well friend, you must remember one thing...humans are idiotic and pathetic creatures,that despite their protestations and insistence of their independence, are nothing but herd animals.
Valanthe: Fuck that, I work a low-paying, but most importantly, low-stress job that has decent benefits. Sure it means I have to make sacrifices, like buying a 30" TV instead of a 72" (insert 'First World Problems' image) and taking the bus or, you know, walking to work instead of driving my own vehicle. But you know what, I'm happy like this, I've got an awesome group of friends and colleagues who I get to spend a lot of time with because I'm not working stupidly long hours, I've even got spare time enough to watch marathons of My Little Pony, go out to the bar for drinks, or hell, take a weekend off and visit my family once in a while. and anyone who wishes to take that away from me can kindly go frag themselves.
We should hang out. You just matched 90% of my life philiosophy.
What's the other 10%?
Well, through sheer force of unbelievable odds, I actually managed to have a kid. So the other 10% involves him in some form or another.
Which actually allows me to add a point into this conversation. I am not a good father. I do try, but I suck at the job. It was not selfish of me to not want to have one knowing that I'd be a bad father. It would be selfish if I didn't try now that I have him.
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life: I was thinking about making a well thought-out, eloquent post about how aging, shrinking populations, and culture groups disappearing are massive problems, but instead:
We, as a species, are fucked. Our more developed societies have pretty much given up on existing, and are quickly being supplanted by groups coming from places where indoctrination is the rule, not the exception. Our own laziness, self-interest, and, funny enough, reasoning skills have doomed the species.
ohh lighten up will you...
we anrt anymore fucked now than we were 100 years ago
Vault101: 1. selfish to WHO exactally? who am I harming in not having a child? who am I benefitting in having a child? both answers: myself...oh and my partner
I believe it has to do with your Genome. Your family expects you to have children because, if you don't, your family tree ends with you. If you do, then you pass the genome down another generation, and (as far as evolution is concerned) you are no longer important. By not having children, you are actively harming your genetic line, and betraying the fundamental core of evolution itself that made us what we are.
Of course, that only applies to smart people. The stupid people are being actively selfish BY having children. They are ensuring that their flawed DNA continues.
Also, I am assuming that you are smart because, well, you sound smart in your OP (and because you have often been a voice of intelligence and interest in other threads). Therefore, I hope that you do choose to have at least one child - because your DNA is important to the continued evolution of the human race.
so your essentially talking about how its often the "uneducated plebs" that breed like rabbits and the intilligent poeple who dont (perhaps theres a reason for that?)
I have brothers/sister..they might have kids
while the theory is there..I dont know..smart people still breed,
and I mean that argument is stating to sound a little like eugenics (not trying to acuse you of that or anything), how do you measure intelligence? put out 1q tests to determine if people are allowed to breed? I doubt that would end well
mabye its less about bad parenting/upbringing and lack of education..you know, the story of the woman having her 10th child so she can claim welfare
sure preserving my genome is one thing....but I at least want to do somthing or try and do somthing with my life first before I start thinking about putting out spawn
I dont really consider myself all that intilligent, but thanks for saying so....I cant at least "look" like Im smart while arguing on the internet
Regnes: I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population, but since there are factors such as early death, sterility, homosexuality inhibiting us, couple must produce above 2 children or the population will dwindle over the years. Then of course there's the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is not equal, so even more children need to be produced.
Lowering the national reproductive rates to below the par required for sustaining to population results in age demographic imbalances. China is famous for it's one child policy they introduced to help counter overpopulation. This has been disastrous because it actually worked to an extent and since people stopped producing enough children, the country's average age is very high compared to most countries, it's a big problem when your country mostly contains seniors for obvious reasons.
Canada's population is actually at risk because too many people don't feel it's worth their time to have kids. Personally I think the government needs to offer more incentives to parents. Sure you will have welfare bums who will only benefit further from this, but more good will come of it than bad I think.
Former Premiere of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell made the situation a little worse in 2010 with the introduction of the new tax system. Yeah, let's tax all children's clothing and goods, I'm sure more people will have kids if we do that.
Agreed. Just look to Japan for a worst case scenario. They have a rapidly aging population and no-one to care for them. Their economy is suffering for it too. Australia is in a similar boat, we have more Baby Boomers who will need aged care that we can afford while maintaining sensible tax rates.
