so....Not having children=Selfish?

[Kl4pp5tuhl]

I won't have kids; Don't like playing around noobs online, would hate to have one in my own home.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Unless, of course, you have brothers and sisters.
I do plan on having kids, but I'm not super excited about handing down MY family genes. Excema, hayfever, asthma and other such unpleasantries run in my family.
And twins, that runs in my family too. No thanks, lol.

True. Assuming your brother(s) and/or sister(s) plan on having children. And if you're an only child - or worse, the only child of a generation where your parent was the only family member of multiple siblings to have children - then the pressure can be a bit more.

Besides, while your brothers and sisters might continue the family, my point about evolution remains. If we nerds want to inherit the earth, we need to make sure our nerdy DNA gets reproduced. ^^

Anyway, good to hear you plan on having kids. Your Sailor Jupiter avatar convinces me that you are clearly a good example of fine nerd DNA.

Oh, and studies show that allergies (such as hayfever and asthma) are less to do with DNA than with upbringing. Take your kids to the playground and let them stick random crap off the ground in their mouths - it has been shown to reduce the likelyhood of adult allergies. A properly exercised immune system is a happy immune system.

 

[Wingmna]

It is very selfish, both the West and the far East are dying, yet the world is still growing? Something is wrong, in no time at all the world will be at war again as retarded cultures out grow our better cultures.

You have the freedom, but at what cost? You have freedom, but does not mean you have responsibility.

 

[Charli]

If I were to have kids, I'd want to give them a sable environment to live in, i do not feel I can do that, so I am not going to, and I don't have sex, nor have a partner at this current moment, my sister and cousin likely have that all covered as far as my family goes, so I'm going to take advantage of being the black sheep. And pursue my goals and hopefully help when they stumble across the many difficulties of having a family.

I am a selfish person, not ashamed to admit it, there are people even more selfish than me though and see how they take advantage of families in particular, I'm not ready or strong enough to confront that. 'Me' comes first at the moment. And I spend a good deal of teenagedom helping look after babies (this includes all the awfulness of crying/poop/baths/teething/lack of sleep), I like it, they're adorable. But I've had my fill for the time being.

Also I'm perfectly happy for my sister to continue the family. I have some of the more undesirable genes. And this isn't counting my other cousin and my little brother, both of who are too young at the moment, but will probably continue in their own way.

I really am the only one in my rather extensive family with no continuing family plans.

 

[Faladorian]

This kind of argument comes from two fronts:

1) Misogyny: you're a woman, so you MUST want to stay at home with kids, right?

2) Rationalization: It's just a tu quoque argument parents give to counter claims that having a child just to live your life vicariously is also selfish.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Personally, I feel having children is more selfish as you are contributing more to overpopulation that way. But I feel I must point out that I'm sickened by the presence of kids and a good portion of folks I've met who have kids are morons, so I'm probably a bit prejudiced that way

 

[Syntax Man]

There are so many layers to this, but lets start with the first three.

1st and foremost is that having children in a lifestyle choice, and in a free world we certainly don't want to force anything down anyone's throats.

Secondly, is the fact that there are too damn many of us, we've broken the 7 billion mark, and since the current population impacts the rate of population growth (its common sense if you think about it, there are more people there to be reproducing so more babies are born, thus faster population growth.) I don't understand the math but we will go from 7 to 8 billion faster than we did from 6 to 7, and so on. But with the fact that we'd be better if we had less people coming into being, we have the problem that if a generation has fewer people than the previous one, then we run into problems when the larger generation starts to retire. We've already seen this with the boomers retiring now, and the potential for newer generations to not have pension money because the boomers ate it all up faster than it could be generated.

Thirdly is the fact that there is a perceived responsibility, independent of the facts listed in part 2 for a generation to at least to it's best to replace itself, and hell if we could convince every damn person to reproduce just once per person then we'd fix the problems outlined earlier in the post, but some people take issue with the tools modern society has given us to do just that, and others just don't give a damn.


tl;dr?

We're fucked.

 

[ElPatron]

5. who says I have THAT kind of responsibility to my country?

