so....Not having children=Selfish?

[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.

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

 

[ElPatron]

ridiculous attitude.

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.

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".

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

 

[UlytimateDestruction]

To be honest I never saw the appeal of having a kid. I could see loads of disadvantages for having a kid like: You got to raise him/her for 16 years of your miserable life, pertaining to their every need, your time being more limited and having restrictions on you wherever you go. Plus if you decide you don't want the kid, guess what? You're basically fucked for the next 16 years! And that's because adoption homes are so overloaded with kids that nobody wants and you're raising the population which means materials like food, drink and other objects are being used up.

Why do we, humans want to continue onto the next generation of human beings when we're going to die anyway and chances are people won't give a shit about you in the next 100 years? You only want to have a child to carry on your family's legacy for fame but why don't you just do that for yourself instead? Why create more human beings that have feelings, ambitions to fulfil and that the population is so massive, alot of people won't care about? They will likely just end up being a loser anyway.

Now onto the job side: Your child is going to be competing against atleast 100's of other pupils across the world for one job and has a slim chance of getting it. You think making it harder to get a job and screwing the economy up even more is a good idea? If you answered no, you would be correct!

 

[scorptatious]

Ah Cyanide and Happiness. You always have a strip for every occasion.

So what I'm getting is that probably the only way I'd see not having children being selfish would be if there was a massive apocalypse and the human race is on the brink of extinction. Other than that, I wouldn't mind the idea of not having kids with my significant other.

Besides, even if I did want a kid, I'd probably wait until I actually have my life sorted out. Having a kid before would probably cause me to drop everything in order to raise him/her. And at the stage I'm currently at that would be a terrible thing to happen.

 

[scorptatious]

Ha ha ha! This thread is great! I love all the folk posturing that they don't want kids. No woman in her right mind would allow herself to be inseminated by you bunch of losers in the first instance so please, go ahead and convince yourselves that this is your choice and not a defence mechanism related to your hideous physique/ personality/ both.

Cheers!

Welcome to the Escapist! Glad to see you've made a good first impression.

 

[UFOROMANTIC]

No, it's not selfish at all. My girlfriend and I have resolved to never have children for as long as we live, simply because we hate the fuckers and don't want to be held back in our lives by them. Not even as a back-up food source (already ran it by her).

There are other ways to jerk off capitalism into the coffers of our society than just having children, namely, working. Besides, other people are going to have children and don't come to me about that "what if everyone thought like you" argument because obviously not everybody does. I'm glad that my parents had me, too, but I wouldn't dare to burden them with my birth if they didn't want me and just did it because society wanted them to. That's some bullshit. I wouldn't ask it of them. Mind you, I do like kids sometimes, but there are ways I can be present in the life of a child without having to have one of my own.

To turn this around, I think it is selfish of other people to just expect me to have children.

The only way I'm going to let that happen is if I can raise them without my presence until the age of 10; up to that point they would be raised by machines, being spoken to regularly by disembodied voices in different languages so that their language faculties don't ever fully develop. Following that, they will be prodded into fighting daily for my love, which I shall manifest by shouting compliments at them from the other side of the room. 2 weeks before their 13th birthdays (my arbitrarily chosen "age of reason"), I would introduce LSD into their water supply and send them running naked and nameless into the streets instead of having a party in their honor, never to be seen or heard from again.

 

[Christopher Callahan]

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.

You ether
A. Had to write a paper on this or
B. Have spent too much of your free time thinking on this.

Besides, don't you have a greater responsitlity to yourself? This is even more true if you do have kids, as everything you do is seen by them. If they see to working yourself to the bone try to feed them, what does that tell them? that you live solely as a way for them to get what they want?

Now you will say:
No, it will show them that they should sacrifice for the greater good of their country and the world.

To which I will say:
Unless they work for the government, that isn't and shouldn't be their job.

Then you say something sarcastic in a vain attempt to outdo me and win an internet debate, and then I will start ignoring you, then you will think you won, and so on and so forth.

 

[ablac]

People have brought up the issue of world overpopulation and I want to point out two things. First off not having children full stop is not a solution. That just leaves us with a massive aged population (this can be seen in China already on account of the one child law a moral dilemma on its own). Secondly most population growth is in nations where the average population is poor and has a low standard of living (I think this is the case) as they have traditionally many children as not many are likely to survive. If you wish to dispute this then go find evidence as this is just what I believe is causing it from memory not from recent research. What I believe will solve this problem is either enforcing strict child laws upon the world, which is both morally apprehensible and impossible or improving conditions in these areas so people do not have so many children. Most developed countries have ageing populations so growth will not be coming from them. What we really need is to achieve a reasonable state in which we stay near what we have now and have a balance of birth rates across the world.

And to those who claim the world is oh so terrible and that it is somehow selfish to bring children into it - grow up and see that the world is not simply what the news tells you. The terrible things you see are not representative of the world as a whole. The world for the most part is fantastic and problems can be solved if you really want to solve them. To throw your hands up and state that everything is horrible is pathetic and based of off a narrow minded view of the world.

 

[ozium]

If you like life so much, why not let somebody new enjoy it I guess is an argument for it.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

That's all true, but it's only true on a local scale.

Take a look at the bigger picture and it's immediately obvious that the global human reproductive rate is well above replacement figures.

The obvious end result of this is exponential growth in human population.

And... Combine exponential growth with essentially fixed resources, and it should be obvious that left unchecked this can only have one end result. (And it isn't a good one.)

So... On a personal level, it doesn't make sense.

On a national level, not having kids is selfish.

But on a global level, the opposite is true. Having kids makes life worse for everyone.

