[quote]entheogens wrote:
We live in a time when it is believed that joy, liberation could be ours if we could be free of all responsibilities and commitments. However, in the end, this leads to an empty life.
[/quote]
I don’t want to have kids and have been confronted with arguments along these lines before.
Personally, I see no reason in assuming responsibilities for the sake of it. I see responsibilities as a necessary evil and I deal with them accordingly. If taking taking responsibility for something is a necessary step for reaching a goal which is important to me, so be it. Otherwise, I see no reason in confining my freedom.
[quote]Farside wrote:
After 10 years of marriage, my wife and I have decided to not have any children due to a genetic condition she has which could have severe health consequences if she gave birth - that and neither of us are really interested in being parents.
So before I head off to get snipped, I was curious if there were many other couples out there that have gone the ‘kid-less’ route, and if so, have you ever had any regrets over the decision? ??
[/quote]
I understand you directed this toward those that are coupled and childless, however, I’ll just say that you made the best decision you felt you could and should make. It was a choice, and like all choices, there are benefits as well as regrets. Just my penny’s worth.
Kids should be a product of 2 people who love each other. Making the decision to not have kids is the product of 2 people who love each other.
I think people who assume that kids are an “automatic” decision are kidding themselves. . . . or Catholic. Too many people use childern as a “mile marker” in their relationships.
My wife really wanted children and I did not. She regreted she waited so late in our relationship to “change” her mind and it ended our marriage.
[quote]lixy wrote:
From my perspective, you’re doing the planet a great service. I might get flamed for saying this, but in our day and age, kids are mainly to feed one’s ego. And now that women can have fulfilling careers, the little people are not a priority any longer.
With 7 billion people around, it’s not like the species will go extinct any time soon…[/quote]
I will try not to be inflammatory in responding to this, however, how do you justify a broad statement/belief like this? I’m simply curious. My belief, after seeing a lot of the world, and witnessing first hand the good and the bad, is that damn-near everything we do in life is ego driven. From helping our fellow man to murdering our fellow man. It’s touching on the ego, or in some cases, the “id”. Hard to argue against that. From a personal standpoint, short of a true global disaster, or extinction level event, the world will always seem over-populated. To try to use that as a basis for not having children is pretty…easy. I understand not liking kids, or not wanting to produce a child that society would deem “special” or “handicapped”, but to lump those that want to bring kids into the world as egotistical is a bit wrecklees.
I want to have kids, as I would like to raise him or her the way I was not raised. I want to teach them what I had to learn for myself. Will my ego be involved, yes, but that is part of what makes us human. Good, bad, whatever, it just is. Comes down to a simple, but not so simple, choice. Just my thoughts.
[quote]Beast27195 wrote:
lixy wrote:
From my perspective, you’re doing the planet a great service. I might get flamed for saying this, but in our day and age, kids are mainly to feed one’s ego. And now that women can have fulfilling careers, the little people are not a priority any longer.
With 7 billion people around, it’s not like the species will go extinct any time soon…
I will try not to be inflammatory in responding to this, however, how do you justify a broad statement/belief like this? I’m simply curious. My belief, after seeing a lot of the world, and witnessing first hand the good and the bad, is that damn-near everything we do in life is ego driven. From helping our fellow man to murdering our fellow man. It’s touching on the ego, or in some cases, the “id”. Hard to argue against that. From a personal standpoint, short of a true global disaster, or extinction level event, the world will always seem over-populated. To try to use that as a basis for not having children is pretty…easy. I understand not liking kids, or not wanting to produce a child that society would deem “special” or “handicapped”, but to lump those that want to bring kids into the world as egotistical is a bit wrecklees.
I want to have kids, as I would like to raise him or her the way I was not raised. I want to teach them what I had to learn for myself. Will my ego be involved, yes, but that is part of what makes us human. Good, bad, whatever, it just is. Comes down to a simple, but not so simple, choice. Just my thoughts. [/quote]
What part of my statement do you deem “broad”?
I stand by my assertion that most people have kids by instinct. Ego and the sense of immortality are heavily involved in the process however subconsciously. I don’t see the wrecklessness in advocating adoption be prioritized and conception considered as a last resort. At least, for people with their heads on their shoulders. You’d be amazed at the number of pregnancies that “just happen” out of lust. So if you happen to be one of the few couples who can think about the issue rationally, you’d be doing the world a favor by holding out on the breeding and instead, adopt an abandoned kid.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Make1tRa1n wrote:
How is perpetuating genes a good reason?
It depends on the genes, I suppose. But if we individually think that we are valuable to society for whatever reason, then having kids hedges the likelihood that our valuable, heritable traits will be carried forward into future generations.
[/quote]
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner of the Richard Dawkins Sociobiology Award. Let me ask you, do you like your family members according to a hierarchical gradation of how close they are to you genetically?
