so....Not having children=Selfish?

[D Moness]

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.

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.

Yeah my brother got a kid so now i am more or less of the hook. Although my parents stopped asking me if i wanted kids ages ago. Also i am not that keen on handing down my genes either.

Also without some real divine intervention I am not seeing myself getting kids anytime soon anyway (nor do i feel like getting any(although it is a discussion between partners what to decide and nobody else))

 

[Darkmantle]

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?

that would be the definition of selfish. Not wanting to help anyone who isn't in your immediate group. So yes, it is selfish.

No, that isn't how selfishness is defined. Furthermore you're dishonestly exaggerating it. It's a matter of magnitude, not willingness to help others. Come back with integrity, or maybe better reading comprehension.

Only caring about you and yours, is selfish. The magnitude MAKES the selfishness in this case. Perhaps you should not be so quick to judge other's reading comprehension.

 

[Bomberman4000]

Honestly I laugh at the posts saying that ONE person choosing not to have children is going to hurt the economy. That is fucking ridiculous. Even if it becomes a popular idea to not have children, there are still plenty of people who have more than "2 kids per household to sustain the (already fucked in the ass) economy."

I live in South Carolina, and trust me when I tell you there are people who should've been more "selfish" and stopped having kids because now they're all poverty-stricken, uneducated, and have very low odds of making anything successful out of themselves (it's not impossible, but they're all starting behind the 8-ball)

I have no problem with someone who doesn't want to have kids. Hell my brother has stated vehemently that he's not having kids for reasons that have already been listed here: sanity, money, fondness of time and energy, etc.

I've always known this website to be a "do whatever works for you" kind of website so I'm actually a little amazed at how many people are saying that it IS selfish to not want to have children.

What about gay couples? Is it their responsibility to produce children as well? What if a couple can't conceive? Are they useless to us as a couple?

No.

Do whatever the fuck you want. If you don't want to have kids, don't have them. If you want kids, have'em. If you ladies want kids but don't want to destroy your bodies for them then there are plenty of kids here in South Carolina that I'm sure would be happy to go with you.

 

[RobDaBank]

My son wasn't planned but I stepped up to the mark and got on with it.

If someone asks me if I'd do things differently I'd say 'No, I love my son'

If someone asks me if I would have LIKED to do things differently, I'd say 'Hells yeah!'

The fact is, I wasn't prepared for him, financially, mentally and emotionally. Now if I'd planned to have him when I was struggling to cope myself, I'd call that pretty selfish.

On the other side of the coin, if I'd established a career and got myself in a stable, well off position and decided I didn't want a child under any circumstance, having a child would be the selfish thing to do as unless you want one, you will struggle to cope and that child will suffer as a result.

At the end of the day however, my belief is people can do whatever they like, if nobodies getting hurt and I'm not being affected I don't really care... Now that's selfish!!

 

[lacktheknack]

The same reason that we're not restricting family size because of overpopulation - we don't have cheap and reliable robot workers yet. The logic is that you're buying products but not supplying any labor in the long run to make them.

Well buying the products involves forking over cash. That really fills the full extent of what you owe them in getting the product.

In the short term, yes.

But if you look on a grand scale, ie. how those products ended up in the store you bought them from, you'll notice an immense chain of people involved. According to the "No Kids = Selfish" logic, the consumer who consumes without adding more people to the production chain is basically taking with little regard for sustainability, ergo, selfish.

Unless you find a method of producing the goods without human labor, then money just won't cut it in the long run.

 

[lacktheknack]

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?

that would be the definition of selfish. Not wanting to help anyone who isn't in your immediate group. So yes, it is selfish.

No, that isn't how selfishness is defined. Furthermore you're dishonestly exaggerating it. It's a matter of magnitude, not willingness to help others. Come back with integrity, or maybe better reading comprehension.

Only caring about you and yours, is selfish.

Babbling about things I didn't say in response to me is stupid. And goes to show that maybe you do have reading comprehension issues. Nothing I said implied only caring about you and yours. Is being honest that hard of a concept?

Your slip-up was "a bunch of people I don't know". It doesn't matter what you MEANT by that, the point is that it gives out a "you and your own only" vibe. Words are powerful, use them carefully.

 

[Philol]

Ahem.....

If someone wanted me to raise a child so I could stop being 'Selfish' I would say this straight away.


So by someones Crazy logic (Not sure who's exactly) not having a child is considered selfish..... Why?!

There are already over 7 billion people in the world, do we need any more?! NO! So stop pestering people to have more fucking babies already! (Not directed at the OP or anyone with a fucking brain)

You sir are a degenerate, and a fool! I jest of course. :3

OT: If you don't want to have kids that's fine, it certainly shouldn't be considered selfish. Personally though, I want kids whom I can manipulate into becoming fat cats, oh they will take after me so...

 

[Paladin Anderson]

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

THIS. To hell with my country. No one here gives a damn if I live or die. Everyone's in it for themselves, it's called Capitalism. I don't owe them a damn thing. I think I owe my planet just about as much and I'm doing it a favor by making there be fewer people.

