so....Not having children=Selfish?

[Vault101]

snip".

Im not saying "i'll never want kids"..I can say that right now, but I know that could change at some point

Im geniunly curious if It ever will

BUT I will say plently of people out there dont want and havnt had kids, you can tell people that they will want kids all you want (much to their annoynace)..it wont change if they do or dont..some people just dont

and that doesnt make them selfish...slightly different to the norm but not selfish

persoanlly the very Idea disgusts me..right now

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

you exist to propagate your genes.

eventually it WILL get to you.

the fact we can think and reason doesn't disengage our basic fundamental drives as life forms.

all those things you might think are more important like making money, having "a career" etc, etc. you consider those things important because way down deep in the middle of your brain there's a bit of you going "these things will better ensure the success of your progeny".

I see that argument all the time.

I come from a ridiculously stereotypical Italian-American family (hardcore Catholic, my dad has 15 brothers and sisters all from the same parents, etc.). I have no intention of ever having kids. Not only does this lead to me taking constant flak from my extended family, but I also get constantly barraged with the very same claim you're trying to make.

This is despite the fact that even within my own family I have aunts and uncles who got married but never had children (because they didn't want them, not because they couldn't have them) who are living quite happily and are much older than myself. Hell, most of the time at big family get-togethers, those particular aunts and uncles seem to be the ones most enjoying life.


Every time the claim you made in that post comes up in conversation, those aunts and uncles just laugh it off. Frankly, I find it to be little more than people trying to justify their own life choices whenever someone else disagrees with them, in order to validate their own decisions as the "right" choice. It removes any doubt about whether or not thing maybe would have been better if they'd done things differently. When in reality, the "right" choice is subjective and not nearly so simple.

If the "biological clock" theory actually held any water, you wouldn't see population declines like what's being seen in Russia. If the "biological clock" theory actually held up, you'd see far fewer 'bachelors/bachelorettes for life.' Do some people feel compelled to have children? Sure. But everyone? That's pretty laughable.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

ye because you can argue with the driving force behind life itself.

Which is highly debatable. There's a reason why one of the oldest questions that's been bouncing around is "what is the meaning of life?"

The reason we as human beings still ask that question is because we don't have a definitive answer. To make claims like "they've basically failed at the reason they exist" (your words) is to imply that you personally have the definitive answer to the question that's been on the minds of our species' greatest thinkers for century upon century upon century.

And this is despite the fact that various religions, for example, of the world have very different interpretations on the same basic question.

Just because you think the purpose of existence is to have children and nothing more doesn't mean that it's THE purpose of existence. Just the one that works for you. And what works for you doesn't work for everyone.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

eventually it WILL get to you...maybe not now but eventually...

There's no certainty for anyone. That much is painfully obvious, so blanket statements like that don't really work.

Having kids is not selfish. Not having kids isn't selfish. Isn't any real reason to find anything here worth talking about.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm not really sure how the subject even came about, considering until this thread, I've never heard it until now. I already know I'd make an awful parent, so not having kids isn't selfish - it's logical. I think people just like to make issues from non-issues.

 

[Vault101]

i don't think it makes people "selfish".

subconsciously miserable maybe (as they've basically failed at the reason they exist) but not "selfish".

the only time ive ever actually heard it referred to as "selfish" is when people delay to the point a child will be being raised by people who are so old as not to be fully capable at the task and who will likely be almost dead by the time the child reaches adulthood if not before.

there is possible merit in that argument as its unfair on the child.

ye because you can argue with the driving force behind life itself.

i for one am not going to bother.

been there, done that and watched everyone i've ever known change their minds or regret it.

anecdotal evidence=/= actual evidence

1. you cant acuse peopel (millions of peopel you dont even know) of "secretly being miserable" thats arrogant and thats like me saying console owners are secretly dissatified and wish thye were playing on a PC.....bullshit in other words

2. *sigh* yes, thats "why" we exist..but look around you, the internet, the acheivments of cvilisation, we dont have to just "eat, fuck,breed" anymore, we can find other things to do with our lives..what your saying is both correct and incorrect at the same time because its all on how you see things

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

We exist because of procreation, we don't exist to procreate.

Procreation is a choice. If the species as a whole wants to continue onward and increase its numbers, it will. But that does not mean that every single member within said species wants or is even capable to make that choice.

"why" is the hard part (but only for us because we are uniquely self aware).

Which is a fallacy, as there are plenty of examples out there of animals who live their lives without procreating. Ask any zookeeper.

Or hell, go read some articles on how much of a pain in the ass it is to get pandas and polar bears to mate.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

1. and you can prove me wrong ?

2. and every single thing we do in life can can be seen through the lens of better aiding or facilitating the success of progeny. everything.

1. The more important question is if you can provide evidence to prove your own claims first.

2. Last Saturday I sat on my ass for 12 hours straight playing Mass Effect. It's something I did in my life. How did me, sitting in my room alone for 12 hours playing a single-player game facilitate any sort of procreation? Afterall, you said everything we do in life facilitates it.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

2. He could probably make some BS excuse about your happiness contributing to your ability to raise kids. But that would just be twisting it I think.

More than likely.

Y'know, 'cause when I think of parents with the ability to raise their kids, I totally think of parents that go on excessively long gaming or movie binges, alone, while tuning out the rest of the world.

Y'know, I think I read some stories about parents like that. Yeah! The ones that went on World of Warcraft binges while neglecting their kids! Y'know... the kids that died... because of neglect...

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

1. i have 41 years of life experience. that's my evidence. when you have the same you can come back and contradict it. you won't tho.

2. you sought happiness through entertainment. it kept you safe and happy for 12 hours thereby preserving your genes.

1. Experience doesn't equal evidence. Evidence is something tangible that can be displayed and scrutinized. Experience is little more than anecdotes, and hardly anything that can be considered concrete. When you have some actual evidence, you can come back and prove me wrong. But until then, your experience is worthless in the matter.

2. Kept me safe? As I was chowing down on Hot Pockets and Mountain Dew? You realize that taking one's health into consideration is every bit as important to 'safety' and 'preserving genes' as remembering to look both ways before crossing the street, right?

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

i'm not really interesting in proving you wrong or what you consider valid "evidence" "anecdotal" or otherwise.

it's a pointless exercise.

It's not a matter of what I consider valid evidence. It's a matter of what is valid evidence. And as I said before, valid evidence is something documented that can be scientifically analyzed and scrutinized. That cannot be done with concepts like 'experience.'

It's a pointless exercise because you make huge claims while simultaneously being incapable of defending them in any meaningful way.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

i'm not really interesting in "proving you wrong" or what you consider valid "evidence" "anecdotal" or otherwise.

you started your own argument based on the "anecdotal" "evidence" of your own laughing, childless aunts and uncles.

all in all it's just a pointless exercise in semantics with someone who still thinks every discussion is a competition.

so there you go.

in your mind you win by default and you you can go back to your gatorade and pop tarts...

I presented my anecdote as an anecdote. I presented it as something debatable. I did not present it as universal fact. There's a pretty major difference there.

You on the other hand present your case as universal fact, which until evidence arises supporting it, remains unproven. And I very much doubt that evidence will ever materialize.