# On not having children. Some discussion.



## FAST6191 (Apr 28, 2015)

On some forums they have a ban on talk of politics and a ban on talk of religion, for some this topic is probably worse. Fortunately for me this is not one of those forums.

Anyway cracked had an article where one of its writers had apparently been called selfish for not having/wanting children. I have seen some people look people oddly for not wanting children (the favour is returned in kind) but that one was new to me. About the closest I ever got was my mum jokingly said I want grandchildren one day when we were in a restaurant, I retorted "you should have raised different kids then". I got the dirtiest look from the people on the table behind me.

Anyway thoughts, opinions and elaborations upon them if you like.


----------



## SickPuppy (Apr 28, 2015)

go make some babies, now.


----------



## VinsCool (Apr 28, 2015)

SickPuppy said:


> go make some babies, now.


 
Making them is the best part.


----------



## Blebleman (Apr 28, 2015)

I don't know about you, but I always wanted to leave something for the world. I'm not a great inventor, a man that will live on in history books or anything special -- but this is something I can do. This is the meaning of my life.

If I didn't have kids, I would have grown old, worked all those years for what, exactly?

To me, life has no meaning but one thing -- reproduce, continue the human race, and try to have fun while you're around.

However, I do respect people who choose not to have kids because they're afraid of the type of parents they would become. But I'm also really divided about that -- I know a man who was a victim of violence when he was little, and always told me "I don't want to do the same"... but judging by the fact he realizes this -- wouldn't he be different?

It's a sensitive topic for many, and my intention is not to offend. Just another opinion!


----------



## SickPuppy (Apr 28, 2015)

Me and my wife were together for 13 years before we had our daughter. And that was the reason we got married too. Never quite gave it much thought, it just happened. I wouldn't worry too much about it, it's your life, live it as you please.


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 28, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> Making them is the best part.


It certainly is


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 28, 2015)

I will come at the "leave something" the other way.
By not spawning my genetic line ends with me. To that end I figure I can burn down trees with flames shot from the exhaust of my 16 cylinder muscle car, all just to watch them burn, and the net impact of my existence will still be less than those with descendents.
Of course the smart person would argue that being tainted by ginger I should not anyway.

Being marginally more serious it seems there is no shortage of humans and I can not see me adding anything of great note to it by reproducing.

That said "leave something for the world" is not how I want to roll. If I can be forgotten 5 minutes after I am gone and noticed enough that I am not bumped into then I am very much good with that.


----------



## BORTZ (Apr 28, 2015)

Hmmm. Interesting topic. I think its pretty easy too take the side of "selfish" when it comes to not having kids, but its more of a pointing out a speck in your neighbor's eye, while you have a log in yours. 

On the one hand, if you want to have kids, and have the means to take care of them, go for it. Obviously if we dont have children as a species, we would die out. Duh. But also, its the only way to lengthen your families linage, bloodline, and name. A lot of people, male and female, cant wait to have offspring. Its relatively easy to do, at least to get the ball rolling (so to speak). There are tons of surprise babies every year. 

On the other hand. There are a multitude of reasons to not have children as well. You might possibility be biologically unable or you partner might be. You (or your partner might have a trait, disease or something that you dont want to pass on to a child. In these cases, there is always adoption as an option for obtaining (lol) a child. 

Now that those thoughts are out of the way, on to the more personal decision forks. Personally, I am terrified of having children. My job only pays so well, and I know raising a child costs quite a hefty sum of money. Buying supplies, toys, clothes, and medication, and everything else I cant even begin to think of. And thats only the first few years. Later down the road, there is school, possibly a car, helping with college... The amount of money you pour into this child is staggering, let along have 2 or 3. Now, the buffer with this, is that love that a parent pours all over their relationship with this child. Bringing them into this world, and watching them grow, thinking "I made this". It changes you. I know my was more on the side no children fence. But my mom wanted at least one. I was the one that changed my dad forever. He said there is nothing on this earth as powerful as your own child. You have things you might love. You have your own parents you love. You love you husband/wife more than you love anyone else. But a child. Your child. When you see you child for the first time (according to my dad) you cant believe the amount of compassion and love that wells within your being. You know in that instance that you would do anything for this child, as long as it lives. Now that is the typical response, I think. I know there are parents that dont love their children, or dont express it in normal ways. That is just my experience. 

Other reasons I have heard or possibly more selfish, maybe. One is that having a child wrecks the woman's body for a good while, or for good. (C section, stretch marks, irreversible weight gain). And that can be hard to deal with. Never being that same pre birth mother again. Selfish? Maybe? Just because you want to keep you body? I dont know. Thats a personal choice. Another, probably a smaller percentage of individuals, might have come from large families. One older fellow I work with is married to a woman who came from a family of 10 bothers and sisters. She was one of the older ones, who spent most of her early years taking care of all the children that came after. Even though Billy ( my coworker ) wanted kids, he respects the opinion of his wife and settles for a few dogs instead. I know its not the same, but they both have had quite the adventuresome lives despite no children. 

There's a third side of this coin (the observed super position if you will) where there are couples that have kids that certainly shouldnt, at all. Unfit parents who have children, raising them in broken, abusive homes. Something else to consider, maybe would be parents with no kids is actually an unseen blessing.

Thats most of what I have now. I think its situational whether its selfish or not to not have kids. At the end of the day, is it really anyone's business than your own?


----------



## RolfXCIV (Apr 28, 2015)

Before thinking whether or not you wish to be a parent, you should think whether or not you could be a good one. Consider your own upbringing, understand where your parents failed and you could do better and vice-versa. Consider your personal characteristics, and your health concerns. Do the same with the other parent. I think you should evaluate not only the couple's capacity to raise a kid, but if any of you individually would be capable of it. Analyze if you can financially maintain a family, or provide to your child what he/she might need (don't exclude the possibility of disease). Observe your surroundings to see if it's a good place to have a childhood, and try to comprehend what could be the best place you could be to raise someone without jeopardizing your work and personal relationships. Many people don't do this exercise before having a child, even when they're in a stable marriage. You could do well in all these aspects, be a remarkable parent and still bring a bad person into the world. You could fail in all these aspects and still raise a respectable and hard-working citizen. I guess we're far too many in this world, but there are also those who defend we could bring a couple more billion into the world and still allow a self-sustainable planet, even without poverty.

You should also consider if it would bring you happiness. Some people feel better not raising children. What you do with your life is your choice only; if you're married, it becomes the choice for two.


----------



## 2Hack (Apr 28, 2015)

Spoiler



Well, personally, I love kids. (Inb4 creep jokes) I half raised my little brother. I taught him to read, taught him his second language's alphabet, I play with him, train him, raise him. It has gotten to the point where my parents get complacent, so I have to step back and remind them who the parent is. 

The whole reward system is funded purely by me. I get him all his games, and keep track of his records, ensure he sleeps on time, and remind him to be respectful. My parents don't do that much. They spoil the shit out of him to the point that he had bags under his eyes, and I had to lecture them about how bad that is. The kid is 7 now. Though I feel more like an uncle than a brother to him. 

Personally, I am completely undecided on whether I want a relationship, let alone a child. It is a ton of work, a ton of money, and a ton of stress. And if he is anything like me as a teenager, he will be hell to keep in check. 
On top of that is a bit of fear. Fear that I might be blessed with an unhealthy child. I don't know if I would be able to take that, personally.



Towards people who don't want kids, I really don't blame them. It is a massive thing to choose the do, and props for knowing whether you actually want one, rather than not wanting one. 

I mean, you can always get kids further down the line, but canceling I kid is a lot harder. Especially when it has already slipped out. 

I might adopt though. That is something you can't really go wrong with. I know for sure I would be able to give the kid a better life than what he has at the adoption center.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 28, 2015)

Blebleman said:


> I don't know about you, but I always wanted to leave something for the world. I'm not a great inventor, a man that will live on in history books or anything special -- but this is something I can do. This is the meaning of my life.
> 
> If I didn't have kids, I would have grown old, worked all those years for what, exactly?
> 
> ...


 
_*Just*_ passing on your genes to a new generation is nothing to be proud of (key word here: just), in this world and time where medicine can make anything survive for several years and reproduce it doesn't even have a value (genetically) in the "survival of the fittest" Darwinian evolution meaning to it.
I only say that nobody should be satisfied _*just*_ with having kids.
The decision not to have kids may have many different ground reasons, but let's be honest, society today is near to a capitalist dystopia, where we just live to produce and consume and repeat that cycle, almost no spirituality, just be a gear of the system (produce, consume, repeat). And people, caught in this cycle and addicted to consumerism, seek for more time for themselves to consume, hence no children (this is the selfish way to look at it, but not the only possible one).


----------



## yuyuyup (Apr 28, 2015)

Have kids when you're ready to stop contributing to the world and hope your kid can do a better job than you


----------



## Nathan Drake (Apr 28, 2015)

I personally recognize that as animals, we have a singular purpose in this life, and that's to pass on our genes to the next generation, for better or worse, nature doesn't care. For everyone hunting for some grander meaning, I can't help but chuckle a bit since science explained it unintentionally before science was even called science. That aside, this decision should go beyond science. It should stretch into the realm of personal desire and understanding, if not solely residing within it in our current world.

I was raised in a family that was certainly started by a set of parents who shouldn't have had even one kid, much less three. Although I recognize their personal desire to have children, I feel they lacked the understanding of what it took mentally and emotionally. They did not have the means, despite their desires. They looked at one aspect, not looking towards the future, and fed that aspect disregarding all the potential failures they would experience along the way and how that would come to impact their children. With that said, I think the desire for children needs to be accompanied with some level of foresight. It is something in this day and age that should only be pursued by those who can look towards the future with an understanding of the endless possibilities. Backing up to my initial paragraph, the purpose of life on some level has been lost due to rampant overpopulation in certain areas and with there being too many children already for the parents of the world. At what point does passing on your genes transcend fulfilling a purpose and enter the realm of selfishness? Is it really so selfish to not want children if you understand your own limits? Or is it more selfish to force a living being under your care because you couldn't control your own desires and balance them with your sense of rationality?

These questions aren't limited just to those to choose to create their own children. This involves those who choose to adopt, and even those that choose to act as temporary foster parents to child after child. What you'll find more often than not is selfishness where the choice to acquire offspring in some form is concerned. In my eyes, it is almost selfless to opt to not have children if you don't want them for one reason or another. You are choosing not to subject a child to your potential abuses, whether they be physical or emotional, intentional or not. You don't risk crushing another human with your own inadequacies as you perceive them, and even if you are incorrect in how you perceive yourself, you are still erring on the side of caution and rationality, recognizing and choosing not to pursue an ultimately unnecessary option.

With that said, although I do agree that children are a largely personal matter to some degree or another, that is only true until the child is born. At that point, although you are purely responsible until the birth of the child, once it's born, it becomes the responsibility of many as it continues to grow and experience life. Knowing that, I don't think the opinions of others should be completely absent from the initial decision. As humans are wont to do, we may disregard those opinions and even get angry, but there comes a time when some people need some sense slapped into them. If even an ounce of that gets through and saves a life from misery and copious inadequacy, I think that's okay. Where I don't think opinions should have any sway is when somebody doesn't want to have children. At that point, they are impacting nobody but themselves, and that is their life to choose. Calling them selfish for not feeling like they should be responsible for the total care of another human, even feeling unable, is crude and lacking in any critical thought.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Apr 28, 2015)

I don't know how old you are but I think you would regret your decision later when you get older. You die knowing that you could have brought beautiful children to the world who loves you and call you papa. You see them grow up, go to school, get a job... Living without giving life feels incomplete.


----------



## HtheB (Apr 28, 2015)

I'm going to be a father (for the first time) soon...


----------



## Blebleman (Apr 29, 2015)

WiiUBricker said:


> I don't know how old you are but I think you would regret your decision later when you get older. You die knowing that you could have brought beautiful children to the world who loves you and call you papa. You see them grow up, go to school, get a job... Living without giving life feels incomplete.


