so....Not having children=Selfish?

[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...

 

[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.