black Death Provides Comparisons to Nuclear War", May 1, 1963, The Harvard Crimson (Langer says Black Death Provides Comparisons to Nuclear War | News | The Harvard Crimson)."the 1918 influenza epidemic killed 50 million people": possibly twice that number (see John M. Barry, "1918 Revisited: Lessons and Suggestions for Further Inquiry", in: Stacey L. Knobler, Alison Mack, Adel Mahmoud, Stanley M. Lemon, Editors, The Threat of Pandemic Influenza, online under The National Academies Press; Barry’s article is under 1 The Story of Influenza). The "Spanish" influenza was probably the fastest killer in history, as most of its victims died within a period of just 24 weeks. Influenza "killed more people in a year than the Black Death of the Middle Ages killed in a century; it killed more people in twenty-four weeks than AIDS has killed in twenty-four years" (John Barry, The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History, p. 5; note that the comparison with the Black Death only holds true if plague killed no more than 75 million people in the 14th Century and the influenza killed most of 100 million within 24 weeks of 1918)."11 million people die every year from infectious diseases": that number has already been exceeded by almost two million in the current year, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics. In this context it should be mentioned that infectious diseases (with tuberculosis, smallpox and possibly malaria far ahead of plague and influenza as concerns absolute numbers, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Which is the world's most dangerous disease? Why?) have been the largest cause of human death and suffering throughout history by a wide margin in relation to all other causes, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to What has caused more human death in all of history - hatred, natural disasters or disease?"malignant neoplasms take more than a further 7 million lives each year": in the current year that number has already been exceeded by over one million, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics."approximately 3.5 million people die every year in accidents": see item 13 below."approximately 56.5 million people died in 2001, that is more than 107 people per minute": the current year’s overall death toll is approaching 60 million according to Worldometers - real time world statistics. Enormous though that number is, it reflects a worldwide mortality rate that is lower than ever before in history, ca. 0.8 % per year, see Mortality rate - Wikipedia. For comparison, in the early 19th Century 0.8 % to 1 % of Europe’s population died each year from tuberculosis alone, (John Frith, "History of Tuberculosis. Part 1 - Phthisis, consumption and the White Plague", Journal of Military and Veterans’ Health, Volume 22 No. 2). Applied to the current world population approaching ca. 7,475 million (according to Worldometers - real time world statistics), the average of these rates (0.9 %) would mean about 67,275,000 annual deaths from tuberculosis alone, which is more than 7 million above the current total number of annual worldwide deaths from all causes. Even the lower rate mentioned by Frith, 0.8 % per year, would mean about 59,800,000 annual deaths from tuberculosis alone, roughly the same as the current annual total from all causes. In 14th Century England before the Black Death, the annual mortality rate regularly reached ca. 5 %, as you may read by following the link The Third Horseman, which takes you to the pertinent excerpt from William Rosen, The Third Horseman. Climate Change and the Great Famine of the 14th Century. If that was the worldwide death rate nowadays, about 373,750,000 people would die every year - more than 6 times the current actual number."before the twentieth century over 133 million people were killed in mass killings": way too low, at least under a broad definition of "mass killings" that doesn’t include only one-sided killings (if the latter is what Benatar means, his figure is probably much too high). According to Matthew White’s book Atrocitology: Humanity's 100 Deadliest Achievements: Matthew White: 9780857861221: Amazon.com: Books, cited in Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to What was/is the most violent century recorded in history?, the deadliest events of collective violence before the 20th Century (events with at least 300,000 deaths) add up to a total of 297,009,000 deaths, vs. 193,755,000 deaths in the 20th Century’s worst mass killings (and 203 million in all mass killings of the 20th Century, according to White’s page Worldwide Statistics of Casualties, Massacres, Disasters and Atrocities)."in the first 88 years of the twentieth century 170 million (and possibly as many as 360 million) people were shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hanged, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners": the "possibly as many" number is way too high, whereas 170 million for the 20th Century’s first 88 years is realistic, see previous comment."there were 1.6 million conflict-related deaths in the sixteenth century, 6.1 million in the seventeenth century, 7 million in the eighteenth, 19.4 million in the nineteenth, and 109.7 million in the twentieth": all figures are too low. The deadliest events of collective violence listed by White killed 54,684,000 people in the 17th Century, 24,670,000 in the 18th Century, 62,585,000 in the 19th Century and 193,755,000 in the 20th Century, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to What was/is the most violent century recorded in history?"war-related injuries led to 310,000 