 

Or see them become unproductive man-children that spend all their time playing MMOs! 

That's a whole other issue though!


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Apr 29, 2015)

Kids make things dirty.

I don't like things getting dirty.


----------



## HtheB (Apr 29, 2015)

ProtoKun7 said:


> Kids make things dirty.
> 
> I don't like things getting dirty.


You were once a kid too...

(oh and don't come up with weird responses like "I'm from a different universe" stuff...)


----------



## WiiUBricker (Apr 29, 2015)

Blebleman said:


> Or see them become unproductive man-children that spend all their time playing MMOs!
> 
> That's a whole other issue though!


Well it's your responsibility that they won't become like that!


----------



## Depravo (Apr 29, 2015)

I don't understand how not having/wanting children could make a person selfish. Not having children is one of the most socially and environmentally responsible things a person can do. The world would be a better place if more people had less children.


----------



## Vipera (Apr 29, 2015)

The process to have kids is unfair.

You have a couple. He's a doctor, she's a banker, both in their 30s and both make a decent salary. However, after years of trying to have one, she realized that she's sterile and can't have one. Ever.
You have another couple. He's an unemployed deadbeat, she is a housewife in her grandma's house, they aren't even 20 and she's pregnant.

It's so unfair for some people to have it easy (so easy that most of the time is an accident) while there are people who can afford everything for their kid yet they can't have it. I know all those people and let me tell you, it really breaks your heart when you hear that your friend who's been trying to get pregnant can't and will never be while your slutty ex is probably going to have a second kid she can't take care for.

And I don't get why many poor people decide to have kids like rabbits. I know families in South Italy that have no less than 5 kids and they live in the poorest side of the country. Why are you going to make so many if you can't afford them? Especially in a country where the government aid is a joke when it comes to babies? It pisses me off when I hear stuff like this, because these people can't afford what they are putting in this world and then they are going to blame someone else. Good God.

This being said, there are many different reasons on why someone does not want to have kids. Someone I used to know blatantly said she hated them. Someone else said he'd rather wait to be economically stable. Someone else said he needs a woman first. And so on. This is not being selfish. Having a dozen of kids you can't afford and then pretending to get more money from the government is.

Personally, I am going to wait until I am in my 30s. And even then, I want to be able to afford everything for my son/daughter, in terms of medical and educative support. But for now, give me beer.


----------



## RevPokemon (Apr 29, 2015)

My parents were married for many years before they adopted me as they had medical issues yet despite them being older I had a fine childhood. When you have kids is 100% up to the couple no matter what.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 29, 2015)

Depravo said:


> I don't understand how not having/wanting children could make a person selfish. Not having children is one of the most socially and environmentally responsible things a person can do. The world would be a better place if more people had less children.


 
I don't think you can pull the environmental part to people like eg. Argentinians, that historically had a rate of slightly above 2 children for couple and, being its landmass 9 times that of Germany, it has less than half its population (that has increased in a very insignificant way in the last 30 years, almost stable population).
Of course the socially responsible part still applies. You should only have kids you can raise.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 29, 2015)

Vipera said:


> The process to have kids is unfair.
> 
> You have a couple. He's a doctor, she's a banker, *both in their 30s* and both make a decent salary. However, after years of trying to have one, she realized that she's sterile and can't have one. Ever.
> You have another couple. He's an unemployed deadbeat, she is a housewife in her grandma's house, *they aren't even 20 *and she's pregnant.



That would be basic biology underpinning much of that -- http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a6155/your-age-and-fertility?ModPagespeed=noscript



WiiUBricker said:


> I don't know how old you are but I think you would regret your decision later when you get older. You die knowing that you could have brought beautiful children to the world who loves you and call you papa. You see them grow up, go to school, get a job... Living without giving life feels incomplete.



Old enough that the link above would place me at the statistically less likely than not to have kids if I stick with women my own age. I just hope I do not suffer "accidents" like various friends have these last few years. As for seeing people grow up, go to schools, get jobs... wouldn't I have to do all that first to have an appreciation of it?
As for living without giving life then what if I taught someone to think like me? For me though the incomplete thing is just another biological imperative like the one that says sugar and salt laden butter is tasty, you should eat it because the chemistry that underpins me is quite well adapted for living on a savannah 20000 years ago where that was rare and valuable.


----------



## Catastrophic (Apr 29, 2015)

I personally do not believe I will ever have children. I don't really have the mental capacity or want to do so. There is absolutely nothing I could give to a child.


----------



## jonthedit (Apr 29, 2015)

The "you are selfish" card for people who do not have children is just a way to guilt trip those into enabling a weakness. Children are a way to weaken you and "lock you" into place.
When you have no family/children/spouse you can leave everything behind if you chose to.
By having children you are "strung down" and less likely to go on a rampage, stop being productive in society, etc.

Honestly though, if someone is swayed by being called selfish they likely are not going to go and commit a social atrocity, so the selfish card is aimed to those who are on a smaller scale.
I by no means am saying children are bad/there are no goods things about children.
I am just saying my opinion as to what I believe why society would prefer you to have children.


----------



## Vipera (Apr 29, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> That would be basic biology underpinning much of that -- http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a6155/your-age-and-fertility?ModPagespeed=noscript


I know, and this is still very unfair. I'm glad artificial insemination and renting uterus is slowly becoming the norm.


----------



## RevPokemon (Apr 29, 2015)

Vipera said:


> I know, and this is still very unfair. I'm glad artificial insemination and renting uterus is slowly becoming the norm.


Thats true but only issue is some couples may be against it due to their beliefs on the such


----------



## Vipera (Apr 29, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Thats true but only issue is some couples may be against it due to their beliefs on the such


If they refuse to do that to themselves, that's fine. If they want to push their nosense beliefs on other people they can all fuck off. There is nothing unethical in those things.


----------



## RevPokemon (Apr 29, 2015)

Vipera said:


> If they refuse to do that to themselves, that's fine. If they want to push their nosense beliefs on other people they can all fuck off. There is nothing unethical in those things.


I agree with you 100% but sadly due to the belief of some the option is limited to others


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 29, 2015)

Vipera said:


> I know, and this is still very unfair. I'm glad artificial insemination and renting uterus is slowly becoming the norm.



I am not sure I can call biology "unfair"... it is a concept that does not exist within it.

Mind you the development of an artificial uterus/womb is one that I would find fascinating. I shall have to look to see how far along such things are.


----------



## nxwing (Apr 29, 2015)

The VinsClones are wrong, or at least it my opinion.

The best part would be seeing them all grown up and successful and happy, just what you raised them to be.


----------



## DjoeN (Apr 29, 2015)

If you have discussed this with your partner and agreed on it, You are fully right if your opinion is not having childeren, it's a personal choice where no one has the right to blame you.

I have 3 kids my own (3 girls, wich includes a twin) I'm happy i choose for kids, but you have to agree kids costs you alot of money, take alot of effort from both partners and you have to be dedicated to them, it's a responsibility for life (taking the good and the bad with it), if you can't do that or not willing to do that or any other reason, it's indeed better to stay childless. I respect every persons choice it's not selfish or whatever bad the say.

It's far more worse like other people i know who split and both partners are always happy when the kids leave for the week to the other partner, that's selfish and disqusting. just so the can go out every night and do things the never do when the kids are around (sports, going on holiday, eating out, roadtrips, etc...)


----------



## TecXero (Apr 29, 2015)

I don't really understand the stigma against people that don't want children. I'm not that fond of the idea right now, as I couldn't afford to have my boyfriend move in, much less have a child with him. Even when we're to that point, we'll probably adopt.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 29, 2015)

DjoeN said:


> If you have discussed this with your partner and agreed on it, You are fully right if your opinion is not having childeren, it's a personal choice where no one has the right to blame you.
> 
> It's far more worse like other people i know who split and both partners are always happy when the kids leave for the week to the other partner, that's selfish and disqusting. just so the can go out every night and do things the never do when the kids are around (sports, going on holiday, eating out, roadtrips, etc...)



Do I have to discuss it with a partner? Equally do I need a partner to have children?

As for "when the kids leave" I kind of like that model. For me it would be the logical extension of the difference between parenting by being on the couch more or less always and parenting by actually doing something, even if that is only 20 hours a week.




ArnoDorian said:


> The VinsClones are wrong, or at least it my opinion.
> 
> The best part would be seeing them all grown up and successful and happy, just what you raised them to be.



So that is a 20-30 year gamble, albeit one you can theoretically influence the outcome of, with a wager of probably about the price of a house or fancy car and time from some of the peak years of life in the average human. That would have to be some payoff. Equally "just what you raised them to be", I kind of prefer the "give them the tools and let them figure it out" approach.


----------



## BullyWiiPlaza (Apr 29, 2015)

Smart/good people need to get more children and losers/panhandlers need to get banned to have more than e.g. 1 or maybe 2 children because it ruins society to feed the lazy/incompetent and charge the hard-working/smart. Call me selfish or racist but I for sure won't die before I got at least 1 or 2 children since I consider myself as decent human being (with a University degree et cetera) therefore far better than average. It's irresponsible to get children when you can't handle the monetary responsibility so know your position in society before you do stupid things.


----------



## Bimmel (Apr 29, 2015)

BullyWiiPlaza said:


> Smart/good people need to get more children and losers/panhandlers need to get banned to have more than e.g. 1 or maybe 2 children because it ruins society to feed the lazy/incompetent and charge the hard-working/smart. Call me selfish or racist but I for sure won't die before I got at least 1 or 2 children since I consider myself as decent human being (with a University degree et cetera) therefore far better than average. It's irresponsible to get children when you can't handle the monetary responsibility so know your position in society before you do stupid things.


I won't call you anything, but think about it for a minute.

Even lazy or incompetent people have a soul and their individual needs. Would you want to be restricted because of your social status or the work you do? 
And what is a "better than average" human anyway? Someone with with a special degree?

Does that really make sense?


----------



## Catastrophic (Apr 29, 2015)

Bimmel said:


> Does that really make sense?


 
Does having a degree make you a better parent?


----------



## RolfXCIV (Apr 29, 2015)

BullyWiiPlaza said:


> Smart/good people need to get more children and losers/panhandlers need to get banned to have more than e.g. 1 or maybe 2 children because it ruins society to feed the lazy/incompetent and charge the hard-working/smart. Call me selfish or racist but I for sure won't die before I got at least 1 or 2 children since I consider myself as decent human being (with a University degree et cetera) therefore far better than average. It's irresponsible to get children when you can't handle the monetary responsibility so know your position in society before you do stupid things.


 
You have an idea everyone has had since the dawn of civilization. We all see and know people that should never have children, in our perspective. But, who's to judge? Civilization has progressed with everyone, and its setbacks were also provoked by hard-working, smart people. We're still not ready for it, as a society. I don't know if that point will ever come. We shouldn't act like we know everything, for limiting our reproduction in such a drastic way shouldn't be done until we achieve an unsurmountable and irrepreensible amount of knowledge. Even then, perhaps we'll come to an understanding that such limitation should never exist. Furthermore, society is never receptive to change; a democratic state could never have the power or right to limit people's choice of having a child, nor could they enforce it. The most we can hope to do is to continuously improve our education, healthcare, vigilance; change certain constructs and behaviours so that we use the least possible resources and help the environment as much as possible; learn everything we have on Earth, and achieve progress in space exploration; scientifically understand any tidbit of human biology. And then, evolve in whatever new way in which we find faults with ourselves.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 29, 2015)

Catastrophic said:


> Does having a degree make you a better parent?


 
Not at all, it makes no difference whatsoever. I don't know where did he pull that off.
Having a degree perhaps (and only perhaps) implies you can somewhat take care of yourself (no, it is a lie, it doesn't implies anything, a degree per se is worthless), but it says nothing of your compromise with others.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Apr 29, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> Not at all, it makes no difference whatsoever. I don't know where did he pull that off.
> Having a degree perhaps (and only perhaps) implies you can somewhat take care of yourself (no, it is a lie, it doesn't implies anything, a degree per se is worthless), but it says nothing of your compromise with others.


