Vault101:

just a gernal kind of thing...

the logic behoned the statment really baffles me

I'd hoped my post would clarify it. Do you disagree with it or were there parts wherein I was unclear?

Vault101:

oohh no, I do kind of get it

I just figured in this day and age its so much of an issue

thanks sopck-uhh I mean random internet guy

Sadly our economic development is far from in step, but the development of the human species is less uneven now than it has been since Europe established its dominance.

Now if you'll excuse me my planet needs me.

you exist to propagate your genes.

its not a "lifestyle choice" but rather the core process of life itself.

eventually it WILL get to you...maybe not now but eventually...

the fact we can think and reason and debate etc doesn't disengage our basic fundamental drives as life forms.

all those things you might think are more important like making money, having "a career", buying a house, financial security, educating ourselves to help aid in accumulating any of the previous etc, etc, etc the entire reason you consider those things important in life AT ALL is because way down deep in the middle of your brain there's a very, very, very basic bit of you subconsciously going "these things will better ensure the success of your progeny"...

i don't think it makes people "selfish".

subconsciously miserable maybe (as they've basically failed at the reason they exist) but not "selfish".

the only time ive ever actually heard it referred to as "selfish" is when people delay to the point a child will be being raised by people who are so old as not to be fully capable at the task and who will likely be almost dead by the time the child reaches adulthood if not before.

there is possible merit in that argument as its unfair on the child.

Sleekit:
you exist to propagate your genes.

eventually it WILL get to you.

the fact we can think and reason doesn't disengage our basic fundamental drives as life forms.

all those things you might think are more important like making money, having "a career" etc, etc. you consider those things important because way down deep in the middle of your brain there's a bit of you going "these things will better ensure the success of your progeny".

I see that argument all the time.

I come from a ridiculously stereotypical Italian-American family (hardcore Catholic, my dad has 15 brothers and sisters all from the same parents, etc.). I have no intention of ever having kids. Not only does this lead to me taking constant flak from my extended family, but I also get constantly barraged with the very same claim you're trying to make.

This is despite the fact that even within my own family I have aunts and uncles who got married but never had children (because they didn't want them, not because they couldn't have them) who are living quite happily and are much older than myself. Hell, most of the time at big family get-togethers, those particular aunts and uncles seem to be the ones most enjoying life.

Every time the claim you made in that post comes up in conversation, those aunts and uncles just laugh it off. Frankly, I find it to be little more than people trying to justify their own life choices whenever someone else disagrees with them, in order to validate their own decisions as the "right" choice. It removes any doubt about whether or not thing maybe would have been better if they'd done things differently. When in reality, the "right" choice is subjective and not nearly so simple.

If the "biological clock" theory actually held any water, you wouldn't see population declines like what's being seen in Russia. If the "biological clock" theory actually held up, you'd see far fewer 'bachelors/bachelorettes for life.' Do some people feel compelled to have children? Sure. But everyone? That's pretty laughable.

ye because you can argue with the driving force behind life itself.

i for one am not going to bother.

been there, done that and watched everyone i've ever known change their minds or regret it.

Sleekit:
ye because you can argue with the driving force behind life itself.

Which is highly debatable. There's a reason why one of the oldest questions that's been bouncing around is "what is the meaning of life?"

The reason we as human beings still ask that question is because we don't have a definitive answer. To make claims like "they've basically failed at the reason they exist" (your words) is to imply that you personally have the definitive answer to the question that's been on the minds of our species' greatest thinkers for century upon century upon century.

And this is despite the fact that various religions, for example, of the world have very different interpretations on the same basic question.

Just because you think the purpose of existence is to have children and nothing more doesn't mean that it's THE purpose of existence. Just the one that works for you. And what works for you doesn't work for everyone.

no i don't claim to know "the meaning of life".

it's all semantics of language and human constructs.

life exists to propagate life.

"why" is the hard part (but only for us because we are uniquely self aware).

Sleekit:

eventually it WILL get to you...maybe not now but eventually...

There's no certainty for anyone. That much is painfully obvious, so blanket statements like that don't really work.

Shawn MacDonald:
Having kids is not selfish. Not having kids isn't selfish. Isn't any real reason to find anything here worth talking about.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm not really sure how the subject even came about, considering until this thread, I've never heard it until now. I already know I'd make an awful parent, so not having kids isn't selfish - it's logical. I think people just like to make issues from non-issues.

We exist because of procreation, we don't exist to procreate.

Procreation is a choice. If the species as a whole wants to continue onward and increase its numbers, it will. But that does not mean that every single member within said species wants or is even capable to make that choice.

Sleekit:
"why" is the hard part (but only for us because we are uniquely self aware).