You could flip that on it's head and say it's selfish to live past 60.
What that guy said is basically the same logic idiocracy came up with. It makes a funny story with a slightly satirical allegory. But it's not true.
Healthcare has far more to do with the west's ageing population than a lack of child ploppers does.
Hey, I just gave my opinion. Heck, I make children cry and everything. But nothing tells me I would be a bad father so I do consider having children. Yet this is unrelated to my response.
You will grow old. You will force others to pay for your expenses while at the same time you have not contributed with people able to work and help paying out your "debt" to society.
Why must I contribute with people? Paying taxes should be enough. That's all people freely contribute that might help me. Their work is paid for with money, they don't give it freely.
I couldn't care less about you having children or not. I just wouldn't like to share my homeland with someone saying "X is not my responsibility".
It isn't when it comes to producing children.
Mortai Gravesend: Thankfully society in general ignores your rather ridiculous attitude.
Of course they ignore. That's why absolutely nothing happens when you stop paying your taxes. HINT: bad things happen
Lol? If you don't have kids bad things don't happen. Surprise surprise. Why is it that people seem to jump to the bizarre conclusion that me refusing to agree that having kids is a responsibility towards society somehow means I deny all responsibilities towards society? It's simply illogical.
ablac: Well its a ligitamate problem with only one real solution. Im not saying people should be forced to have kids but not having kids or having them at a rate lower than one child to match one person is unsustainable. If we fail to recognize that and act on it then it will be our destruction. Im not having a go just saying that people who choose not to have kids are seen as selfish as when they get older will still take from the younger generation as the aged naturally do and must. When you age you have certainly earned your keep in life but if there is a disproportion of old to young then everyone is worse off.
I never denied it was a legitimate problem. I am, however, denying that that solution is something we should feel obligated to provide.
And it is simply not selfish to not have kids. It's selfish to ask that of anyone. You're asking for more of their life than is reasonable.
Try and see it like this. I dont want my future kid's taxes ( I am as of yet childless but intend to have some) paying for your support when you are old. This is not specific to you but thats my logic. The world will treat you differently when your old and that cost of better treatment will be paid for by the younger generation. If you havent contributed to that then you are being selfish. Im not saying to you you must have kids im simply saying most people ought to
Then you're freely rejecting any of my tax money? If not then that makes no sense. I still contribute to society, pretending that the only contribution that counts is children is stupid.
The only reason people deserve to be aided with money is because they gave it themselves. Asking for children too and years of my life is you being selfish for the sake of your kids. You're the one asking for disproportionate compensation.
ablac: Maybe extreme but the idea that you should contribute to the country you live in is hardly reprehensible. If you dont want to have kids thats fine its just that if no one did then the country would collapse. Maybe thats why people think those without kids are selfish because they feel you arent contributing to the future generation yet will still take from it one way or another when in your golden years.
The idea that you owe that much to your country is most certainly reprehensible. There are certain things that should simply be freedoms. Don't go and confuse denying this level of contribution for denying the idea of contributing at all. That's just plain obnoxious.
I gave to it in the first place through taxes etc.
It was not demanded that you have kids but it isnt an unreasonable thing to desire from people. Ive already said why but no one is forcing you.
And I am going further and saying there is not even a hint of an obligation so it isn't selfish to refuse.
I cannot speak for your age (young people have a much lesser desire to have children) or outlook on life nor your desires from it because I dont know you but I can simply say that if no one had children then everyone would collapse.
Then let it collapse. I prefer freedom of choice to worrying over such things.
You may contribute now while you are working but that is now not in the future. The average person does draw from their country when they age because they require support of some kind or another and dont pay as much if any tax because they are no longer working. If you dont have kids then you are simply withdrawing from the hard work of other's children and that may be why people see those who dont have kids as selfish.
But they are wrong to because I already gave what I got. Worse still they lack any sense of proportion in expecting compensation. All that is owed is money. Anything more is a ridiculous demand that is out of proportion to what was given.
Selfish? For not contributing to creating another useless mouth for a highly apathetic population on an overpopulated planet? Surely they jest...