deaths in 2000": the figure is obviously based on the World Health Organization’s 2001 report (http://www.who.int/whr/2001/en/whr01_en.pdf?ua=1), where it can be found on page 148 together with the following figures: 520,000 deaths from violence other than war, 815,000 self-inflicted deaths (suicides), 3,403,000 deaths from unintentional injuries (thereof 1,260,000 in traffic accidents, 315,000 deaths from accidental poisoning, 283,000 deaths from falls, 238,000 deaths from fires, 450,000 deaths from drowning, and 857,000 deaths from other unintentional injuries). The 2016 World Health Statistics, which can be downloaded under World Health Statistics, contain the following information: "In 2015, it is provisionally estimated that 152 000 people (90% uncertainty range 89 500–234 600) were killed in wars and conflicts, corresponding to around 0.3% of all global deaths.1 This estimate does not include deaths due to the indirect effects of war and conflict on the spread of diseases, poor nutrition and collapse of health services. Between around 1990 and 2011 there was a decline in both the number and intensity of wars and conflicts.2 Although WHO estimates of global direct conflict deaths (injury deaths) vary substantially by year, there was a statistically significant average decline during 1990–2010 of 2% per year if the Rwandan genocide of 1994 is excluded (Fig. A.29.1)." In this context it should be mentioned that, in historical terms, lethal violence is at an all-time low, despite the widely reported horrors in Iraq and Syria that might give the casual observer a different impression. For details see Max Roser, "War and Peace after 1945", Max Roser, "War and Peace over the Long Run", Mohamed Nagdy and Max Roser, "Civil Wars", Mohamed Nagdy and Max Roser, "Genocides" and my blog "Germs vs. guns, or death from mass violence in perspective". One of the most noteworthy developments as concerns interpersonal violence has occurred in the city of Medellín in my native Colombia, which used to be the murder capital of the world. See Impact: Medellin - Inter-American Development Bank."about 40 million children are maltreated each year": this figure is mentioned in various online sources, including Child Abuse Statistics and Abuse and Neglect Information (citing the WHO)."more than 100 million currently living women and girls have been subjected to genital cutting": according to UNICEF, "at least 200 million girls and women have been cut in 30 countries with representative data on prevalence", see Female Genital Mutilation and Cutting - UNICEF DATA. According to a February 2016 article in The Guardian (FGM: number of victims found to be 70 million higher than thought), this number is 70 million higher than was previously assumed."815,000 people are thought to have committed suicide in 2000 (currently it is estimated that someone commits suicide every 40 seconds, more than 800,000 people per year)": see item 13 above. The current year’s number of suicides is already well over 1 million, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics.You see that I have either confirmed Prof. Benatar’s statements, or expanded on them, or updated/corrected them in a more pessimistic direction.However, I also see developments that give reason for optimism, namely in items 3 (reduction of malnutrition and poverty), 9 (reduction of mortality) and 13 (reduction of lethal violence). Further such reasons include the following, which are closely related to those mentioned under items 3, 9 and 13 and refer to developments that largely occurred in the 20th Century and continue in the present century:World life expectancy is as high as never before, see Life expectancy - Wikipedia and Max Roser, "Life Expectancy".Infant mortality is at an all-time low, see Max Roser, "Child Mortality". The total number of under-five deaths in the world fell from 12.7 million in 1990 to 6.3 million in 2013, according to the 2014 report on "Level and Trends in Child Mortality" (https://www.unicef.org/media/fil...). On page 9 of that report one reads the following: "A baby born today has a dramatically better chance of living to age five compared with one born in 1990. The global under-five mortality rate dropped 49 percent, from 90 (89,92) deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 46 (44,48) in 2013 (table 1). Over the same period the total number of under-five deaths in the world fell from 12.7 million in 1990 to 6.3 million in 2013 (table 2). Put another way, 17,000 fewer children died each day in 2013 than in 1990—thanks to more effective and affordable treatments, innovative ways of delivering critical preventive and curative interventions to the poor and excluded, and sustained political commitment. These and other vital child survival interventions have helped save about 100 million lives since 1990." The number of children’s lives saved since 1990 exceeds the combined death toll of both world wars.At least one disease that has scourged mankind since 10,000 B.C. and killed at least 300 million people in the 20th Century alone, smallpox (see Smallpox - Wikipedia) has been completely eradicated. See also Max Roser, "Eradication of Diseases". Another communicable disease, measles, was estimated to have caused 2.6 million deaths per year in 1980. In 1990 deaths from that disease were down to 545,000, and in 2013 there were 96,000 deaths from measles throughout the world (see Measles - Wikipedia). Deaths from malaria, which stood at 2 million per year in the first half of the 20th Century, are now half that many or less (see Rosemary Drisdelle, "Malaria Killed Half the People Who Have Ever