 
I don't think the point was that having a degree makes you more responsible or whatever, but rather having a better chance for higher levels of employment and income that would in-turn allow you to reasonably take care of a child's financial needs.

Anyways, my opinion is much like my opinion about everything else; I don't really care one way or the other. I love children. I have a cousin who has a little girl, and she's probably the cutest, funnest, and just all around the greatest thing to me, I'd do anything for her. By that logic, I should want to have children like her, too, right?

Not so much. If my spouse didn't want to have children for whatever reason, I would not argue and plead or beg, I would accept it and move on with life. Same for if they wanted a child, I would try my hardest () to conceive a child and I imagine I'd love it more than anything in the world.

But I don't need to pass my genes on to anyone, I come from a relatively large family. So...meh


----------



## haxan (Apr 29, 2015)

Cherry Pie said:


> It certainly is


 
try raising them...


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 29, 2015)

haxan said:


> try raising them...


I always use protection


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 29, 2015)

Fuck kids.

I don't want any.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Apr 29, 2015)

Personally, I hope none of the writers of Cracked have children.


----------



## DinohScene (Apr 29, 2015)

I never want kids.
I bloody hate children.

All they do is wreck yer shit for 10 years and cry and scream and be annoying, making you spend 10.000's, after that, puberty.
They start turning against you, and with me past, I dun want me kids to be addicted to the same rubbish I was as well.
After that they leave you when their 20 ish, then yer unattractive, probably chainsmoking yerself into the grave of all the stress they caused.

2 decades of hell, no thanks.
Not to mention I'm gay so I'll never get kids of me own ;'D

tl;dr, fuck children, let someone else raise those monsters.


----------



## Sheimi (Apr 29, 2015)

This is a question my family asked me "Why don't you have kids". I like kids, but I do not want kids currently. I need to get myself more financially stable and a bit more mature. I may adopt in the future.


----------



## Flame (Apr 29, 2015)

I want to have kids with lots of woman, just not look after the kids.



#modern


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 29, 2015)

I can empathize with the legacy related stuff but personally, I just don't want kids. I use protection/make sure my girl is using the pill, but anything can happen. I would take care of my kids if I do have one by accident, but tbh I just really really don't want any kids, at least not now. I don't care about legacy or anything like that; I just want to enjoy life and kids would add a LOT of new responsibilities that would prevent my girl and I from having fun. I can be good with kids but high pitched noises drive me nuts. I wouldn't be willing to get a vasectomy or anything, but for now, no screaming babies please!


----------



## GameSystem (Apr 29, 2015)

I'm not athletically or intellectually gifted, so I won't ever have kids. No point in continuing a line of sub-par humans. I suffered and struggled all throughout my life because of my lack of ability just to get to my current point of mediocrity, and I would never want a child to go through that. If I manage to trick some beautiful, 200+ IQ, Olympic athlete to get married to me, I might reconsider.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 30, 2015)

GameSystem said:


> *If I manage to trick some beautiful, 200+ IQ, Olympic athlete to get married to me, I might reconsider.*


 
That itself would prove you have some interesting genes related to business/politics/tricking intelligence, that may be worth passing on... Or dangerous...


----------



## elmoemo (Apr 30, 2015)

Having kids isn't for everyone. I want kids but not for a few years as I'm still too selfish. Each to their own, nothing wrong with not having/wanting kids. Each to their own, its your life after all


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 30, 2015)

If people don't have children, how would the human race continue?  Though I know of plenty of people personally who should be sterilized and not allowed to have or be near children.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 30, 2015)

the_randomizer said:


> If people don't have children, how would the human race continue? Though I know of plenty of people personally who should be sterilized and not allowed to have or be near children.


 
You should probably think about that when the problem turns out to be underpopulation, right now in most places it is the other way around.
On these times where there are not as many wars, medicine and health prevent so many young deaths, and the population doesn't need constant replacement, there is no reason to keep up the people production rates to the levels of the past.


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 30, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> You should probably think about that when the problem turns out to be underpopulation, right now in most places it is the other way around.
> On these times where there are not as many wars, medicine and health prevent so many young deaths, and the population doesn't need constant replacement, there is no reason to keep up the people production rates to the levels of the past.


 

Well, countries like Japan are actually suffering from reverse birthrates, so they could use more children.


----------



## Blebleman (Apr 30, 2015)

the_randomizer said:


> Well, countries like Japan are actually suffering from reverse birthrates, so they could use more children.


 
Glad to know I'm doing my part!

But also, while it's true the world in general is overpopulated, a sudden dramatic negative change in birth rate would demolish the economy and leave us with ghost towns, run-down buildings and other fun things....never thought that not having babies would lead to Fallout 3... hmm..


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 30, 2015)

the_randomizer said:


> Well, countries like Japan are actually suffering from reverse birthrates, so they could use more children.


 
Or they could endorse immigration from India or China (like that will ever happen, ROFL, no... no... please myself, don't say that, Japanese are not xenophobes)
TBH, maybe Indians couples should start considering not having more than two kids, if they continue with that slope they will not fit in the land anymore... Perhaps?


----------



## GameSystem (Apr 30, 2015)

I'm pretty sure some study somewhere said that the entire world's population could fit in Texas. India running out of room won't be an issue.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Apr 30, 2015)

I can see why some people would prefer not to.

Reasons:
1) They'd limit you from feeling free
2) Another mouth to feed
3) Worry about them.
4) Take care of them.

But would you really want to go out without having a future yourself rather than just making your existence gone forever?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 30, 2015)

GameSystem said:


> I'm pretty sure some study somewhere said that the entire world's population could fit in Texas. India running out of room won't be an issue.


 
Probably, could be... I don't know if in Texas, but they could for sure fit in Argentina that, as I said in some post before, is underpopulated as hell and no one there cares (I suppose we love big empty spaces of... land... between our underpopulated cities, and so travelling is boring as hell).


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Apr 30, 2015)

Do I want kids?...the short answer is no never.

Long answer; I like children I really do, my mother was a day care provider for most of my teen years so I learned how to get them to listen to you and get along with them. Not knowing how to take care of them is not the issue. It's just I don't want to. I firstly do have the income to support them as kids are VERY expensive, sure there is warfare but I hate how easy it is to abuse this system. No I want to support them on my own 100%. I live a very minimalist lifestyle in which I only make 50K a year however because of this lifestyle I'm able to save a ton of cash really fast and travel around a lot; or I can quit my job tomorrow and be fine without ANY extra income for the next two years. This is what freedom is to me and this is something I value above everything else. I have walk off jobs when I was not able to take my vacations to place XYZ because they needed me.


----------



## VinsCool (Apr 30, 2015)

I don't want childrens for now. Maybe 8-10 years later.
If of course my GF is still with me by then.


----------



## Catastrophic (Apr 30, 2015)

Flame said:


> I want to have kids with lots of woman, just not look after the kids.
> 
> 
> 
> #modern


 
Sperm banks sure are great, aren't they?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2015)

As a white European I feel that I have a civic duty to have at least two kids, preferably three or more, in order to preserve our lifestyle and culture. We're suffering from a low reproduction rate and if it continues, we might simply go extinct. The pursuit of careers is at fault here, people don't have the time or resources to have children and the effects are obvious - if two people have one child, the next generation will be smaller than the former. Two kids keep the population at the same size. Three and up is an increase and that's the best scenario. This might sound xenophobic but it really isn't - we're dying out and we're being replaced by middle easterners. Houari Boumedienne is credited with the famous quote "The wombs of our women will give us victory" and today more than ever these words ring true. The average western family does not produce enough offspring to sustain itself, the situation is reversed in eastern societies that follow a more traditional family model. If we want the west to survive, we have to start having children again and one is not enough. Western values will die along with westerners unless we do something about it. This wouldn't be a problem if immigrants from the middle east assimilated, but they don't - they create their own pocket societies more often than not.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Apr 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> As a white European I feel that I have a civic duty to have at least two kids, preferably three or more, in order to preserve our lifestyle and culture. We're suffering from a low reproduction rate and if it continues, we might simply go extinct. The pursuit of careers is at fault here, people don't have the time or resources to have children and the effects are obvious - if two people have one child, the next generation will be smaller than the former. Two kids produce an expansion. Three and up is an increase and that's the best scenario. This might sound xenophobic but it really isn't - we're dying out and we're being replaced by middle easterners. Houari Boumedienne is credited with the famous quote "The wombs of our women will give us victory" and today more than ever these words ring true. The average western family does not produce enough offspring to sustain itself, the situation is reversed in eastern societies that follow a more traditional family model. If we want the west to survive, we have to start having children again and one is not enough. Western values will die along with westerners unless we do something about it. This wouldn't be a problem if immigrants from the middle east assimilated, but they don't - they create their own pocket societies more often than not.


 
I hate to say it too, but sadly Europe is becoming "Eurabia" as it's getting to be more about middle eastern people and Africans so whites are in a decrease and it saddens me because it's more of foreigners than anything else.

As much as I love my nieces as well as my nephews, I adore them a bit less because they're not white and I know this sounds racist but it just feels like we're losing way too much. *sigh*

Just take UK for example, most Brits have left it or don't live in the centre and due to that the majority of its residents are Arabics, Indians, Pakistans, Africans and all that, and regardless if they call themselves "British" they aren't as their skin colour, roots and blood aren't truly British.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 30, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> I hate to say it too, but sadly Europe is becoming "Eurabia" as it's getting to be more about middle eastern people and Africans so whites are in a decrease and it saddens me because it's more of foreigners than anything else.
> 
> As much as I love my nieces as well as my nephews, I adore them a bit less because they're not white and I know this sounds racist but it just feels like we're losing way too much. *sigh*
> 
> Just take UK for example, most Brits have left it or don't live in the centre and due to that the majority of its residents are Arabics, Indians, Pakistans, Africans and all that, and regardless if they call themselves "British" they aren't as their skin colour, roots and blood aren't truly British.


 
Meh... You are racist (regarding the white part for sure).
Who cares about pure or mixed genetics? Actually mixed genetics is probably best due to gene pool diversity.
The part that I don't like about it is this:


Foxi4 said:


> This wouldn't be a problem if immigrants from the middle east assimilated, _*but they don't - they create their own pocket societies more often than not*_.


This makes your own culture disappear (not so) slowly, and as much as I kind of give a fuck about genetics, losing one nation's culture is horrible.
I don't like that part of it...


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2015)

I'd like to point out that I'm not arguing against immigration - I'm an immigrant myself. I'm tolerant and I welcome everyone who wishes to adapt to living in a western society, but it's within everyone's liberty to choose whether or not to do so and I'm not going to force beliefs down anyone's throat. What I'm talking about is preservation of values that I believe in, values that should be passed on to the next generation and ones that are not necessarily welcome in immigrant societies. I want Europe to survive as Europe, not a hub of conflict between scattered ghettos of different minorities. I believe in equality, freedom of expression and liberty - I don't want them replaced with imported values that are potentially oppressive and unjust.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Apr 30, 2015)

@ Sark

Israel and Japan aren't open arms to foreigners for a reason as they prefer to have their own people rather than outside strangers and I can see why they'd do that, problem is, doing so means those said people are going to be shipped to some European country or US.

You can call me racist all you want but that's just how I feel about it.


----------



## VinsCool (Apr 30, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> @ Sark
> 
> Israel and Japan aren't open arms to foreigners for a reason as they prefer to have their own people rather than outside strangers and I can see why they'd do that, problem is, doing so means those said people are going to be shipped to some European country or US.
> 
> You can call me racist all you want but that's just how I feel about it.


 
I don't see why this is a problem.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Apr 30, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> I don't see why this is a problem.