Yeah.. anyone accusing me of being of "breeding age" and not committing can go ahead and fuck themselves; or perhaps each other, then they can fart out their own kids.
Vault101: and I mean that argument is stating to sound a little like eugenics (not trying to acuse you of that or anything), how do you measure intelligence? put out 1q tests to determine if people are allowed to breed? I doubt that would end well
I'm not suggesting we stop stupid people from breeding. ... not in this thread, anyway. I'm just suggesting that smart people need to make the effort so that our numbers don't drop.
Also, I may perhaps be exaggerating my position slightly for the sake of humor. :p
Edit: Oh, but the stuff about women being blamed for not continuing the family line, irregardless of siblings and their breeding plans - that is very true and very common. I believe that is the genetic reason that the instinct is there (whatever the excuse given by the individual is). I'm not saying that women being pressured to have kids is right or fair (I don't) but it does have a biological purpose.
Also, inb4 "irregardless isn't a word" - Spellchecker disagrees, it's part of the common vernacular, and of all the grammar pet peeves, that one is the lamest. I know the rule - therefore I am allowed to break it.
Jedoro: By Sithis, excuse me for wanting to hold onto my money and not wanting to eat McDonald's for every meal because I have another mouth to feed and decent food is now too expensive!
Sure, not having kids is selfish because it's less stress, less responsibility, and more money for you, but taking on that responsibility of making someone into a productive member of society is stupid if you're not materially prepared for it, i.e. sufficient income to live comfortably.
see I still dont get it
are we suposed to go through this kind of suffering...just because? by avoiding suffering through our choices are we being selfish? or smart?
Maintaining the population seems to be one of those unwritten rules of the social contract of society, so everyone should do their part. As for avoiding suffering, I'd say it's both. Having kids is a choice, as is not having them, and both have consequences. Neither's inherently right or wrong, there's just our general biological imperative to keep our species going.
A social contract is really a ridiculous concept when you try to take it to be anything but an excuse. No one is given a reasonable choice whether to agree or not. There is no agreement, it is not a contract. It's simply forced. As such we have no real obligation to fulfill unwritten rules. If we can manage without following them there is no problem with that.
I think it's selfless. You're holding off what's suppose to be one of the most full-filling experiences in life, because you don't want to put additional strain on your's and your community's reasourses.
I always though it was between the persons or person if they wanted kids or not.
I think it would only be selfish or self-sacrificing depending on the context of the situation. If you're a couple or single and just don't won't kids then cool on you.
tthor: That depends, do you live in a country such as Japan where the population i dropping? Then possibly. Otherwise, no, not really
Not even there because the population DOES need to drop. Sure, it will face a few problems but it really does need to stabilize before problems become even worse.
Well, of course having kids intentionally is altruistic, in the case that it isn't obvious, the person who benefits is the kid who didn't exist before some blokes made it.
Now, obviously it isn't always a good idea, and what's alruistic and what's good can seperate under many circumstances.
As well, it would take a very weird sense of morality to say that somebody is a bad person for not intentionally going through what is a very burdening process to do as such, especially should one of the aforementioned circumstances occur.
But also remember that a lot of people, including several good people, are "accidental babies."
As well, keep in mind, that, Unless we're at dysfunction junction ( which I will admit, is somewhat likely), most of the people reading this were born of people who wanted to have children.
Ultimately though, dear reader, is that the best judge as to whether you should have children is you.
Ultimately though, dear reader, is that the best judge as to whether you should have children is you.
That's not true, I know a lot of people who have had kids who are terrible parents. Even if they do love them.
It's impossible to tell whether or not you're a good parent. So it is best just not to have them in the first place. Because what if you're a bad parent that will raise someone who is a terrible person? Because terrible people exist and you could have stopped them by not procreating in the first place.