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
entheogens wrote:
We live in a time when it is believed that joy, liberation could be ours if we could be free of all responsibilities and commitments. However, in the end, this leads to an empty life.
I don’t want to have kids and have been confronted with arguments along these lines before.
Personally, I see no reason in assuming responsibilities for the sake of it. .[/quote]
No, you are right. I am not saying that you should assume responsibilities for the sake of it. And I am not saying everyone should have children. However, I DO think that a life without committed relationships (of some sort)-and the responsibilities and “weight” that goes along with them- are very superficial. However, I think it is true that a lot of people think that there lives will be BETTER without the “burden” of responsibilities/committed relationships. I honesetly BELIEVE that is a mistaken assumption.
While i understand her desire is hormonal based, it doesn’t appear that way to her.
she just “feels” it. and logic doesn’t go over well with many women.
Why is it that when foolish men engage with equally foolish women, they feel justified in bashing half the people on the planet? But why stop with only half? Logic surely doesn’t “go over” any better with men who’ll marry women they don’t respect. So I guess logic doesn’t go over well with many men?
[/quote]
Logic doesn’t go well with most people. Rhetoric and sophist word play can easily persuade people.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
entheogens wrote:
We live in a time when it is believed that joy, liberation could be ours if we could be free of all responsibilities and commitments. However, in the end, this leads to an empty life.
I don’t want to have kids and have been confronted with arguments along these lines before.
Personally, I see no reason in assuming responsibilities for the sake of it. .
No, you are right. I am not saying that you should assume responsibilities for the sake of it. And I am not saying everyone should have children. However, I DO think that a life without committed relationships (of some sort)-and the responsibilities and “weight” that goes along with them- are very superficial. However, I think it is true that a lot of people think that there lives will be BETTER without the “burden” of responsibilities/committed relationships. I honesetly BELIEVE that is a mistaken assumption.
[/quote]
…and yet i see plenty of couples who, except for enjoying their kids’ love, nearly buckle under the responsability. So many couples come to a point in their relationship where it’s either have kids, or separate. I’ll go out on a limb and say that i think many men just go along with the idea, because they know not having kids ends the relationship…
…it’s those couples that have a solid relationship [based on friendship] that make the best parents, but i don’t know many to be honest…
…i’m someone who does not want the responsability of parenting, not just because i think i won’t be such a great dad, but also because i do not want to have such a big life-change. I like how things are now, and want to keep it that way…
Forget Lixy’s argument. There’s a much more simple and depressing one.
It is impossible to suffer if you do not exist.
If you do exist it is impossible for you to not suffer in some way to some degree.
By having kids you are bringing people into this world who are guaranteed to suffer and would not have had any way of suffering if you did not have them.
Therefore by having kids you are inevitably allowing human suffering to continue.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
Forget Lixy’s argument. There’s a much more simple and depressing one.
It is impossible to suffer if you do not exist.
If you do exist it is impossible for you to not suffer in some way to some degree.
By having kids you are bringing people into this world who are guaranteed to suffer and would not have had any way of suffering if you did not have them.
Therefore by having kids you are inevitably allowing human suffering to continue.[/quote]
The flip side, of course, is that it’s impossible to achieve, to excel and to experience passion and love if one never exists, so by not having kids you are depriving them of those experiences.
There’s a separate and elitist argument for at least some procreation - and it definitely involves ego.
Fecundity rates correlate inversely to education. Assuming education is at least a very rough and imperfect proxy for IQ, this implies a dumbing down of the population. So if one didn’t want the population to be dumbed down, one would want the more intelligent to procreate (with other intelligent people preferably, but not necessarily) - at the very least at the replacement rate, if not at a rate to compensate for the higher fecundity among the less educated.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
Forget Lixy’s argument. There’s a much more simple and depressing one.
It is impossible to suffer if you do not exist.
If you do exist it is impossible for you to not suffer in some way to some degree.
By having kids you are bringing people into this world who are guaranteed to suffer and would not have had any way of suffering if you did not have them.
Therefore by having kids you are inevitably allowing human suffering to continue.[/quote]
So really, the solution to the suffering problem on earth lies in eradicating every being, including ourselves. Seems practical…
[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
Remember, having one child will not increase the net world population over time. Unless of course that child decides to reproduce prodigiously.[/quote]
Yes. And killing one child will not decrease the net world population over time. Unless of course that child decides to come back as a serial-killing ghost.
I think the problem isn’t people having children, but people who shouldn’t be near kids, having five. Poor uneducated breeders popping out more ‘slaves’, I see it all the time. And what disturbs me is our inability, as a society, a race, to overcome the animal cyclical nature of taking everything to the limit and then crashing. It’s pretty obvious at this point that we will overpopulate and billions of people will have to die. A great deal not from natural causes, I’m sure. Same thing with every fallen civilization and empire - they overextend their recourses and collapse as if they had no clue it was coming.
