so....Not having children=Selfish?

[Atmos Duality]

Selfish? For not contributing to creating another useless mouth for a highly apathetic population on an overpopulated planet? Surely they jest...

Yeah.. anyone accusing me of being of "breeding age" and not committing can go ahead and fuck themselves; or perhaps each other, then they can fart out their own kids.

Cripes, I already pay taxes.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

and I mean that argument is stating to sound a little like eugenics (not trying to acuse you of that or anything), how do you measure intelligence? put out 1q tests to determine if people are allowed to breed? I doubt that would end well

I'm not suggesting we stop stupid people from breeding. ... not in this thread, anyway. I'm just suggesting that smart people need to make the effort so that our numbers don't drop.

Also, I may perhaps be exaggerating my position slightly for the sake of humor.

Edit: Oh, but the stuff about women being blamed for not continuing the family line, irregardless of siblings and their breeding plans - that is very true and very common. I believe that is the genetic reason that the instinct is there (whatever the excuse given by the individual is). I'm not saying that women being pressured to have kids is right or fair (I don't) but it does have a biological purpose.

[sub]Also, inb4 "irregardless isn't a word" - Spellchecker disagrees, it's part of the common vernacular, and of all the grammar pet peeves, that one is the lamest. I know the rule - therefore I am allowed to break it.[/sub]

 

[triggrhappy94]

I think it's selfless. You're holding off what's suppose to be one of the most full-filling experiences in life, because you don't want to put additional strain on your's and your community's reasourses.

 

[tthor]

That depends, do you live in a country such as Japan where the population i dropping? Then possibly. Otherwise, no, not really

 

[CaptainOctopus]

Quite the opposite if you care about the well being of the living people (and other animals) of this planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZvDwu6qCOY

Or as the standup comedian Stanhope expressed it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmgbSjLT1xE

 

[Mcupobob]

I always though it was between the persons or person if they wanted kids or not.

I think it would only be selfish or self-sacrificing depending on the context of the situation. If you're a couple or single and just don't won't kids then cool on you.

 

[theheroofaction]

Well, of course having kids intentionally is altruistic, in the case that it isn't obvious, the person who benefits is the kid who didn't exist before some blokes made it.

Now, obviously it isn't always a good idea, and what's alruistic and what's good can seperate under many circumstances.

As well, it would take a very weird sense of morality to say that somebody is a bad person for not intentionally going through what is a very burdening process to do as such, especially should one of the aforementioned circumstances occur.

But also remember that a lot of people, including several good people, are "accidental babies."

As well, keep in mind, that, Unless we're at dysfunction junction ( which I will admit, is somewhat likely), most of the people reading this were born of people who wanted to have children.


Ultimately though, dear reader, is that the best judge as to whether you should have children is you.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

I was thinking about making a well thought-out, eloquent post about how aging, shrinking populations, and culture groups disappearing are massive problems, but instead:

We, as a species, are fucked. Our more developed societies have pretty much given up on existing, and are quickly being supplanted by groups coming from places where indoctrination is the rule, not the exception. Our own laziness, self-interest, and, funny enough, reasoning skills have doomed the species.

ohh lighten up will you...

we anrt anymore fucked now than we were 100 years ago

100 years ago Europe wasn't collapsing both financially and demographically, the United States was as trustworthy a nation as any, China was the center of massive jumps in philosophy and technology, my home nation of Canada held kinship with much of the known world, the Balkans were kept peaceful by the Russians, Serbs, and Habsburgs, Africans, while not treated well, were at least protected from marauding gangs of raiders and lunatic dictators, the worlds of Science and Faith were reconciling and integrating, great minds were being put to uses greater than the next brand of plastic food, the Islamic world wasn't filled with the same kind of lunatic dictators that afflict Africa, the horrors of the World Wars hadn't happened yet, governments controlled corporations (instead of the other way 'round), and people actually had children.

We are far closer to the end than we were 100 years ago by any metric.

 

[theheroofaction]

snip

You do raise a point, however, the person to know somebody the best is Usually that same person.