Thus, it is a safe bet to tell people not to have kids. :x
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life: I was thinking about making a well thought-out, eloquent post about how aging, shrinking populations, and culture groups disappearing are massive problems, but instead:
We, as a species, are fucked. Our more developed societies have pretty much given up on existing, and are quickly being supplanted by groups coming from places where indoctrination is the rule, not the exception. Our own laziness, self-interest, and, funny enough, reasoning skills have doomed the species.
ohh lighten up will you...
we anrt anymore fucked now than we were 100 years ago
100 years ago Europe wasn't collapsing both financially and demographically, the United States was as trustworthy a nation as any, China was the center of massive jumps in philosophy and technology, my home nation of Canada held kinship with much of the known world, the Balkans were kept peaceful by the Russians, Serbs, and Habsburgs, Africans, while not treated well, were at least protected from marauding gangs of raiders and lunatic dictators, the worlds of Science and Faith were reconciling and integrating, great minds were being put to uses greater than the next brand of plastic food, the Islamic world wasn't filled with the same kind of lunatic dictators that afflict Africa, the horrors of the World Wars hadn't happened yet, governments controlled corporations (instead of the other way 'round), and people actually had children.
We are far closer to the end than we were 100 years ago by any metric.
You do raise a point, however, the person to know somebody the best is Usually that same person.
Of course, I am assuming those who read this are, considering they read the other posts as opposed to simply offering a rebuttal, the type of person who would think of the logical consequences.
I will agree though, that one shouldn't make a decision such as this based solely on impulse, and that it should only be done after contemplating the consequences.
Again, this is all assuming the intelligence I expect from my potential audience.
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life: I was thinking about making a well thought-out, eloquent post about how aging, shrinking populations, and culture groups disappearing are massive problems, but instead:
We, as a species, are fucked. Our more developed societies have pretty much given up on existing, and are quickly being supplanted by groups coming from places where indoctrination is the rule, not the exception. Our own laziness, self-interest, and, funny enough, reasoning skills have doomed the species.
ohh lighten up will you...
we anrt anymore fucked now than we were 100 years ago
100 years ago Europe wasn't collapsing both financially and demographically, the United States was as trustworthy a nation as any, China was the center of massive jumps in philosophy and technology, my home nation of Canada held kinship with much of the known world, the Balkans were kept peaceful by the Russians, Serbs, and Habsburgs, Africans, while not treated well, were at least protected from marauding gangs of raiders and lunatic dictators, the worlds of Science and Faith were reconciling and integrating, great minds were being put to uses greater than the next brand of plastic food, the Islamic world wasn't filled with the same kind of lunatic dictators that afflict Africa, the horrors of the World Wars hadn't happened yet, governments controlled corporations (instead of the other way 'round), and people actually had children.
We are far closer to the end than we were 100 years ago by any metric.
and a few years later there were a couple of world wars....then a cold war and a massive freak out about nukes
Vault101: 1. selfish to WHO exactally? who am I harming in not having a child? who am I benefitting in having a child? both answers: myself...oh and my partner
Calling it selfish makes no sense, really, I think if anything, holding off on making more babies is great. You'll help reduce the world population, and you will have more money for yourself (kids cost something like 1.1 million USD from ages 0-18).
2. Its more selfish to want to have your own...than..say..adoption, I mean if your thinking of child-rearing as an "anti-selfish" act then why wouldt adoption be your first choice? because its hard..yes, and perhaps because having children can be somthing of an ego-boost in itself (for some peopel, not most) because you want "your own"...obviously its biological but I dont see anything overly altruistic about it
Adoption is a nice alternative, lots of kids need homes, but it can take over a year (depending where you live), and cost more, plus they aren't "yours", and that puts a lot of people off.
3.Child rearing is a lifestyle choice, is it selfish of me to not have children because I want to pursue my own goals...rather than have children and be a terrible parent because I dont want to give up everything to raise them?
Putting your career first is your choice, if someone tells you otherwise, tell them to go suck a fat one.
the ony logic I get from this comment is "YOU MUST SUFFER LIKE THE REST OF US" (one of us, one of us, one of us)
I think around the time we reached the 10 digit figures in population size propagating the human race ceased to be the ultimate goal for every man woman and child.
I figure choosing not to have kids isn't selfish if it's a decision you take because you're aware that you don't have the time, money or energy to devote to offspring. If it's just something that you decide because you just don't want all the hassle - then it's a lifestyle choice.
Biologically, having children is an imperative. Yes, that's true. However, seeing as we're more than simply mammals and are also sentient and able to make our own choices, I think we've all earned the right to choose for ourselves.