They want to hold on to their own values, culture and people who were originally from said country as allowing foreigners would make them no different from an European country that's already filled with more than it should.

It's just what happens with multiculturalism. Different people, different religions/politics and ultimately it'll create problems.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2015)

Immigration is a two-way street in my mind - if you immigrate, you should adapt to your new surroundings, not demand change of said surroundings to better fit your world view. Preserving one's culture is definitely important sarkwalvein and I'm not saying that immigrants should forget their roots - they should definitely celebrate them. At the same time however they are required to assimilate - pick up the baseline social rules of their new home rather than impose their own values on others. They made the first step and chose to relocate, they were welcomed into the society, they should return in kindness by contributing to the greater good and adapting.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 30, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> @ Sark
> 
> Israel and Japan aren't open arms to foreigners for a reason as they prefer to have their own people rather than outside strangers and I can see why they'd do that, problem is, doing so means those said people are going to be shipped to some European country or US.
> 
> You can call me racist all you want but that's just how I feel about it.


I understand your point and what you want to prevent, only that I think it is more related to culture than to genes.
I won't be a hypocrite in this regard, I completely agree with the idea of maintaining the culture and lifestyle of your Nation. Only that I think this is not related to genes but to culture and it wouldn't be a problem if immigrants adapted and fitted into western society.
But:


Foxi4 said:


> I'm an immigrant myself. I'm tolerant and I welcome everyone who wishes to adapt to living in a western society, but it's within everyone's liberty to choose whether or not to do so and I'm not going to force beliefs down anyone's throat.


Telling someone that they should take forget their (probably oppressive) values, take your own values as the worthy ones and adapt to your society would probably be... not a good idea... of course anyone would take that as an offense.
But hell, if you go to live in somebody else country, you should do your part and try to fit.
Ah... I don't like it because of that. The not trying to fit part.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2015)

I don't think "fitting in" and "preserving one's cultural identity" can't co-exist. I'm not saying that muslims should turn christian all of a sudden, but they have to realize that they're in a new environment now and have to adapt to their circumstances. I could spend some time riding the offensive line of things that are not welcome in the west, but I don't think that's constructive. Let's just say that if your customs go directly against the law of the country you've relocated to, you should stop practicing them.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Apr 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't think "fitting in" and "preserving one's cultural identity" can't co-exist. I'm not saying that muslims should turn christian all of a sudden, but they have to realize that they're in a new environment now have to adapt to their circumstances. I could spend some time riding the offensive line of things that are not welcome in the west, but I don't think that's constructive. Let's just say that if your customs go directly against the law of the country you've relocated to, you should stop practicing them.


 
Muslims in UK (or more so London) have tried to make the Sharia Law an official law and this just wouldn't bond well at all because it has people from all kinds of religions, beliefs and countries so by doing so they'd be forcing western women to read scarfs and hide their hair (maybe faces too) plus other stuff.

I personally think Muslims in UK are normally fine people but then there are those extremist whom want to shove their believes in others by taking their lives and so on.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> _*I don't think "fitting in" and "preserving one's cultural identity" are mutually exclusive*_. I'm not saying that muslims should turn christian all of a sudden, but they have to realize that they're in a new environment now have to adapt to their circumstances. I could spend some time riding the offensive line of things that are not welcome in the west, but I don't think that's constructive. Let's just say that if your customs go directly against the law of the country you've relocated to, you should stop practicing them.


 
I don't think so either, but the easy way is normally taken, that is to just form a Ghetto and think of it as an extension of your own country, instead of trying to fit in into society while preserving your culture.
Perhaps countries that decide to take immigrants (or in this case let's be clear, refugees) should go out of their way in allocating resources to help them adapt to society somewhat, I suppose many times they don't even try to fit because of language and education..
I don't really know, but I think it should go with a slogan like "adopt immigrants responsibly", and if you do as a country, you must also go out of your way to make the adapting and fitting as swift as possible (even if this should actually be the responsibility of the immigrant).
Hell, I come from a country made 100% of immigrants, I don't see this kind of problems there (normally, at least not related to immigrants from the middle east and there are  many).


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2015)

I think religion is a mucky subject so I'll try avoid it altogether, there are worse problems to worry about. Not to throw around empty posts, female genital mutilation is one such problem. I'm sorry, but it's just not acceptable in our society and it's not even a religious practice, so it can't be shielded by the right to practice religion of your choice (although I have problems with certain religious doctrines if they have a direct effect on day-to-day life of others or are downright illegal in other circumstances, like for instance the jewish ritual slaughter of cows without stunning them). There can be no tolerance for illegally mutilating women, we're not barbarians.


----------



## RolfXCIV (Apr 30, 2015)

I think the whole idea of preserving identity and fitting in is wrong, as well as trying to rise a new one. To me, every citizen should abide by the countries' rules, if they're in agreement with the international laws. To me, the ideal would be for everyone to have their lives in full concordance with the country's functionality (learn the local language, please) and there shouldn't be any communities, but close friends and family at best. In the UK other ethnicities tend to organise themselves in separate communities, and that's their fault, but you have to understand that they probably weren't that welcomed at first. I've traveled to the UK several times as a caucasian from EU with just an ID and never had any problem, but when I see someone sitting in customs they usually seem indian, arab, or eastern asian. In Portugal, there's a discrimination against romani and black people, and it has xenophobic shames from the past.



WiiCube_2013 said:


> I hate to say it too, but sadly Europe is becoming "Eurabia" as it's getting to be more about middle eastern people and Africans so whites are in a decrease and it saddens me because it's more of foreigners than anything else.
> As much as I love my nieces as well as my nephews, I adore them a bit less because they're not white and I know this sounds racist but it just feels like we're losing way too much. *sigh*
> Just take UK for example, most Brits have left it or don't live in the centre and due to that the majority of its residents are Arabics, Indians, Pakistans, Africans and all that, and regardless if they call themselves "British" they aren't as their skin colour, roots and blood aren't truly British.


 
British isn't an ethnicity. It's a mix of celts, romans, anglo-saxons, norsemen, normans; excluding all the europeans that moved and reproduced there, as well as the influence left by colonialism and the days of Empire. The first people that moved to Britain either perished with the Ice Age or ran away to southern Europe. European countries are all intertwined by blood, at this moment it's thought we're almost all blood related to the british royal family. Try to comprehend that it's a positive thing to be a multicultural country, because the people become biologically stronger from it. It's a natural feeling, to like someone less because they aren't from the same colour; what you can do about it is rationally understand there is no reason for it.


----------



## BullyWiiPlaza (Apr 30, 2015)

Bimmel said:


> Even lazy or incompetent people have a soul and their individual needs. Would you want to be restricted because of your social status or the work you do?
> And what is a "better than average" human anyway? Someone with with a special degree?
> 
> Does that really make sense?


A human who deserves to exist more is someone who contributes to society. A degree proves that you're skilled at something and it grants you more money when you work so it helps the economy to grow. The other people however who use society as a net to fall into and not give anything back simply because they can these days, don't.


Catastrophic said:


> Does having a degree make you a better parent?


It doesn't tell anything about how good as a parent you are but it doesn't matter since you're making sure that your children will accomplish something like yourself so it's again helping to society. The son of a welfare recipient will most likely be one too which holds society back from progressing because others have to work for them to live. Where would we be without hard-working and smart people? Still in the stone age all trying to survive forever and nothing else.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 30, 2015)

BullyWiiPlaza said:


> A human who deserves to exist more is someone who contributes to society. A degree proves that you're skilled at something and it grants you more money when you work so it helps the economy to grow. The other people however who use society as a net to fall into and not give anything back simply because they can these days, don't.
> 
> It doesn't tell anything about how good as a parent you are but it doesn't matter since you're making sure that your children will accomplish something like yourself so it's again helping to society. The son of a welfare recipient will most likely be one too which holds society back from progressing because others have to work for them to live. Where would we be without hard-working and smart people? Still in the stone age all trying to survive forever and nothing else.


 
Well, I believe that contributing to society is important, and particularly in Germany having a degree or at least an Ausbildung is necessary for that most of the time as it is a highly specialized society.
It is not the same everywhere and for everyone, one can be a productive member of society without a degree, but nevertheless the strong point there is "contributing to society".
People that just live out of the state as leeches without giving anything back are shameless... It is OK to receive public aid just as a temporary measure, but when your life is based on that with no plan of moving on... nope... not good.
And I also agree, those shameless habits are generally taught to children and carried on to the next generation unfortunately.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 30, 2015)

For fuck's sake, there's no such thing as someone who "doesn't deserve to exist". That's just heartless, sociopathic thinking and that type of shit certainly isn't doing the human race any favors. Relationships(which of course include reproduction) can't be boiled down to cold logic; they're deeper than that. I'm not saying people who say those types of things have no conscience, but what about those who are severely mentally and/or physically disabled who want to live happy, full lives which includes sex? Of course traits like that shouldn't be passed on if you look at it from a purely logical standpoint but relationships/love and in turn, having children is a complicated issue that can't ever simply be boiled down to genetics and logic. Judge not lest you be judged, and that applies even if you're not religious at all.

Still though, I have no desire to have kids at this point in time. I have higher than average intelligence, a super immune system(got over chickenpox in 3 days, the flu in 5 etc.) and people from my dad's side of the family(where my immune system comes from) generally live past 95, sometimes over 100. I'm not athletic but I am sturdy, healthy and somewhat strong. Strength comes from my mom's side, but I don't have that quick twitch gene/genes. I simply don't have the proper mindset required to raise kids at the moment, and the last thing I want is to have kids and be a shitty father.


----------



## GreenZeldaCap (Apr 30, 2015)

Interesting topic. I'm neutral both ways. Somebody has to reproduce at the end of the day. Otherwise, the human race would be naught.


----------



## cdoty (Apr 30, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Anyway cracked had an article where one of its writers had apparently been called selfish for not having/wanting children. I have seen some people look people oddly for not wanting children (the favour is returned in kind) but that one was new to me.


 
The people that should be getting the looks are people that have kids when they don't want them or are incapable of raising them properly.
I respect people that can, for whatever reason, decide they don't want kids and follow through with it.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 30, 2015)

cdoty said:


> The people that should be getting the looks are people that have kids when they don't want them or are incapable of raising them properly.
> I respect people that can, for whatever reason, decide they don't want kids and follow through with it.


 
Can't argue with you there. People who are careless when it comes to sex are a big problem because they create unwanted children that are often neglected, abused etc. Some people are just idiots unfortunately, although not necessarily bad people or anything. There are also people who have kids just because they want to conform to societal norms/blend in, but you need to actually have your heart in it if you plan on having children. Too many people see kids as objects, and I'm sure anyone reading this knows at least a few shitty parents who fit this description.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 30, 2015)

I wouldn't really call it selfish. What's selfish are those people who have unplanned children, but don't raise them. Y'know? Good on you for having plans for your life and sticking to them. That's not what bothers me.

I could go more in depth, but that line sums it up for me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2015)

This reminds me of an interesting study. I can't quite recall the names of the researchers involved, but they looked into the correlation between lower crime rates and legalization of abortions and came to the conclusion that a smaller number of unwanted pregnancies lead directly to a lower crime rates 20 years later. Turns out that a good portion of unwanted kids grow up to be thugs since planned parenthood isn't/wasn't practiced by low status families. Food for thought, I suppose.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 30, 2015)

It was the freakonomics people


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 30, 2015)

I don't want to have kids for a number of reasons. Now I could put it blunt and say I just don't care for the idea. But there is more do it, such as health and money concerns. Currently I live in an apartment that I can barely afford, despite everyone living with me having a job. Next I actually suffer from a medical condition where my immune system attacks my nervous system, which can result of a few things. One being that I am unable to always function from the pain and the pain killers I need tend to knock me out, which leaves me unable to do much to raise a child. I also suffer from some very serious and crippling depression, which can keep my down for week to months, something I don't want a child to live with. Nothing seems sadder than the idea of child having to try and help their parent just do daily things because they are trapped in a mental war with themselves or a child missing out on simple things like meals because their parent can't get the willpower just to cook.
I don't want kids because I care about their future. I know well enough that if I can't even take care of myself, that I shouldn't drag a child into that. I need to fix myself before I can even think about bringing a child into my life.