Of course, I am assuming those who read this are, considering they read the other posts as opposed to simply offering a rebuttal, the type of person who would think of the logical consequences.

I will agree though, that one shouldn't make a decision such as this based solely on impulse, and that it should only be done after contemplating the consequences.

Again, this is all assuming the intelligence I expect from my potential audience.

 

[Vault101]

I was thinking about making a well thought-out, eloquent post about how aging, shrinking populations, and culture groups disappearing are massive problems, but instead:

We, as a species, are fucked. Our more developed societies have pretty much given up on existing, and are quickly being supplanted by groups coming from places where indoctrination is the rule, not the exception. Our own laziness, self-interest, and, funny enough, reasoning skills have doomed the species.

ohh lighten up will you...

we anrt anymore fucked now than we were 100 years ago

100 years ago Europe wasn't collapsing both financially and demographically, the United States was as trustworthy a nation as any, China was the center of massive jumps in philosophy and technology, my home nation of Canada held kinship with much of the known world, the Balkans were kept peaceful by the Russians, Serbs, and Habsburgs, Africans, while not treated well, were at least protected from marauding gangs of raiders and lunatic dictators, the worlds of Science and Faith were reconciling and integrating, great minds were being put to uses greater than the next brand of plastic food, the Islamic world wasn't filled with the same kind of lunatic dictators that afflict Africa, the horrors of the World Wars hadn't happened yet, governments controlled corporations (instead of the other way 'round), and people actually had children.

We are far closer to the end than we were 100 years ago by any metric.

and a few years later there were a couple of world wars....then a cold war and a massive freak out about nukes

and a great depression in there as well

 

[Slayer_2]

1. selfish to WHO exactally? who am I harming in not having a child? who am I benefitting in having a child? both answers: myself...oh and my partner

Calling it selfish makes no sense, really, I think if anything, holding off on making more babies is great. You'll help reduce the world population, and you will have more money for yourself (kids cost something like 1.1 million USD from ages 0-18).

2. Its more selfish to want to have your own...than..say..adoption, I mean if your thinking of child-rearing as an "anti-selfish" act then why wouldt adoption be your first choice? because its hard..yes, and perhaps because having children can be somthing of an ego-boost in itself (for some peopel, not most) because you want "your own"...obviously its biological but I dont see anything overly altruistic about it

Adoption is a nice alternative, lots of kids need homes, but it can take over a year (depending where you live), and cost more, plus they aren't "yours", and that puts a lot of people off.

3.Child rearing is a lifestyle choice, is it selfish of me to not have children because I want to pursue my own goals...rather than have children and be a terrible parent because I dont want to give up everything to raise them?

Putting your career first is your choice, if someone tells you otherwise, tell them to go suck a fat one.

the ony logic I get from this comment is "YOU MUST SUFFER LIKE THE REST OF US" (one of us, one of us, one of us)

JOOIINNNN UUUSSSSSSSS!!!!

 

[Voonhartking]

I think around the time we reached the 10 digit figures in population size propagating the human race ceased to be the ultimate goal for every man woman and child.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I figure choosing not to have kids isn't selfish if it's a decision you take because you're aware that you don't have the time, money or energy to devote to offspring. If it's just something that you decide because you just don't want all the hassle - then it's a lifestyle choice.

Biologically, having children is an imperative. Yes, that's true. However, seeing as we're more than simply mammals and are also sentient and able to make our own choices, I think we've all earned the right to choose for ourselves.

In other words, if anyone has the gall to call you selfish for choosing to solo it or if any cultural product makes you feel like that; fuck 'em. We're nowhere near "Children of Man"-ish levels of depopulation and more than anything else, the Third World could stand to have a better record when it comes to the use of contraceptives.

Bringing a bundle of joy into the world is all well and good - except if said bundle is only going to live for a couple years and experience debilitating levels of malnutrition. Reproduction cannot remain a cultural imperative; it has to be understood to be a choice that needs to be informed at least partially by what you have to give to that hypothetical child.

If it's a short life as a malnourished sero-positive, then you're better off with a rubber or the pill.