(Incedentally, the 'replacement rate' for human populations is 2.1 children per couple. - at this rate, the population would remain stable. Which must clearly be accounting for some biological problems that mean not everyone manages to have children, because basic math shows that 2 parents + 2 children = 0 population growth as long as the parents die at some point.)

Governments are so self-serving, ironically. Nobody wants to take responsibility for actions that have global consequences, and in fact, frequently goverments try and pressure people into doing things that are detrimental to the world as a whole.

 

[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.

You ether
A. Had to write a paper on this or
B. Have spent too much of your free time thinking on this.

Besides, don't you have a greater responsitlity to yourself? This is even more true if you do have kids, as everything you do is seen by them. If they see to working yourself to the bone try to feed them, what does that tell them? that you live solely as a way for them to get what they want?

Now you will say:
No, it will show them that they should sacrifice for the greater good of their country and the world.

To which I will say:
Unless they work for the government, that isn't and shouldn't be their job.

Then you say something sarcastic in a vain attempt to outdo me and win an internet debate, and then I will start ignoring you, then you will think you won, and so on and so forth.

So people should only be concerned for themselves? If normal people viewed things like you then there would be little life worth living. Your parents raised you to what you are yet you criticise people who want to do the same for other children. I doubt they raised you to belive that you shouldnt have kids else they wouldnt have had you.

 

[Frankster]

I think it might be a tad selfish regarding the partner if he does want kids, well maybe selfish ain't the right word, but I would see it as a big problem in a couple when one wants kids and the other doesn't.

Otherwise if neither parent wants children, don't see a problem and you should certainly not have kids just because society expects 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.

 

[Zyxx]

Maybe it's selfish. Who says that's a bad thing? Sometimes being selfish is the right and appropriate thing to do.

In the U.S., we've got too many kids whose parents don't want or care about them, who have never received appropriate stimulation or social training at home, and to whom the notion of an education is alien and frightening. It's startlingly obvious, watching them, that some of these children will be spending the majority of their lives in jail.
Sometimes these aren't even "disadvantaged" parents: they're just "too busy" (work, society, sleeping around) to take care of their kids.

Is that better than those who realize they are unprepared or unwilling to handle the responsibility of a child simply not having them? Is it more beneficial to your community, your economy, your country?

 

[Patathatapon]

Too many people in the world that at this stage, I'd say you're doing a good thing not wanting children.

 

[Christopher Callahan]

Ha ha ha! This thread is great! I love all the folk posturing that they don't want kids. No woman in her right mind would allow herself to be inseminated by you bunch of losers in the first instance so please, go ahead and convince yourselves that this is your choice and not a defence mechanism related to your hideous physique/ personality/ both.

Cheers!

The fact that you chose to say this instead of just reading the posts tells me that you have a much bigger problem then your own Hideous physique/personality/both. To be fair I replied, so that doesn't make me much better.

Now you will say:
So you admit that you have a Hideous physique/personality/both.

Then I'll say:
I'm told that I'm rather handsome, but prone to the odd sarcastic remark, but their funny enough that no one has disown me over them.

 

[Christopher Callahan]

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.

You ether
A. Had to write a paper on this or
B. Have spent too much of your free time thinking on this.

Besides, don't you have a greater responsitlity to yourself? This is even more true if you do have kids, as everything you do is seen by them. If they see to working yourself to the bone try to feed them, what does that tell them? that you live solely as a way for them to get what they want?

Now you will say:
No, it will show them that they should sacrifice for the greater good of their country and the world.

To which I will say:
Unless they work for the government, that isn't and shouldn't be their job.

Then you say something sarcastic in a vain attempt to outdo me and win an internet debate, and then I will start ignoring you, then you will think you won, and so on and so forth.

So people should only be concerned for themselves? If normal people viewed things like you then there would be little life worth living. Your parents raised you to what you are yet you criticise people who want to do the same for other children. I doubt they raised you to belive that you shouldnt have kids else they wouldnt have had you.

Life is all about living, if we don't live our live our selves who will? Life isn't about having kid, or making piles of money, or going rock clime ling or mediating or going to church every Sunday or waking up in pool of vomit from an all night party. It's about doing what makes you happy and fulfilled. So long as you don't hurt anyone along the way, what does it matter?
And don't call me normal, if we were all normal, we'd living in caves slowly starving to death. And hey, guess what? I'm over 18, my parents don't have any say in what I do, and even if they did, they raised me to think for myself, not blindly do what they did. I never said that people shouldn't have kids. Unlike some people here, I like kids. I just don't want any. Not right now anyway. If that make me wrong, well, you should know the rest of that saying.
Also? you replied fast.

 

[dragonswarrior]

Wow. I didn't even know people actually existed who say that not having kids is selfish. ... it...it makes NO SENSE!!!

Personally, I don't care either way. Human population is trying to balance itself out, all that jazz, people will want to have kids less as more things come along that they are more interested in, this is actually awesome and probably a good thing in the long run.

Sure, there will be plenty of instability, enormous amounts of old people supported by a shrinking younger generation, plus plenty of unforeseen obstacles, but everything will sort itself out in the end. It always does.

And I totally want kids. Because I am one of those weird people who actually likes children (I know, they're annoying attention seeking little buggers, but I dunno... I kinda like them for it...) and I am one of the SELFISH people who want's his own and doesn't want to adopt.

Yes. It is selfish to want your own kids. 'nuff said.

 

[Ashadowpie]

i dont understand how its selfish either. happily i dont want kids, and if i do i will adopt, its appalling how many children in the world let alone Canada and the states have unadopted children with no families what so ever, yet we still breed like bunnies just to have "made it myself" baby to add on to the overpopulation. i heard somewhere that the smart thing to do financially is to not have children or get married. interesting

 

[s0nic_al]

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.