In other words, if anyone has the gall to call you selfish for choosing to solo it or if any cultural product makes you feel like that; fuck 'em. We're nowhere near "Children of Man"-ish levels of depopulation and more than anything else, the Third World could stand to have a better record when it comes to the use of contraceptives.
Bringing a bundle of joy into the world is all well and good - except if said bundle is only going to live for a couple years and experience debilitating levels of malnutrition. Reproduction cannot remain a cultural imperative; it has to be understood to be a choice that needs to be informed at least partially by what you have to give to that hypothetical child.
If it's a short life as a malnourished sero-positive, then you're better off with a rubber or the pill.
I want to have children (or at least a child) firstly because it's an experience thing but mostly because if I don't I would feel like I've failed as a human being. To reproduce is basically every single species' main goal.
we anrt anymore fucked now than we were 100 years ago
100 years ago Europe wasn't collapsing both financially and demographically, the United States was as trustworthy a nation as any, China was the center of massive jumps in philosophy and technology, my home nation of Canada held kinship with much of the known world, the Balkans were kept peaceful by the Russians, Serbs, and Habsburgs, Africans, while not treated well, were at least protected from marauding gangs of raiders and lunatic dictators, the worlds of Science and Faith were reconciling and integrating, great minds were being put to uses greater than the next brand of plastic food, the Islamic world wasn't filled with the same kind of lunatic dictators that afflict Africa, the horrors of the World Wars hadn't happened yet, governments controlled corporations (instead of the other way 'round), and people actually had children.
We are far closer to the end than we were 100 years ago by any metric.
and a few years later there were a couple of world wars....then a cold war and a massive freak out about nukes
and a great depression in there as well
and africa didnt have any marauding gangs of raiders because they were under European rule and had no say in wat happened
we anrt anymore fucked now than we were 100 years ago
100 years ago Europe wasn't collapsing both financially and demographically, the United States was as trustworthy a nation as any, China was the center of massive jumps in philosophy and technology, my home nation of Canada held kinship with much of the known world, the Balkans were kept peaceful by the Russians, Serbs, and Habsburgs, Africans, while not treated well, were at least protected from marauding gangs of raiders and lunatic dictators, the worlds of Science and Faith were reconciling and integrating, great minds were being put to uses greater than the next brand of plastic food, the Islamic world wasn't filled with the same kind of lunatic dictators that afflict Africa, the horrors of the World Wars hadn't happened yet, governments controlled corporations (instead of the other way 'round), and people actually had children.
We are far closer to the end than we were 100 years ago by any metric.
and a few years later there were a couple of world wars....then a cold war and a massive freak out about nukes
and a great depression in there as well
Most, if not all, problems afflicting mankind today are unprecedented, either entirely or in scale.
we anrt anymore fucked now than we were 100 years ago
snip
Most, if not all, problems afflicting mankind today are unprecedented, either entirely or in scale.
and those issues werent?..you know..back then
our bed has been made, we all have to lie in it, if I do or dont have kids it wont be because of thr state of the world...if I do it correctly they coudld be good who people who make it brighter
Most, if not all, problems afflicting mankind today are unprecedented, either entirely or in scale.
and those issues werent?..you know..back then
our bed has been made, we all have to lie in it, if I do or dont have kids it wont be because of thr state of the world...if I do it correctly they coudld be good who people who make it brighter
rather than having such a defeatest attitude
Globalization. 100 years ago, the affairs in the Ottoman Empire couldn't cause harm to Argentina. There had been wars, but not under threat of global genocide. There had been famines, but not ones inflicted by one state on another. There had been terrorism, but not on a scale which allowed people in Central Asia to strike at the Americas.
We live in a world where the concepts of Nation, Culture, Moderation, and Higher Purpose are dead or dying. We live in a world where the ignorant act and the informed are paralyzed by their own knowledge.
We live in a world where life sustains itself for its own sake. It seems we are yet to make the final discovery: That life is a finite resource.
If not having children is selfish than I am selfish. I would rather be happy and selfish than be a father and miserable. I would make a terrible father so in a way I am being selfless by not having children. Plus, I really hate children.
well friend, you must remember one thing...humans are idiotic and pathetic creatures,that despite their protestations and insistence of their independence, are nothing but herd animals.