----------



## VashTS (Apr 30, 2015)

the problem is that "selfish" has a negative connotation. you can be selfish but still a good person. 

it is selfish to not have kids, the reason that you can focus on yourself and other relationships or goals in life. that is not a bad idea. 

i wouldn't judge anyone for choosing to not have kids - there is a lot you can do without the burden.

i do judge people who have kids and are not fit to be in the position.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 30, 2015)

I also find the argument of "it's selfish" to be just narrow-minded. People can also be selfish and want to have kids. Some people want to have kids because _want _to have kids, which is basically a selfish action onto itself. Some people want to have kids because they think it "fix" something, which is selfish. 
Basically no one is without fault. Kids don't magically make someone "unselfish," and not having them does not make someone "selfish." It just means we choose different ways we live our own personal lives.


----------



## Hungry Friend (May 1, 2015)

What if someone with a crippling mental disorder or something chooses not to have kids because they don't want to pass such things on? I'd call that more selfless than selfish, so deciding to have kids or not can't be put into a one-size-fits-all box. There are millions of possible variables.


----------



## xeronut (May 1, 2015)

I always wanted children when I was younger.  I was the only teenager I knew (male, at that) to talk about wanting to start a family.  Most of the guys looked at me like I was tetched in the head.   I received lectures almost weekly from my mother about how she wanted me to start a family - "But your brothers did it!" - and I was the target of a lot of the "selfish choice" rhetoric as well.  Time wore on and relationships came and went - none of them felt like mommy types, as I was more a father to them than I was a partner.  My friends, brothers and coworkers all started families.  I learned in spending time with them that it wasn't a father I wanted to be - it was an uncle.  We get all the good stuff and aren't terribly obligated to clean up the BS.  If I want kids, there are tons of single moms out there that I'm sure wouldn't mind fidelity, an extra paycheck and schlong-on-demand.  I love kids.. I just don't have any.

The "selfish" line never really sat well with me, having seen my father and both of my (younger) brothers fail so miserably at parenthood.  None were prepared, none performed when they were needed most, and all blamed everyone else for their mistakes.  I'd rather not bring my own kids into the world and direct my attention to children already here (nieces, nephews, step/adopted kids, mentoring) than start a family I know I or my partner aren't ready to provide for.


----------



## go-vegan (May 1, 2015)

i read only first post and here's my view:

it is estimated , there is 7.5 billion humans on this planet and growing fast.
most of world's population lives in poverty and struggling to survive.
this planet just don't have that much resources for all of us.
despite that, in 3'rd world countries the poorer they are, the more children they make.
why? they want them to suffer like they did? or they can't control their primitive instincts? you decide.

99 % of the people are not aware why do they want children.
because it is genetic program they are following and not reason or logic.
genes are programmed that way to ensure survival of the species, there is nothing "noble" or "higher" in wanting to reproduce.
that urge helped us to survive in our caveman days, sure.
but today, we just have to implement one-child-policy like china already did to keep this spinning blue globe from becoming bigger hell then already is.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2015)

go-vegan said:


> i read only first post and here's my view:
> 
> it is estimated , there is 7.5 billion humans on this planet and growing fast.
> most of world's population lives in poverty and struggling to survive.
> ...


Yes, we need more laws limiting our natural freedoms such as the right to offspring. China is a great hallmark of human rights, we should aspire to be more like the Chinese. Not. Your argument falls apart before you're even able to finish it - it's families that are unable to support children and yet have too many that are at fault when it comes to so-called "overpopulation" of Earth, it's a problem of third-world countries, not a global issue. Do you want to save the Earth? Procreate, raise the next generation of scientists and thinkers and mine the environment to the last molecule so that we may finally move on from this ultimately doomed planet. Families that live in poverty supporting 8+ kids *will not* drive progress or science, they won't save the planet, they can't even save themselves. *Our* children, fortunate enough to be born in a more afluent area, can make a difference.


----------



## Walker D (May 1, 2015)

I think that making a good contribution to society is a good Life objective for everyone to have. But how it's done, depends on what each one feels, thinks and knows.

A straight-forward way to do so, and not a bad one, is to have kids (by so, I mean: having kids, teaching them to be awesome, and by so, giving the planet a relevant thinking mind that can produce things of good use and stuff). But it's not the only way.

People sometimes, based on what they have done or learned themselves, tend to narrow their perception of what others have to do. That's a bad limitation. People can do marvelous things to make the world greater, things that go beyond the maker's own existence. Having a child is one of them, but it's not even close to be the only way to do it.


Yup... so that's how I like to look at those kind of choices.


----------



## go-vegan (May 1, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, we need more laws limiting our natural freedoms such as the right to offspring. China is a great hallmark of human rights, we should aspire to be more like the Chinese. Not. Your argument falls apart before you're even able to finish it - it's families that are unable to support children and yet have too many that are at fault when it comes to so-called "overpopulation" of Earth, it's a problem of third-world countries, not a global issue. Do you want to save the Earth? Procreate, raise the next generation of scientists and thinkers and mine the environment to the last molecule so that we may finally move on from this ultimately doomed planet. Families that live in poverty supporting 8+ kids *will not* drive progress or science, they won't save the planet, they can't even save themselves. *Our* children, fortunate enough to be born in a more afluent area, can make a difference.


 
you obviously don't follow what is going on in the world last decade, huge amount of 3'rd world country people started to migrate in Europe, Australia and USA.
so when you say "_it's a problem of third-world countries, not a global issue_", well it is becoming global issue.

_when you say: "raise the next generation of scientists and thinkers and mine the environment to the last molecule so that we may finally move on from this ultimately doomed planet", _so your solution is to destroy earth just to leave it and create another hell on some another planet? how selfish is that to animals that we pushed out and forced into extinction? every other species on planet except for human's regulate their population naturally according to resources and habitat. only we reproduce without any control. and virus does exact same thing.
if you somehow remove bees or ants from nature, entire eco-system would collapse that's how those insects are important to Earth.
if you remove Humans in a same fashion, everything else would prosper, Flora and Fauna.
do you still feel so righteous and special?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2015)

go-vegan said:


> you obviously don't follow what is going on in the world last decade, huge amount of 3'rd world country people started to migrate in Europe, Australia and USA.
> so when you say "_it's a problem of third-world countries, not a global issue_", well it is becoming global issue.
> 
> _when you say: "raise the next generation of scientists and thinkers and mine the environment to the last molecule so that we may finally move on from this ultimately doomed planet", _so your solution is to destroy earth just to leave it and create another hell on some another planet? how selfish is that to animals that we pushed out and forced into extinction? every other species on planet except for human's regulate their population naturally according to resources and habitat. only we reproduce without any control. and virus does exact same thing.
> ...


You're clearly unable to look forward far enough to realize the nonsense you're spouting. This planet is doomed regardless of what we do - the sun will eventually burn it as it gradually turns into a supernova. Unless you have a good idea how to colonize space with windmills, your approach will lead to our extinction, especially if we stop procreating. Facts are that the gross majority of scientists and engineers come from afluent families. Poor families may very well migrate, but they're not contributing to saving the planet or colonizing space - they can barely afford to move, let alone to educate themselves. As for other species regulating population sizes, it's only partially true. Many species have to be regulated by humans in order to preserve other species that would otherwise become prey. Moreover, human population is regulated, namely by diseases and war. Claiming that it's not is neo-hippie drivel. Humans are the only species that can save the planet - when was the last time you saw a chicken scientist or a monkey engineer? Unlike animals, humans can come up with solutions. The problem is that everything you know will be engulfed by the sun and the solution is to get off the doomed planet as soon as possible.


----------



## go-vegan (May 1, 2015)

in 5 to 7 billion years Earth will become inhabitable because of sun's expansion.
so start thinking in fashion of our time and globally.
feed em first, send them to space later.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2015)

go-vegan said:


> in 5 to 7 billion years Earth will become inhabitable because of sun's expansion.
> so start thinking in fashion of our time and globally.
> feed em first, send them to space later.


Nonsense. If you won't have scientists today, who is going to teach scientists tomorrow? Nobody, that's who. Give people a fish, they'll eat it and starve tomorrow. Give them a fishing rod, they will never starve again. We need to put all our chips on education and expansion, otherwise we'll wake up with our pants down because X years earlier some green jackass thought it was more important to preserve some old rock than to build a particle accelerator. Sitting on your ass and doing nothing has never solved a problem, not once in the history of humanity. You're arguing that laying on our sides and doing nothing for the vague premise that we'll get an extra year without the ice caps melting is better than solving the problems we face with science. By the way, the estimate of 5 billion is generous - life on Earth will end billions of years before the planet itself is engulfed, it will be a gradual process, not a magical fixed date. Natural disasters resulting from the expanding sun and radiation will kill us all sooner than the heat itself.


----------



## lampdemon (May 2, 2015)

Kids take too much money, and I like wasting money for myself. That said, I lack the social skills to get a girlfriend and waste most of my free time playing games


----------



## Hungry Friend (May 2, 2015)

Getting a girlfriend doesn't require great social skills as much as it requires confidence. No matter what you look like, women(and people in general) are attracted to confidence, and that's not to be confused with arrogance, which unfortunately a lot of girls are fooled by even though arrogant people are usually insecure fruitcakes. Also, I agree the world is overpopulated but restricting peoples' freedoms as far as reproduction goes like China is ridiculous and straight up immoral. Yes, let's give governments more power than they already have because it's not like most of the world's governments are run by a bunch of paid off, corrupt sociopaths or anything! Also corporations are people 

The only time I see having kids as selfish is if someone has a kid and becomes a deadbeat parent. Otherwise, calling people selfish and such for wanting/not wanting kids is silly.


----------



## falconcrest (May 2, 2015)

if you are insane in the brain like myself,kids are not a good idea:thats why i dont have any.I am the type that lashes out at any one around me when angered:i dont want a child to have to go through what i went through


----------



## Hungry Friend (May 2, 2015)

I feel ya there man. I've got a serious temper too and although it's not nearly as bad as it was when I was like 17-22, I get pretty scary when I'm really pissed. That's actually one of the reason I don't want kids also because I don't think I'd be a very good father, being impatient and all. Thankfully my girl knows and accepts that I don't want kids.


----------



## Lacius (May 2, 2015)

The decision of whether or not to have children is a paradox for me.

I don't want to have kids because I don't want to contribute to the world's overpopulation problems.
After reaching this conclusion, however, I start to think that maybe I'm more predisposed to altruism than the general reproducing public due to genetic predispositions.
I begin to think I should propagate those altruistic genes through reproduction.
Once I reach this conclusion, I realize my new-found desire to reproduce makes me no better or worse than anyone else, and I go back to 1.
I'll let you know whether or not I decide to have kids once I wake up from this paradox-induced stupor.


----------



## _Mary_ (May 3, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> On some forums they have a ban on talk of politics and a ban on talk of religion, for some this topic is probably worse. Fortunately for me this is not one of those forums.
> 
> Anyway cracked had an article where one of its writers had apparently been called selfish for not having/wanting children. I have seen some people look people oddly for not wanting children (the favour is returned in kind) but that one was new to me. About the closest I ever got was my mum jokingly said I want grandchildren one day when we were in a restaurant, I retorted "you should have raised different kids then". I got the dirtiest look from the people on the table behind me.
> 
> Anyway thoughts, opinions and elaborations upon them if you like.


 
well there are people who doesn't want kids at all. One of them was inf , yeah him lol and that's our problem. I already have 3 and were having a bad moments everytime the kids are with us or were talking about them. idk . its hard to explain. that's why we just decided not to be in a relationship anymore. Well Ill just respect anyone's decision . ^^ its not being selfish, don't worry about it


----------



## XDel (May 3, 2015)

I cringe at bringing a child into this world...
...at the same time, being 40, I long to raise a child of my own.
Yet at the same time, it's hard to find the kind of woman now a days that I'd want to raise a child with, it would seem all the good ones are taken, and all the crazy ones are more than willing to dump their trash upon your lap. 