Eventually our population WILL hit its limit. There's only so much food, water, and energy to go around. By trying to force people to have children you're just delaying the inevitable and pushing it onto another generation and how freakin selfish is that?.

 

[lacktheknack]

The same reason that we're not restricting family size because of overpopulation - we don't have cheap and reliable robot workers yet. The logic is that you're buying products but not supplying any labor in the long run to make them.

Well buying the products involves forking over cash. That really fills the full extent of what you owe them in getting the product.

In the short term, yes.

But if you look on a grand scale, ie. how those products ended up in the store you bought them from, you'll notice an immense chain of people involved. According to the "No Kids = Selfish" logic, the consumer who consumes without adding more people to the production chain is basically taking with little regard for sustainability, ergo, selfish.

Unless you find a method of producing the goods without human labor, then money just won't cut it in the long run.

But you do not owe it anything besides the money. If it isn't sustainable that isn't my fault, and it shouldn't be my concern. It would be too much to expect my money and for me to provide people to work. Asking for people is quite simply dehumanizing and not a reasonable request.

I simply disagree on all levels. Sustainability should be a major concern, and by continuing to support it it is indirectly your fault for allowing it to happen. And if you want products, you should give them means to produce them. Money will make people dig and harvest resources, put them together, ship them places, etc, but money does not make humans spawn (at least, not legally). Every business expects two things from the consumers - money and labor.

Of course, if we have a massive stemming out of the population (that, last time I checked, is already happening), then the entire Western World falls through, I expect the people who refused to contribute to the population in the future will complain about it.

 

[Erttheking]

Funny, now that you mention in, in environmental science I saw a video about the bad condition of the world's population and it was sending out some very mixed messages.

India = Countless women are forced to have countless babies because they don't know any better, they need to be properly educated and have better rights so that this doesn't happen

Japan= The population is falling because women are having less kids because they're working more, these ladies need to quit their jobs and open their legs.

WTF, seriously.

 

[lacktheknack]

The same reason that we're not restricting family size because of overpopulation - we don't have cheap and reliable robot workers yet. The logic is that you're buying products but not supplying any labor in the long run to make them.

Well buying the products involves forking over cash. That really fills the full extent of what you owe them in getting the product.

In the short term, yes.

But if you look on a grand scale, ie. how those products ended up in the store you bought them from, you'll notice an immense chain of people involved. According to the "No Kids = Selfish" logic, the consumer who consumes without adding more people to the production chain is basically taking with little regard for sustainability, ergo, selfish.

Unless you find a method of producing the goods without human labor, then money just won't cut it in the long run.

But you do not owe it anything besides the money. If it isn't sustainable that isn't my fault, and it shouldn't be my concern. It would be too much to expect my money and for me to provide people to work. Asking for people is quite simply dehumanizing and not a reasonable request.

I simply disagree on all levels. Sustainability should be a major concern, and by continuing to support it it is indirectly your fault for allowing it to happen.

Why should it be a major concern? And it isn't my fault, it's their own for not taking care of their business model. They are, after all, not a charitable institution they are a business. I see no reason I owe them the means to make more money.

And if you want products, you should give them means to produce them.

Why? They ask for money, not slave labor. Why exactly are they owed more beyond the agreement we made?

Money will make people dig and harvest resources, put them together, ship them places, etc, but money does not make humans spawn (at least, not legally). Every business expects two things from the consumers - money and labor.

False. When it comes to selling products they only expect money. There is no agreement to provide labor in return.

Of course, if we have a massive stemming out of the population (that, last time I checked, is already happening), then the entire Western World falls through, I expect the people who refused to contribute to the population in the future will complain about it.

Yes, because you want to feel nice and self-righteous you're going to make a stupid claim against people who don't act as you like.

I don't care to continue this if you're going to project. We aren't seeing eye-to-eye anyways, and no amount of arguing on the internet ever fixed that.

 

[lacktheknack]

Funny, now that you mention in, in environmental science I saw a video about the bad condition of the world's population and it was sending out some very mixed messages.

India = Countless women are forced to have countless babies because they don't know any better, they need to be properly educated and have better rights so that this doesn't happen

Japan= The population is falling because women are having less kids because they're working more, these ladies need to quit their jobs and open their legs.

WTF, seriously.

Balance, man. There's a balance.

 

[Kron_the_mad wants to be deleted]

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.

From an economic point of view I get what you're saying but most of the economic arguments for continued population growth are for short term pay-offs and are very short sighted.
There are a finite number of resources (food, living-space, agriculture space, clean air, raw materials for industry and manufacture etc..) and we currently have enough long term for less than a billion, there are over 7 billion people at the moment and there is an ever increasing birth rate.
Continued growth requires an extra planet, we don't actually have one of those to hand nor the resources for a mass relocation even if we did.

So doesn't the idea of "make babies, because money." need a bit of a re-think?