If you don't want to protect your country, don't cry when your country doesn't protect you.

I wish we could ship people with that attitude to Somalia. Hey, you are now in a failed state! No responsibilities!

 

[Xeraxis]

I never understood this logic. Everytime I mention to somebody that I don't want kids, they go apeshit, acting like you are obligated to have kids in life.

For one thing, the world is already oversaturating with people (passing 7 billion), so wouldn't having a select few not breed being doing somewhat of a favor for the rest?

I get that it's a part of the evolutionary background, but I'm sure our species will survive even if some of us don't have kids.

 

[Sandytimeman]

snip.

Well according to the most recent numbers in 2011 we have a population of nearly 7 billion people on the planet. In 1960 we had a population of 3 billion. In 40 years we've over doubled the world population. I think we are doing just fine.

Source [https://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore%3Fds%3Dd5bncppjof8f9_%26met_y%3Dsp_pop_totl%26tdim%3Dtrue%26dl%3Den%26hl%3Den%26q%3Dcurrent%2Bworld%2Bpopulation&rct=j&sa=X&ei=UZdOT_GvApDKiALep9nHCw&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ6xYwAA&q=current+world+population&usg=AFQjCNGQAsLLx0s3UN5gdlbPpRl4ybaJSA&cad=rja]

Lets also keep in mind, I was hearing some good points in an episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" - Episode: Organic Foods.

Where people where protesting, Genetically engineered foods and the counter argument was given by a nobel peace prize winner who stated that basically with traditional methods we can only currently produce enough food to feed 5-6 billion people. Unless we embrace these new methods of food production we won't be able to keep up to the food needs of the entire population.

After hearing that, maybe we should be slowing down on breeding. I mean shit...it seems like currently there are more people alive than have died in the history of mankind.

edit:

actually it seems I'm wrong on that point. around 90 billion to 110 billion people sense the dawn of modern man. But estimated population in 2200 is around 10 billion people.

Yes birth rates are going down according to world sources but there are more of us. So the population rate will level off and stabilize around 10 billion people over the next 188 years.

Source [http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/]

 

[ablac]

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.

So it's selfish to not want to raise kids to take care of a bunch of people you don't know? People need to care for the aging so it's the duty of the young to crank out kids to provide for them?

No no you misinterpret what theyy are saying. What they are saying is that if a generation does not have as many children as exist in their generation then when the 1st generation ages there is not enough people to support them. You basically have a majority or at least large amount of the population needing support which is not ideal and isnt good for anyone. The elderly dont receive the support they need just what can be given and the young give more than they should have to to support them. This sint simply physical care simply financial aswell. hing is this is the problem and its new because before baby boomers life expectancy was not nearly as high on average as it is now (at least for the average person). This mean no one really knows what to do about it and thats a scary thought. It isnt a matter of "we need to have more kids to look after old people" more a matter of the amount of old people will exceed the young and how will we be able to cope. Birthrates in first worlds have decreased and life expectancy has risen. Its bad for the economy in more ways than one.

 

[ablac]

5. who says I have THAT kind of responsibility to my country?

If you don't want to protect your country, don't cry when your country doesn't protect you.

I wish we could ship people with that attitude to Somalia. Hey, you are now in a failed state! No responsibilities!

'Protect' you while dictating how to spend a large part of your life. How... generous. It does a little bit to help you and in return you owe your happiness to it. Brilliant logic. Thankfully society in general ignores your rather ridiculous attitude.

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.

 

[RagTagBand]

No I haven't encountered anyone with that bizarre opinion and If I did my association with them would be over ASAP - I don't suffer fools gladly.

Having children is not the end all, ultimate goal of life, and decreeing that if you are capable to have kids you SHOULD be having kids is not only completely tyrannical it is fucking stupid to boot.


When, also, did having self-interest in mind become a bad thing? When did popping out as many babies as possible start solving all the worlds problems?

Not only is being selfish not bad, Not having kids can be done at the consideration of others and be selfless.

 

[mirror's edgy]

Didn't the worlds population just pass like 7 billion? I guess I could see it as a patriotic duty or something but I would rather my species survive then my country. Call me selfish all you want but I just think there are way to many people on this world as it stands. That doesn't mean I wouldn't help someone in need or anything.