Lived", Max Roser, "Eradication of Diseases" and Worldometers - real time world statistics), despite a much larger world population.The 20th Century was the first in history in which non-communicable diseases, which mostly occur at advanced ages, took the place of infectious diseases as the main cause of death. In all previous centuries most people died from infectious diseases. As late as 1900, infectious diseases (pneumonia and influenza, tuberculosis, gastrointestinal infections and diphtheria) caused 52.74 % of all deaths in the US, see Chart: What Killed Us, Then and Now. The proportion of deaths from infectious diseases was probably much higher in many other countries than in the US, particularly in poorer countries like China and India. And it was probably much higher worldwide throughout most of the 19th Century, the 18th Century and previous centuries. An English statistic for the years 1848 to 1854, mentioned in Steffen Kröhnert and Margret Karsch, "Sterblichkeit und Todesursachen", Berlin-Institut für Bevölkerung und Entwicklung: Sterblichkeit, shows that infectious diseases were responsible for 60 % of all deaths in that period. According to a display at the Reuben Fleet Science Museum in San Diego, mentioned under 10 leading causes of death in 1850 and 2000, the 10 leading causes of death in 1850 were all infectious diseases. Regarding causes of death in 17th Century London, see A 17th Century spreadsheet of deaths in London.The 20th Century was the first in history in which world population at the end of the century exceeded the number of deaths from all causes that occurred during the century. In all previous centuries the number of deaths during the century largely exceeded the number of world inhabitants at its end. This statement is based on the calculations rendered in Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Was the twentieth century one of the worst centuries in human history (regarding war, inhumanity, suffering etc.)?, whereby the relation of deaths during a century versus the number of people alive on the planet at its end was the following: 454:100 in the 13th Century (the 1200s), 530:100 in the 14th Century (the 1300s), 454:100 in the 15th Century (the 1400s), 395:100 in the 16th Century (the 1500s), 391:100 in the 17th Century (the 1600s), 326:100 in the 18th Century (the 1700s), 298:100 in the 19th Century (the 1800s) and 84:100 in the 20th Century (the 1900s).Countless millions of human beings (far more than were killed by human agency) were saved from premature deaths in the 20th Century due to advances in medical and other science. Just a few examples:American biologist and humanitarian Norman Borlaug, "the father of the Green Revolution", is credited with having saved over a billion people worldwide from death by starvation. (See Norman Borlaug - Wikipedia. The webpage Who Saved the Most Lives in History credits Borlaug, Norman with "only" about 295 million lives saved, which still exceeds the total of 20th Century deaths from mass violence estimated by White, mentioned in item 10 above.)Landsteiner, Karl and Lewisohn, Richard, through the discovery of blood groups and the invention of blood transfusions, saved a number of lives more than five times higher than the total number of deaths from war and oppression estimated by White.The means against tuberculosis developed in the late 19th and the 20th Century, which Robert Koch’s identification of the tuberculosis bacterium in 1882 made possible, saved the lives of at least 529,765,555 but arguably as many 1,134,290,234 people according to my calculations (see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Heroes: Has anyone ever literally saved the world?).What was achieved for the benefit of humanity in the 20th Century far outweighs the man-made catastrophes that give the 20th Century such a bad image in the eyes of contemporaries. And the count goes on. According to the Science Heroes News page, the number of lives saved by the scientists honored on this website currently exceeds 5,317,210,000, which is more than the total number of deaths from all causes in the 20th Century according to my calculations in Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Was the twentieth century one of the worst centuries in human history (regarding war, inhumanity, suffering etc.)?, and that according to statistics that range from conservative (see the above example of Norman Borlaug) to ridiculously low (as in the case of Robert Koch, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Heroes: Has anyone ever literally saved the world?). To be sure, not all these benefactors of humanity worked in the 20th Century. The most prominent person to make a live-saving discovery in the 18th Century was Jenner, Edward, who has been credited with saving over 553,737,000 lives as I write this.The above-mentioned and other achievements in reducing human suffering and improving human life are the main reason why, despite the suffering in my own life and my above comments to Prof. Benatar’s "Statistical effects of creating people", I don’t endorse the anti-natalist position.However short, high on suffering and low on joy life in the present era may be for the average human being, it used to be shorter, higher on suffering and lower on joy in times past, especially before the 20th Century. And yet people living under much tougher conditions than we do today didn’t allow the human species to become extinct, but instead maintained it and thus made possible major achievements in increasing life expectancy, improving health and reducing malnutrition, poverty and violence. The current trend (which could be reversed if an aggressive Russia, an expansive China and/or the new man in the White House should mess it all up, perhaps even to the point of factually answering the question How would everyone really die in a nuclear war (see details)?) is (still) towards longer and happier lives and less human suffering throughout the world, as was pointed out by Zack Beauchamp in 5 Reasons Why 2013 Was The Best Year In Human History. Ongoing developments in science, the necessary stable environment provided, are likely to lead to further improvements, including effective treatments for horrible diseases like the one that I and about 350 million people throughout the world (according to the WHO’s page on Depression) suffer from, which return sufferers to the bright side of life. Even if I don’t live to see such improvements, there’s a good chance that someone being born today will, and that such diseases will wholly or to a large extent become past painful memories like the plague, smallpox and tuberculosis (the last of these still kills about 1.8 million people worldwide each year according to the WHO’s page on Tuberculosis (TB), but if death rates from that disease were as high worldwide as they were in Europe in the early 19th Century, see item 9 above, the number of worldwide annual deaths from tuberculosis alone would be at least as high as the current number of worldwide annual deaths from all causes).Life is a struggle - not as much as in the past but still a struggle, and it will never cease to be one however much science, humanitarian ideals and international cooperation may contribute to improving life. The opposite of depression, as someone wrote, is not happiness but vitality, the capacity to enjoy the good and feel bad about the bad that happens in your life, as opposed to feeling bad regardless of what happens good or bad. And an overwhelming majority of human beings, which will hopefully be increased by the progress of medical science, are blessed with that capacity. That’s why I wouldn’t discourage anyone from bringing a child into this world, provided that person is not incapacitated by disease and has good reasons to hope that his or her offspring will live a healthy and fulfilled life, with suffering reduced to the extent humanly possible.At the end of his article ‘We Are Creatures That Should Not Exist’: The Theory Of Anti-Natalism, Prof. Benatar quotes TV series character Rust Cohle as saying that "light’s winning" over darkness. Prof. Benatar disagrees, and I also consider that statement of reconsidering anti-natalist Cohle too optimistic. But I hope to have demonstrated above that light has conquered territory from darkness throughout the history of mankind. Whether it will ever conquer enough territory to render anti-natalism an unsustainable position is open to question, but the attempt to conquer that much territory is an ongoing endeavor worth pursuing. And one way of furthering it is to bring into the world human beings who have a chance of benefiting from such endeavor, and may even actively contribute to it.This answer is dedicated to a lady who expects to bring a child into this world in a couple of months. She is also a philosopher. I wish her and the child all the best.PS:I would like to point out the very pertinent comment by Mike Collins, copied below. I remember it whenever life makes me wonder if I’m really all that convinced about my argument in this answer.Very thorough and interesting answer, one of the best I’ve ever read on the subject of anti-natalism. I’ve read “Better Never To Have Been” and found Prof. Benatar’s arguments quite compelling and solidly constructed. But I have to say, your agreement with some aspects of anti-natalism while putting forth an argument for continued human procreation gave me a lot to think about. Ultimately, though, I believe the anti-natalism viewpoint holds up 100%. If we ever do get to the point where technology completely spares us all from disease, hunger, war, murder, and other physical maladies, then I would be somewhat less staunchly anti-natalist, for at least then we could be sure that any new people we create would suffer far less than those we’re creating today. But… there would still be the issue of emotional and mental suffering. What technology is going to alleviate the intense grief most people experience when a parent dies, or a child, or a husband or wife? This kind of grief is guaranteed for virtually every single person born today, except for those who perish in their early years. If technology somehow allows us to completely escape death or to feel no sense of grief or sorrow, then this raises all sorts of other moral and philosophical questions. Would a life without grief, boredom, loneliness, anxiety, sadness, or any negative emotions really be “life” at all? At that point, we would be redefining “life” as we know it, and all philosophical theories of existence and morality would need to be radically altered.Ultimately, it is a sliding scale, and yes — people born today are likely to endure less absolute suffering than those born 100 or 1,000 years ago. However, every single new person brought into existence is still virtually guaranteed to experience a lot of suffering in their lives, some of it intense, some of it moderate, some long lasting, some brief. How can we justify the creation of this suffering when we know that it is virtually guaranteed to happen for every new being we create? No technology—now or in the foreseeable future— is going to ensure the end of ALL forms of suffering for every sentient being. And until that happens, anti-natalism holds.