Which is a fallacy, as there are plenty of examples out there of animals who live their lives without procreating. Ask any zookeeper.

Or hell, go read some articles on how much of a pain in the ass it is to get pandas and polar bears to mate.

1. and you can prove me wrong ?

2. and every single thing we do in life as human beings can can be seen through the lens of better aiding or facilitating the success of progeny.

eve-ry-thing.

Sleekit:
1. and you can prove me wrong ?

2. and every single thing we do in life can can be seen through the lens of better aiding or facilitating the success of progeny. everything.

1. The more important question is if you can provide evidence to prove your own claims first.

2. Last Saturday I sat on my ass for 12 hours straight playing Mass Effect. It's something I did in my life. How did me, sitting in my room alone for 12 hours playing a single-player game facilitate any sort of procreation? Afterall, you said everything we do in life facilitates it.

1. i have 41 years of life experience. that's my evidence. when you have the same you can come back and contradict it. you won't tho.

2. you sought happiness through entertainment and enjoyed the thrills supplied with zero associated physical risk (which is what modern entertainment does) and thusly it kept you and your genes safe and happy for those 12 hours.

Mortai Gravesend:
2. He could probably make some BS excuse about your happiness contributing to your ability to raise kids. But that would just be twisting it I think.

More than likely.

Y'know, 'cause when I think of parents with the ability to raise their kids, I totally think of parents that go on excessively long gaming or movie binges, alone, while tuning out the rest of the world.

Y'know, I think I read some stories about parents like that. Yeah! The ones that went on World of Warcraft binges while neglecting their kids! Y'know... the kids that died... because of neglect...

Sleekit:
1. i have 41 years of life experience. that's my evidence. when you have the same you can come back and contradict it. you won't tho.

2. you sought happiness through entertainment. it kept you safe and happy for 12 hours thereby preserving your genes.

1. Experience doesn't equal evidence. Evidence is something tangible that can be displayed and scrutinized. Experience is little more than anecdotes, and hardly anything that can be considered concrete. When you have some actual evidence, you can come back and prove me wrong. But until then, your experience is worthless in the matter.

2. Kept me safe? As I was chowing down on Hot Pockets and Mountain Dew? You realize that taking one's health into consideration is every bit as important to 'safety' and 'preserving genes' as remembering to look both ways before crossing the street, right?

i'm not really interesting in "proving you wrong" or what you consider valid "evidence" "anecdotal" or otherwise.

you started your own argument based on the "anecdotal" "evidence" of your own laughing, childless aunts and uncles.

all in all it's just a pointless exercise in semantics with someone who still thinks every discussion is a competition.

so there you go.

in your mind you win by default and you you can go back to your Hot Pockets and Mountain Dew...

Sleekit:
i'm not really interesting in proving you wrong or what you consider valid "evidence" "anecdotal" or otherwise.

it's a pointless exercise.

It's not a matter of what I consider valid evidence. It's a matter of what is valid evidence. And as I said before, valid evidence is something documented that can be scientifically analyzed and scrutinized. That cannot be done with concepts like 'experience.'

It's a pointless exercise because you make huge claims while simultaneously being incapable of defending them in any meaningful way.

Sleekit:
i'm not really interesting in "proving you wrong" or what you consider valid "evidence" "anecdotal" or otherwise.

you started your own argument based on the "anecdotal" "evidence" of your own laughing, childless aunts and uncles.

all in all it's just a pointless exercise in semantics with someone who still thinks every discussion is a competition.

so there you go.

in your mind you win by default and you you can go back to your gatorade and pop tarts...

I presented my anecdote as an anecdote. I presented it as something debatable. I did not present it as universal fact. There's a pretty major difference there.

You on the other hand present your case as universal fact, which until evidence arises supporting it, remains unproven. And I very much doubt that evidence will ever materialize.

ah then we are in agreement...

excellent.

Hardly an agreement at all. I presented an alternate viewpoint. You presented what you claimed to be a universal fact that supposedly made the alternate viewpoint invalid. I've been asking you to give some evidence as to why your claim is supposedly a fact, and you haven't.

There's zero agreement.

And it's for that reason that I'm done with this. The evidence to support your claim is never going to materialize, because you don't have any. Something which I think it's safe to say everyone here in this topic can see clear as day. Next time if you're going to make a fear-mongering claim against people who choose to live their lives differently than you, at least be prepared when someone decides to question you. Which is to say this line of discussion is over on my end, because it's not worth it to try to have an intelligent discussion with someone so zealously attached to their ideals that they consider a lack of evidence to be evidence.