They say parenthood changes you, but you got to want it, and you got to love it, else it will leave you cold, harsh, and unpleasant.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2015)

I always wonder by whose authority or arbitrary rules we've decided that the world is overpopulated. Western countries produce more food than their citizens are able to consume, a big portion of it is either burned on tips or subsidized. Here's a mind-bender for ya - wanna be scientists? Here we go! We only have one sample of humanity, we have nothing to compare it to. We don't know if our population is too large or not, we don't know if we're advanced for our time, we don't have anything to compare ourselves to.


----------



## mightymuffy (May 3, 2015)

Woah, this one's quite a read! Honestly though I've only skimmed through some posts, but we're getting on to copying the film Interstellar at one point? Christ was that a boring movie!
But I digress: OP.... I can't believe some people find this topic 'selfish' these days, Christ it's like we're still in the dark ages! Either you want kids, or you don't - end of! Nobody on this planet will go up or down in my opinion with either choice. I've got 2 now-teenage-lads, and neither were planned: I just like shagging too much really! But neither would I be without either of them - massive money drain/PITAs they are. Pretty sure if I hadn't had any kids I wouldn't be stuck with depression or summat either though....
End of the day, fukk it, it's your life, you can do whatever the hell you like with it regarding these sorts of topics, and all this leaving a mark on the world, who cares? When yer dead, yer, er, dead.... (oh aye, I can go as deep and meaningful as I want me... )


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 3, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I always wonder by whose authority or arbitrary rules we've decided that the world is overpopulated. Western countries produce more food than their citizens are able to consume, a big portion of it is either burned on tips or subsidized. Here's a mind-bender for ya - wanna be scientists? Here we go! We only have one sample of humanity, we have nothing to compare it to. We don't know if our population is too large or not, we don't know if we're advanced for our time, we don't have anything to compare ourselves to.


 
You don't live on food, you only survive on food (given your air and water are still clean enough).
Anyway, it is well known that the current production levels are insane and unsustainable in the long term, the world as we know it is doomed.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 3, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> Anyway, it is well known that the current production levels are insane and unsustainable in the long term, the world as we know it is doomed.



Usually the solution to an issue, assuming it is one (and I have not seen much in the way of evidence that it is the case here), is more science. Such a thing having "saved" us all the previous times that then current production levels would not have sustained projected (and actual) increases.

Anyway overpopulation is probably not a term I would use seriously, with that being said though the world does not seem to be suffering a lack of people.


"Interstellar .... Christ was that a boring movie!"

Agreed. It is not one I regret watching and some of the behind the scenes stuff was interesting but I feel no need to ever watch it again or suggest someone watch it.


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I always wonder by whose authority or arbitrary rules we've decided that the world is overpopulated. Western countries produce more food than their citizens are able to consume, a big portion of it is either burned on tips or subsidized. Here's a mind-bender for ya - wanna be scientists? Here we go! We only have one sample of humanity, we have nothing to compare it to. We don't know if our population is too large or not, we don't know if we're advanced for our time, we don't have anything to compare ourselves to.


 
Whether or not one considers the world overpopulated depends in part on how people are living. If everyone on Earth lives like people in third-world countries, the Earth can support more people. If everyone on Earth lives like Americans, the Earth can obviously support fewer people.

That being said, we can all acknowledge that the Earth has a finite number of resources. To the best of our knowledge, the Earth can support around 10 billion people given the amount of resources we use and the amount of resources there are, and that's assuming people aren't living like Americans and other first-world countries. What's more alarming than our current population (about 7.2 billion people) is the rate of population growth. If one takes the average of many projections, we will reach a population of 10 billion by 2080, and that average assumes we slow down our rate of growth.

Ignoring concerns about Earth's resources, more people also means more electricity is needed. Unless something changes regarding the ways we use and/or generate power, more people will also mean a proportional increase in greenhouse gases and global warming.


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 3, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> "Interstellar .... Christ was that a boring movie!"
> 
> Agreed. It is not one I regret watching and some of the behind the scenes stuff was interesting but I feel no need to ever watch it again or suggest someone watch it.


 
It was Meh... I don't know, all Nolan movies seem pretentious Meh for me, this is just another average Nolan movie.
Christopher Nolan is to my eyes just a pretentious version of Michael Bay that doesn't want to recognize he makes average films that just go along with popcorn and beer.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 3, 2015)

Lacius said:


> That being said, we can all acknowledge that the Earth has a finite number of resources. To the best of our knowledge, the Earth can support around 10 billion people given the amount of resources we use and the amount of resources there are, and that's assuming people aren't living like Americans and other first-world countries. What's more alarming than our current population (about 7.2 billion people) is the rate of population growth. If one takes the average of many projections, we will reach a population of 10 billion by 2080, and that average assumes we slow down our rate of growth.
> 
> Ignoring concerns about Earth's resources, more people also means more electricity is needed. Unless something changes regarding the ways we use and/or generate power, more people will also mean a proportional increase in greenhouse gases and global warming.



Ignoring the minute fraction that gets shot into space then most resources are endlessly recycled, the recycling part just having to get less costly than digging up new stuff.

"Unless something changes regarding the ways we use and/or generate power"
Nuclear not an option?


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 3, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> endlessly recycled


 
Entropy wants to talk with you.-


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Ignoring the minute fraction that gets shot into space then most resources are endlessly recycled, the recycling part just having to get less costly than digging up new stuff.


 
When I say "finite number of resources," I mean at any given point in time.



FAST6191 said:


> Nuclear not an option?


It very well could be. For all I know, nuclear power, other renewable energies like solar, or some combination could be what save us all. I said, "unless something changes."



sarkwalvein said:


> Entropy wants to talk with you.-


 
Unless you want to pretend the sun doesn't exist, entropy is irrelevant to the timescale of this conversation.


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 3, 2015)

Lacius said:


> It very well could be. For all I know, nuclear power, other renewable energies like solar, or some combination could be what save us all. I said, "unless something changes."


 
IMHO, more efficient and safe nuclear technology, already in development as it never stopped development, is the way to go to avoid energy crisis for now.
Other renewable forms of energy, and specially solar power could play an important role in the perhaps far future, but today the technologies are too infant and are not efficient enough (too costly to produce, creating a solar panel uses a lot of resources, it doesn't produce much energy but uses a lot of land area, they only produce when sunlight is available so if you really want to use energy evenly you need accumulators/batteries that add to the price and resources needed... but battery technology is improving).


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2015)

See, this is why I'm banking on technology and expansion, all in. We can put our reproduction to a grinding halt and that'll perhaps _extend_ our stay on this planet, but it won't do much to _fix_ the problems that bother it, not to mention that as I've said before, it's ultimately doomed. Everything we're so desperately trying to protect will ultimately be destroyed by the sun, so our efforts should be aimed at getting off this planet along with whatever we care for, not discussing petty matters like the supposed overpopulation and scarcity of _entirely renewable_ resources. We have food, we burn it on tips because we can't handle our own overproduction - we're fine. As for the claim that _"more people = more electricity required"_, that's not necessarily true. We're making strides in lowering our energy footprints with each passing decade - just compare computers of today to computers of yesterday if you need evidence. Mobile CPU's can work perfectly fine at no more than 15 Watts under stress, in the past they used to require ten, bah, twenty times more energy. One generation created a precipitous difference between energy use then and energy use now, who's to say that in 20 years from now we won't be using a fraction of that energy to power our machines? Slowing down expansion serves only slowing down progress and with no progress there can be no solutions.


sarkwalvein said:


> You don't live on food, you only survive on food (given your air and water are still clean enough). Anyway, it is well known that the current production levels are insane and unsustainable in the long term, the world as we know it is doomed.


Why does it matter if it's doomed anyways? And it is doomed, we've extablished that.


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> See, this is why I'm banking on technology and expansion, all in. We can put our reproduction to a grinding halt and that'll perhaps _extend_ our stay on this planet, but it won't do much to _fix_ the problems that bother it, not to mention that as I've said before, it's ultimately doomed. Everything we're so desperately trying to protect will ultimately be destroyed by the sun, so our efforts should be aimed at getting off this planet along with whatever we care for, not discussing petty matters like the supposed overpopulation and scarcity of _entirely renewable_ resources. We have food, we burn it on tips because we can't handle our own overproduction - we're fine.


Is the Earth doomed? Sure, but we still have hundreds of millions of years, if not a billion years, before that happens, assuming we don't screw everything up. That's a pretty long time from now. Instead, we're focusing on problems tens or hundreds of years from now. Also, assuming we do get to a state of overpopulation, being a scarce _renewable_ resource doesn't make it any less scarce. It might be true to say "we're fine" now, but if we don't change anything, that won't be true in the near-ish future.



Foxi4 said:


> As for the claim that "more people = more electricity required", that's not necessarily true. We're making strides in lowering our energy footprints with each passing decade - just compare computers of today to computers of yesterday if you need evidence. Mobile CPU's can work perfectly fine at no more than 15 Watts under stress, in the past they used to require ten, bah, twenty times more energy. One generation created a precipitous difference between energy use then and energy use now, who's to say that in 20 years from now we won't be using a fraction of that energy to power our machines? Slowing down expansion serves only slowing down progress and with no progress there can be no solutions.


Can we make things more energy efficient? Sure, but that only goes so far before we run into barriers keeping us from making things more energy efficient (e.g. the laws of physics). In reality, despite our new technologies, energy consumption has increased per person over the years, and the population of people is increasing.


----------



## cvskid (May 3, 2015)

None of us will even be alive to see something like that happen to the earth anyways.


----------



## ody81 (May 3, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> Making them is the best part.


 

Practicing is the best part


----------



## JaapDaniels (May 3, 2015)

i do completely understand the dicision of not wanting kids, and no you won't get regrets that's nonsense. those little wonders you call them are only here making the world a little worst than it's now, we already consume too much of energie, food, water and everyone knows this but noone is trying to fix the main problem more isn't better for the world, you should try and find some answers for those problems and as soon as you look around you'll find making kids won't help you, your plannet, or your kids, cause the world isn't gonna last this much if we don't stop making a lot o babies!


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2015)

Lacius said:


> Is the Earth doomed? Sure, but we still have hundreds of millions of years, if not a billion years, before that happens, assuming we don't screw everything up. That's a pretty long time from now. Instead, we're focusing on problems tens or hundreds of years from now. Also, assuming we do get to a state of overpopulation, being a scarce _renewable_ resource doesn't make it any less scarce. It might be true to say "we're fine" now, but if we don't change anything, that won't be true in the near-ish future.
> 
> 
> Can we make things more energy efficient? Sure, but that only goes so far before we run into barriers keeping us from making things more energy efficient (e.g. the laws of physics). In reality, despite our new technologies, energy consumption has increased per person over the years, and the population of people is increasing.


I was being sarcastic, our resources are "scarce" because they're poorly managed, that's why I mentioned farming subsides. You can't argue rampant hunger and give away food stamps while subsidizing unsustainable and inapropriate farming and burning perfectly edible food - it's nonsense. Why is the free market prevented from self-regulating what people farm and how much the food produced is sold for? If you're looking for wastefulness, that's the pinnacle right there. As for the "we won't live long enough to see it happen" argument, we also won't live long enough to see the environment "destroyed" by overpopulation so that point is moot - the fact that we won't live to see it doesn't make it less of a problem, it's just a problem of future generations. As for addressing issues of +10000 years rather than ones further down the line, why not address both? Progress still seems like a better solution to me.