And on that note Monks that take a vow to not have kids and give up all there Earthly possessions so they can spend there life helping others are they selfish?

Agreed. Yeah, population dwindling leads to economic imbalance but the spike in human population over the last two centuries is terrifying and resources are going to get scarce. Not to mention CO2 output and garbage production. I sound like a pain in the ass liberal here, but slowed progress and a stunted economy might be the best alternative to having the planet dry up in a few generations.

 

[The_Waspman]

Ok, i haven't read everyone elses replys, so apologies if I repeat what someone else has said, but I was once called selfish for not wanting kids, which was quite a shock to me.

Look at the world we live in. Exponetially increasing global population, strained global resources, Environmental disasters, ideological wars that will never come to an end, and economic instabilities world wide... Do I want to bring children into this world? No. I actually find it far more selfish to want to have children, but hey, thats just me. Chances of me having kids is pretty much nil anyway, having kids means having something else, and having that something else requires someone who is willing to have that something else with you, and I just dont qualify.

 

[ablac]

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.

So it's selfish to not want to raise kids to take care of a bunch of people you don't know? People need to care for the aging so it's the duty of the young to crank out kids to provide for them?

No no you misinterpret what theyy are saying. What they are saying is that if a generation does not have as many children as exist in their generation then when the 1st generation ages there is not enough people to support them. You basically have a majority or at least large amount of the population needing support which is not ideal and isnt good for anyone. The elderly dont receive the support they need just what can be given and the young give more than they should have to to support them. This sint simply physical care simply financial aswell. hing is this is the problem and its new because before baby boomers life expectancy was not nearly as high on average as it is now (at least for the average person). This mean no one really knows what to do about it and thats a scary thought. It isnt a matter of "we need to have more kids to look after old people" more a matter of the amount of old people will exceed the young and how will we be able to cope. Birthrates in first worlds have decreased and life expectancy has risen. Its bad for the economy in more ways than one.

Yes, I get that. I am, however, contesting the notion that because of this issue we should feel obligated to have more kids. I don't think they were just recognizing the problem, I'm fairly certain they were saying that is why it would be selfish not to have kids.

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.

 

[Zeetchmen]

Not having children will help the already overburdened planet immensely; so i don't see that many perks in having expensive resource gobbling children

 

[Kodachi]

Perhaps not so much selfish but arrogant but there are many policy makers within the fields of education and social services who are childless but will firmly believe they know what's best for children and write policy and law that directly affects them because they "can see the big picture" and have "an objective viewpoint" which offends me. Just because I don't own a horse doesn't mean I can submit valid, "unbiased" information on how to build a stable.

In brief, if you want to be childless that's perfectly fine but don't pretend you know what's best for them.

 

[ablac]

5. who says I have THAT kind of responsibility to my country?

If you don't want to protect your country, don't cry when your country doesn't protect you.

I wish we could ship people with that attitude to Somalia. Hey, you are now in a failed state! No responsibilities!

'Protect' you while dictating how to spend a large part of your life. How... generous. It does a little bit to help you and in return you owe your happiness to it. Brilliant logic. Thankfully society in general ignores your rather ridiculous attitude.

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. 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. 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.

 

[Loonyyy]

It is selfish. It's an act of self interest: Hence, selfish. That doesn't make it wrong. Eating food is selfish, rather than giving it away. Saving your money rather than donating it to charity is selfish. Deciding to go for a run on your own every day is to an extent, selfish. The real issue isn't that something is selfish: Selfish acts are just ones that are self-interested. A selfish act that causes actual measureable harm to others is bad, but this isn't hurting anyone. Self interest and convenience aren't judges of morality, so something being selfish or convenient really doesn't affect whether it's right or wrong.

In this case, if you don't want to, then that's your choice, it affects you (Assuming your partner agrees with your choice), and you alone. So while the choice may be selfish, it's hardly something you should be judged for, seeing as it's also none of their concern. Now, should your partner not agree, then you've got a problem, one that you probably should have resolved earlier...