Vault101:

discussion value, have you or somone you know ever encountered this kind of attitude? can you explain why not having kids is somhow selfish/non-selfish? and what do you think about it in general?

Wait what? Where did you hear this from? The current trend I'm getting is that it's selfish to have children, on account of them using all the globes resources, over populating, causing Armageddon, yadda yadda yadda.

its an agreement this conversation is over which is excellent from my pov as i have no interest in continuing it.

i addressed the OP on the topic at hand (twice).

it wasn't the opening gambit in a debate it was a stated pov.

you disagree. how interesting...

I think that having more than one child is very selfish. The planet is already overpopulated and that's just you, who already had a child then gets another one for no real reason. It's not beneficial to anyone, except you and not really that either.

Adopting is kind of good I guess, but I wouldn't do it.

If anything, a selfish person would want to reproduce. They would feel the need to ensure that their genetic line, heritage, and family name don't die out. It's the ultimate selfish act -- that last desperate attempt at immortality, at cheating death, by ensuring that a part of you (in the form of your progeny) continues to survive.

That said, I don't look at it as a bad thing to be selfish in that manner. After all, it's that sort of selfish impulse which is the reason why you are here. You are the product of countless generations of humans (and other creatures) surviving long enough to act upon that selfish impulse, and reproduce. You are part of an unbroken line of thousands of survivors, selfish beings all of them, where so many others have died out.

But then, I think in today's world, with everyone having the ability to think for themselves and make their own lifestyle choices, everyone's free to decide whether or not they want to have kids. We have comfortable enough lives that that is the case, and in some ways, it is better not to reproduce due to the fact that resources on the planet are finite and the population is always growing.

If some sort of worldwide pandemic were to hit that wiped out 99.9% of the world's population and you happened to be one of the survivors... then I'd say there is something very wrong with you if you don't want to have kids. But until that situation happens, to each his own.

Vault101:
yes, I know this is kind of the wrong kind of topic for....well a gaming site (full of people probably less inclined to get excited about babies), but hey Im bored and Ive been thinking of this

now Im going to go out on a limb here and say this gets labelled on you more if you are female, obviously because child rearing has always been "our" thing..but anyway

Ya you got that right.

There's groups that whine about it on reddit. I figure if you don't really, you know, give an idea of what brought this about, this discussion just doesn't seem to go anywhere.

It is pretty selfish.

Usually I have as many children as I can to ensure my Dynasty line continues, then as they reach majority I ship as many off to Sweden and Norway as possible as a back up plan encase England invade Ireland later in the century. The only children of mine that I don't send overseas to marry into royal families are my first three children, the first will inherit my titles, the second I usually send off to invade Wales, the third I will send on a crusade to Iberia to prevent them from destroying France and going all Golden Horde on Europe. If I abdicate I help my oldest in my line hunt down and slay my third born to prevent him from propagating and being able to claim my son's land. If I survive to my grandchildren's majority, then I help my son Invade Wales to seize the land from my son and give it to my grand child. My second born then rots in my oubliette.

Regnes:

Vault101:

1. there are other (better) ways to contribute to society rather than reproducing
2. theres nothing wrong with my country population
3. unless ALOT of people become homosexual, thats a non-issue
4. Is me not having any children really going to affect things all that much?
5. who says I have THAT kind of responsibility to my country?

1. I find that breathing is a more effective way at staying alive than eating food, we should probably stop caring about eating food.

2. This doesn't mean Australia will not fall victim to the same problem currently plaguing other countries.

3. As much as 10% of the population is homosexual, most gay people don't find long term partners and adopt or otherwise sponsor the production of children. That's effectively an extra 10% to the infertility rate.

4. We should stop voting, an individual vote means nothing.

5. We the human race are responsible for sustaining ourselves as a while, responsibility is evenly distributed among our population to fill a quota. It's not like we're going to expect one couple to produce about seven billion children within the timeframe of about 70 years. We all have the responsibility to do our share if possible.

1. How is this the same? Its more like depriving one of your cells of nutrients. It really wont matter unless it happens way more than it should.
2. Australia may fall victim to civil war like the African country, therefore we should train everyone to use weapons. Australia population is rising, there is no population crisis, and almost definitely wont be one soon.
3. (I think its lower than 10%, but anyways) It isn't extra. It is factored in already. Also, 6/7 of the gay people I know are in long term relationships. Its a small sample size but still.
4. Well, if voting required a lifetime commitment and huge monetary loss you would have a point.
5. I feel no obligation towards the human race, and we don't have a responsibility to sustain ourselves anymore than I have a responsibility to enjoy video games. I mean, I'm probably going to enjoy it anyway. (In this situation imagine I'm being forced to play, almost as much as I'm forcing this analogy)