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I was being sarcastic, our resources are "scarce" because they're poorly managed, that's why I mentioned farming subsides. You can't argue rampant hunger and give away food stamps while subsidizing unsustainable and inapropriate farming and burning perfectly edible food - it's nonsense. Why is the free market prevented from self-regulating what people farm and how much the food produced is sold for? If you're looking for wastefulness, that's the pinnacle right there. As for the "we won't live long enough to see it happen" argument, we also won't live long enough to see the environment "destroyed" by overpopulation so that point is moot - the fact that we won't live to see it doesn't make it less of a problem, it's just a problem of future generations. As for addressing issues of +10000 years rather than ones further down the line, why not address both? Progress still seems like a better solution to me.


 
I didn't make a "we won't live long enough to see it happen" argument. I think in order for humans (or whatever they are in millions of years) to survive, colonizing other planets and eventually other star systems is necessary. I was addressing your apparent argument that we shouldn't worry about immediate issues like overpopulation since the Earth is doomed anyway.


----------



## Digital.One.Entity (May 3, 2015)

Like words from an Angel


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 3, 2015)

Digital.One.Entity said:


> Like words from an Angel




And now I produced the completely politically incorrect post of the day.
- Takes the luggage, and flees away.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2015)

Lacius said:


> I didn't make a "we won't live long enough to see it happen" argument. I think in order for humans (or whatever they are in millions of years) to survive, colonizing other planets and eventually other star systems is necessary. I was addressing your apparent argument that we shouldn't worry about immediate issues like overpopulation since the Earth is doomed anyway.


Sorry, I was replying to your post as well as the post above it, I believe - I'm on mobile so it's hard for me to engage in elaborate formatting.  My whole point is that western nations are not at fault when it comes to overpopulation, we're already not reproducing fast enough to be sustainable (this is not as much of a problem in the US as it is in countries with public healthcare, but it will be soon thanks to Obamacare) - remember that it's the future generations that will fund your retirement and healthcare so they have to be at least the same size when in productive age. Overpopulation is an issue in developing countries. As for pollution and resources, communal use is a miniscule fraction of the overall problem and us making efforts to preserve the planet doesn't create a meaningful impact. Take the California draught as an example - climate change is one thing, industry is another. The majority of water there is used for almond farming, the population saving water doesn't make a difference because they're not the cause of the draught - unsustainable farming is. Move farmazony farms to areas with water supply, build a desalination plant or a pipeline, address the issue instead of lowering water usage.


----------



## zeello (May 5, 2015)

Guys, if the purpose was the continue the human species, obviously only some people need to have kids, not EVERYBODY. If everyone keeps having kids, it eventually will all go to hell no matter what. Therefore it's certainly not selfish not to have kids. But if you really didn't want to be selfish and if that was really the issue here, then you'd adopt instead of porking one out yourself.



> But also, its the only way to lengthen your families linage, bloodline, and name.


Everyone has a last name, it's not anything special.



> The decision not to have kids may have many different ground reasons, but let's be honest, society today is near to a capitalist dystopia, where we just live to produce and consume and repeat that cycle, almost no spirituality, just be a gear of the system (produce, consume, repeat). And people, caught in this cycle and addicted to consumerism, seek for more time for themselves to consume, hence no children (this is the selfish way to look at it, but not the only possible one).


I agree. Having kids is extraordinarily consumerist. It's like you open a magazine and see an ad for a family with a car, so you buy the car and you buy the family. Everyone's doing it! Gotta keep up with the Joneses!



> At what point does passing on your genes transcend fulfilling a purpose and enter the realm of selfishness?


That should be worded the other way around. "At what point does passing on your genes transcend selfishness and and enter the realm of fulfilling a purpose?" Having kids out of selfishness is the default position, it's on you to prove why you in particular are better qualified to have kids than everyone else. But the saying goes: If everyone is special than nobody is special. So are you really special, or are you deciding to have kids for the same reason a dog "decides" to have pups.



> I don't know how old you are but I think you would regret your decision later when you get older. You die knowing that you could have brought beautiful children to the world who loves you and call you papa. You see them grow up, go to school, get a job... Living without giving life feels incomplete.


That's a completely self-minded reason.


----------



## Jayro (May 5, 2015)

Just found out my roommates (who are a couple) are confirmed pregnant.

Fuck my life.

Why are people so fucking selfish? Them having a baby in 9 months directly affects me, because they are now going to move out in 9 months to a bigger place, doubling my rent here. The world is overpopulated, and I don't believe in adding to it. Every time I go to Walmart to shop, about half the women I see are pregnant, and its so unclassy. Trashy, even. I find Kids under 8 or 9 to just be loud, obnoxious, needy little demons of Satan, and I can't enjoy anything out in public with them around. And what ever happened to condoms? Did people just FORGET they were a thing? Didn't they teach safe sex in health class like when I was in school?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 5, 2015)

Jayro said:


> Didn't they teach safe sex in health class like when I was in school?



You mean abstinence is not the only way?


----------



## RevPokemon (May 5, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> You mean abstinence is not the only way?


Hitting you balls with a baseball bat is a good way not to have kids


----------



## FAST6191 (May 5, 2015)

Baseball bat? How very crude. In the modern world we use a bedsnake bat


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 5, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Baseball bat? How very crude. In the modern world we use a bedsnake bat


Ooh...kay?
And that is actually sold for real, with a big mother's day ad banner above the store's website.
This weird world...


----------



## G0R3Z (May 5, 2015)

I have three children, and I had them young. I was like every person who ever said " I hate kids, I don't want kids" "little spawns of satan" and all of that nonsense. I thought the same way. The moment she said that she was pregnant I was like "shit, I'm going to have to deal with this little shit, I'm never going to have a life". I'd get annoyed at screaming kids in stores and in public. It was like these people didn't know how to raise a child - like all children should be silent. 

The moment I saw her little face for the first time changed me forever. I couldn't live without them now. It's a hugely different matter having your own kids and seeing other peoples. Kids aren't a picnic ..... except when you're actually having picnics. It's hard work but infinitely rewarding. They're more important than your qualifications, your worst nightmares or your biggest dreams. They mean everything when you see them for the first time and you wondered why you ever thought you'd never have them. You feel guilty for ever having those thoughts. 

Also, I hate other people's kids. Especially people who raise them badly. My oldest daughter of six is basically a genius - she reads three years above her mark and she takes extra-curricular classes because she isn't challenged at school. My second who is currently three is on the same path, being able to read and write perfectly legibly. Please, please don't say you'll never have kids because whilst doing the deed is fun, raising them is glorious. They're basically a little you. You can instill all of the wisdom of your years and raise them in a way you wish your parents raised you. I had a fricking terrible childhood, it was basically neglect. I was left in a room to my own devices and I drew. I drew and drew until I was so good I ran rings around everyone in school. I'm thankful i'm a good artist but I'd trade it for a loving, happy childhood.

Being a parent is the fucking best. I always thought about myself, then I thought about my girlfriend - now wife. And I thought we'd go through life, get jobs and fill a house with crap we'd never use. I'm a member of the PTA, I raise money for charities and I play video games with my daughters. They play Super smash bros, mario kart. We play old NES and Snes games and they know what the tagline Nintendont actually points to. Unlike my actual friends who claim to be nerds and don't know anything about the bitwars. 

Nobody can make you have kids, but trust me: Other people's kids and your own kids are two extremely different kids. I hate other people's kids, uncomfortable with them. But i'd rather have a conversation with my daughters than one of my friends - most of the time it's a more intelligent one XD


----------



## Foxi4 (May 5, 2015)

Jayro said:


> Just found out my roommates (who are a couple) are confirmed pregnant.
> 
> Fuck my life.
> 
> Why are people so fucking selfish? Them having a baby in 9 months directly affects me, because they are now going to move out in 9 months to a bigger place, doubling my rent here. The world is overpopulated, and I don't believe in adding to it. Every time I go to Walmart to shop, about half the women I see are pregnant, and its so unclassy. Trashy, even. I find Kids under 8 or 9 to just be loud, obnoxious, needy little demons of Satan, and I can't enjoy anything out in public with them around. And what ever happened to condoms? Did people just FORGET they were a thing? Didn't they teach safe sex in health class like when I was in school?


Unless this is some weird triangle arrangement you have no reason or right to complain - two adults can do whatever the hell they want and if you're short a roommate, you now have 9 months of a heads-up to find one. You're not their father, Mr. Outrage. Last time I checked roommates shared appartments, not wombs.


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 5, 2015)

Jayro stop complaining and start looking for new roommates, it is not the end of the world you will just have to move your ass out of your comfortable sofa for a moment (or not, just put an ad online if you're such a Hikikomori).
And if you feel so annoyed, ask your roommates to look for new people before they go. Your reaction is out of proportion.


----------



## RevPokemon (May 5, 2015)

This would make A very interesting episode of Dr phil


----------



## FAST6191 (May 5, 2015)

G0R3Z said:


> stuff



One might argue that such a thing is a biological reaction, maybe so that you want to take care of them, maybe so that you do not eat them and maybe something else (some kind of sunk cost fallacy perhaps) but definitely biological in nature. With that being the case I have to wonder if it applies in the modern world (the need to breathe, yeah that still demonstrably applies, the need to consume most of the food I find so as to gain a few thousand calories needed to continue functioning, yeah I can pull that off with what I charge to answer the phone so probably best to ignore that).


----------



## Smuff (May 5, 2015)

What a silly thread 
Being a father is the best feeling ever.
I love my boys (one grown up now, one 5yrs old).
I provide for them (or provided in the case of the elder one) and never took anything from anyone or deprived anyone else of anything.
I fail to see how I did any harm to anyone ?

Imagine if your parents had thought like you - you wouldn't be here to complain.

PS. In my experience the most vociferous members of the "anti-child"brigade have also been the ones with the least opportunity to reproduce, if you catch my drift


----------



## G0R3Z (May 5, 2015)

Smuff said:


> What a silly thread
> Being a father is the best feeling ever.
> I love my boys (one grown up now, one 5yrs old).
> I provide for them (or provided in the case of the elder one) and never took anything from anyone or deprived anyone else of anything.
> ...


 

A lot of people are selfish and feel like the world owes them, instead of making an active contribution to society. Again, I know how it feels to be this kind of person. Apparently those paternal instincts kicked in when I became a father.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 5, 2015)

Harm done was not really the starting point of the thread, such a discussion kind of has to go into opportunity costs (if you did not have kids would you have say started your own business rather than continued to work for a guaranteed pay packet, would you have continued to knock about with certain people, some kind of environmental discussion....) pretty early on and that is not all that interesting, even if you include the potential positives. I more intended a discussion on the perception of those that do not have kids, nor want them (though that was more optional) and how it plays out in the modern world, specifically whether people had experienced any kind of negative reaction, been negative towards someone and whether that is an antiquated notion.

Also yeah the most vocal doing their best to ruin a concept for others does seem to apply here as well.


----------



## go-vegan (May 5, 2015)

Smuff said:


> What a silly thread
> Being a father is the best feeling ever.


 
as i explained before, there is nothing "higher or noble" in wanting to reproduce, those feelings are just embedded instincts into our genetic code to make sure species go on.
that is true reason why everybody that wants children, wants so.
but yeah, i believe you it is good feeling, it's just your feelings are pre-programmed, most people resist to this idea seeking something higher in it.
but i believe we evolved enough to realize that future of our kind can't be bright following instincts, but using reasoning and logic.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 5, 2015)

Kids do have an impact on the environment FAST6191, that was one of the many directions this thread was likely to take. Many people decide not to have kids specifically for the sake of the environment thinking (in a short-sighted fashion) that their contribution (or rather the lack of one) can make a difference.


go-vegan said:


> as i explained before, there is nothing "higher or noble" in wanting to reproduce, those feelings are just embedded instincts into our genetic code to make sure species go on.
> that is true reason why everybody that wants children, wants so.
> but yeah, i believe you it is good feeling, it's just your feelings are pre-programmed, most people resist to this idea seeking something higher in it.
> but i believe we evolved enough to realize that future of our kind can't be bright following instincts, but using reasoning and logic.


Reason and logic tell me that the world's issues cannot be solved without bright offspring that could take the torch after we're gone.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 5, 2015)

Actually an interesting one I heard once, I think it was from a religious education teacher. He said he and his wife had seriously considered not having kids during the cold war owing to the "high" chance that over the next years humanity would be wiped out and raising kids that would not make it past 8 or so would not be cool.


----------



## RevPokemon (May 5, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Actually an interesting one I heard once, I think it was from a religious education teacher. He said he and his wife had seriously considered not having kids during the cold war owing to the "high" chance that over the next years humanity would be wiped out and raising kids that would not make it past 8 or so would not be cool.


In many ways that mentality is had by many people with health issues


----------



## Foxi4 (May 5, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Actually an interesting one I heard once, I think it was from a religious education teacher. He said he and his wife had seriously considered not having kids during the cold war owing to the "high" chance that over the next years humanity would be wiped out and raising kids that would not make it past 8 or so would not be cool.


People are quick to panic when in reality our species has proven to persevere through great hardships. There's always a big scare on the horizon, it's like we're programmed to be vigilant to the point of mania. If it's not the red scare, it's war. When the war blows over, it's a nuclear missile crisis. When that's resolved, it's climate change. When that's old news, it's ebola or some other disease. We invent fears whenever we're not facing direct threats.


----------



## Catastrophic (May 5, 2015)

Smuff said:


> PS. In my experience the most vociferous members of the "anti-child"brigade have also been the ones with the least opportunity to reproduce, if you catch my drift


 
Sure there are people who shouldn't be having children, but people who judge other people solely for having children are children themselves if you ask me.


----------



## RevPokemon (May 5, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> People are quick to panic when in reality our species has proven to persevere through great hardships. There's always a big scare on the horizon, it's like we're programmed to be vigilant to the point of mania. If it's not the red scare, it's war. When the war blows over, it's a nuclear missile crisis. When that's resolved, it's climate change. When that's old news it's ebola or some other disease. We invent fears whenever we're not facing direct threats.


Hey Ebola killed like 3 western people!! It will consume the worlds!!


----------



## Foxi4 (May 5, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Hey Ebola killed like 3 western people!! It will consume the worlds!!


Yup. Let's forget that the common cold kills more people each year than ebola, or that we have a problem with idiots not vaccinating their kids and leading to a resurgence of previously eliminated diseases like polio or measels. Ebola is the new cool thing to be scared of instead of addressing actual pressing issues, there's always a smoke screen to find when you look hard enough.


----------



## RevPokemon (May 5, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Yup. Let's forget that the common cold kills more people each year than ebola, or that we have a problem with idiots not vaccinating their kids and leading to a resurgence of previously eliminated diseases like polio or measels. Ebola is the new cool thing to be scared of instead of addressing actual pressing issues, there's always a smoke screen to find when you look hard enough.


Truly sad about polio as I have a teacher who had a teacher that had polio since he was young and could not walk (well he could but due to pain was not really possible or practical) by the time he got the vaccine it was to late which im scared could happen with anti vaxers (although his case was because the vaccine wasn't available at the time)


----------



## Foxi4 (May 5, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Truly sad about polio as I have a teacher who had a teacher that had polio since he was young and could not walk (well he could but due to pain was not really possible or practical) by the time he got the vaccine it was to late which im scared could happen with anti vaxers (although his case was because the vaccine wasn't available at the time)


Measels already came back to the US despite being completely erradicated in previous years - that's a problem. Polio is not very communicable, but it's preventable which makes the issue all the more infuriating.


----------



## go-vegan (May 5, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Kids do have an impact on the environment FAST6191, that was one of the many directions this thread was likely to take. Many people decide not to have kids specifically for the sake of the environment thinking (in a short-sighted fashion) that their contribution (or rather the lack of one) can make a difference.
> 
> Reason and logic tell me that the world's issues cannot be solved without bright offspring that could take the torch after we're gone.


 
i don't talk about forcing human kind into extinction, i'm talking about lowering population to comfortable level, where every human being could live having all resources they need to live in comfort from one side, and to ensure nature don't suffer from other side, let's not forget all animal species that humanity forced into extinction and that is selfish and malevolent.
humanity abuse technology, when we discovered nuclear power, first we build bomb, then power plant.
we are still violent apes and this is not hatred, this is a fact.
until we evolve in benevolent beings that respect life itself, in whichever form it comes, we need strict rules.
think globally, we are all part of same system and each other's decision affects others.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 5, 2015)

go-vegan said:


> i don't talk about forcing human kind into extinction, i'm talking about lowering population to comfortable level, where every human being could live having all resources they need to live in comfort from one side, and to ensure nature don't suffer from other side, let's not forget all animal species that humanity forced into extinction and that is selfish and malevolent.
> humanity abuse technology, when we discovered nuclear power, first we build bomb, then power plant.
> we are still violent apes and this is not hatred, this is a fact.
> until we evolve in benevolent beings that respect life itself, in whichever form it comes, we need strict rules.
> think globally, we are all part of same system and each other's decision affects others.


Who's to say that we're not already at that comfortable level? And who sets the bar? I'm sorry, I'm not one for tree hugging. As for humans driving animals to extinction, that's indeed sad, but not preventable. Animals also drive other species into extinction, they've been doing that since the dawn of time - survival of the fitness. Evolution doesn't create benevolent beings, it creates efficient ones. The benevolent mother nature is a myth, in fact, mother nature stacked the odds against us. I don't remember humans ever growing deadly tiger claws (aside from a few pop singers) or sharp shark teeth (aside from the British) and yet we persevere - how come? Ah, because we have the greatest gift of all, a creative brain (which we suddenly grew as we moved from a raw diet to meat, especially cooked meats, as evolutionary scientists and paleontologists agree on that). How's about we use that gift creatively rather than squander it on waiting for mother nature to do our job, hmm?


----------



## Garro (May 5, 2015)

I would rather adopt than have a children, I don't really care about blood or that my kid has to look like me, it would feel nice to give a kid a family.

(Also off-topic, the whole overpopulation discussion reminds me a lot of the Utopia TV series).


----------



## go-vegan (May 5, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Who's to say that we're not already at that comfortable level?


 
you obviously didn't see much of the world, i was seaman and i was in great number of countries both first world and third world, you wouldn't believe the way people live and trying to survive



Foxi4 said:


> Animals also drive other species into extinction, they've been doing that since the dawn of time


 
not true, some animals make wars like insects and chimpanzees, but never exterminated others, never, give me couple of examples where animal species forced other into extinction?



Foxi4 said:


> - survival of the fitness.


 
that's where you'll be first to die. still like idea of survival of the fittest?



Foxi4 said:


> Evolution doesn't create benevolent beings.


 
wrong again, gorillas are benevolent beings, most of the parrots are, stronger birds in the nest feed weaker ones, on the other hand, baby eagles will kick throw down weaker brothers from the nest, killing them.



Foxi4 said:


> Ah, because we have the greatest gift of all, a creative brain (which we suddenly grew as we moved from a raw diet to meat, especially cooked meats, as evolutionary scientists and paleontologists agree on that).


 
wrong again, we evolved from hominidae, their intellect evolved because brain-hands connection, not because of eating meat, and they never changedtheir diet from as you say:"raw" (vegetable presumably) because they were omnivores all the time, hunting small animals.



Foxi4 said:


> How's about we use that gift creatively rather than squander it on waiting for mother nature to do our job, hmm?


 
we are creative, see how screwed and miserable world is, all thanks to "human creativity"

at this point i am done replying to you since obviously you lack knowledge and ignorantly arguing about nonsense that has nothing with reality.
world out there is not the way you imagine it.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 5, 2015)

go-vegan said:


> you obviously didn't see much of the world, i was seaman and i was in great number of countries both first world and third world, you wouldn't believe the way people live and trying to survive
> 
> not true, some animals make wars like insects and chimpanzees, but never exterminated others, never, give me couple of examples where animal species forced other into extinction?
> 
> ...



As previously discussed a lack of resources is not necessarily the issue but a lack of resource distribution.

"give me couple of examples where animal species forced other into extinction"
Forced how? The introduction of an invasive species has annihilated plenty of species, or at least forced speciation, all throughout history.

"that's where you'll be first to die. still like idea of survival of the fittest?"
Assuming that is the case then I still do not follow.

Hands-brain certainly helped (though be very careful with what evidence you bring as much of it is based on the less than stellar early attempts at measuring brain activity) but in most things I have ever seen the rather substantial increase in energy density that comes from meat plays a huge role in powering the rather energy hungry brain. Plus all the fossil and evolutionary evidence.

parrots and gorrilas benevolent... allow me to laugh harder.

"we are creative, see how screwed and miserable world is, all thanks to "human creativity""
I see amazing technology, eradication of various diseases (give or take troubles like antibiotic resistance and the anti vaccination cretins), an increasing understanding of basic concepts of the universe, less crime/violence than most other points in human history, social progress at at pace basically never seen before and lots more besides. There does not quite look to be a downward slope coming either.


----------



## Lacius (May 6, 2015)

Smuff said:


> What a silly thread
> Being a father is the best feeling ever.
> I love my boys (one grown up now, one 5yrs old).
> I provide for them (or provided in the case of the elder one) and never took anything from anyone or deprived anyone else of anything.
> I fail to see how I did any harm to anyone ?


You didn't _really_ harm anyone, but on a presumably insignificant level, you've increased the population, which will contribute to the overpopulation problems discussed in length in this thread.



Smuff said:


> Imagine if your parents had thought like you - you wouldn't be here to complain.


That's a silly argument to make when it's unreasonable to combine every sperm with every egg. There are lots of things that could have gotten in the way of any given person being born. That doesn't mean we should alter our actions to maximize the population.


Smuff said:


> PS. In my experience the most vociferous members of the "anti-child"brigade have also been the ones with the least opportunity to reproduce, if you catch my drift


Personally making the choice not to reproduce for moral reasons isn't the same as being _anti-child_. If I were to have children, I feel morally compelled to adopt. I'm also a junior high teacher, so for these reasons, I'm demonstrably not anti-child. As a side note, it wouldn't be very difficult for me to genetically reproduce if you catch _my _drift. I'm not sure why you would say that.



Foxi4 said:


> People are quick to panic when in reality our species has proven to persevere through great hardships. There's always a big scare on the horizon, it's like we're programmed to be vigilant to the point of mania. If it's not the red scare, it's war. When the war blows over, it's a nuclear missile crisis. When that's resolved, it's climate change. When that's old news, it's ebola or some other disease. We invent fears whenever we're not facing direct threats.


Humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. Compared to the age of the Earth and the age of the universe, that's not long enough to be able to say anything about the future of humanity. In fact, catastrophic events decreased the human population to between 3,000-10,000 people about 70,000 years ago, and that's without the level of technology we have to destroy the world today (either incrementally or suddenly). There's also the idea that, statistically, we've either beaten incredible odds that we would be born so early in human history or the human species doesn't last very long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

Note that I'm not saying we're doomed. I'm just saying that you shouldn't argue that we're resilient enough to not need to alter our actions as a species. That's like a teenager thinking he or she is immortal just because he or she doesn't get sick and/or hurt much, if at all.



Foxi4 said:


> Who's to say that we're not already at that comfortable level?


It doesn't really matter if we're currently at a comfortable level if the population is increasing drastically.



Foxi4 said:


> And who sets the bar?


Our knowledge of how many resources we have vs. how many resources we need? It's mostly just bookkeeping, which isn't too difficult.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm sorry, I'm not one for tree hugging.


Perhaps you should be.



Foxi4 said:


> As for humans driving animals to extinction, that's indeed sad, but not preventable. Animals also drive other species into extinction, they've been doing that since the dawn of time - survival of the fitness.


The difference between humans and other non-human animals is we don't give animals a chance, and we wipe them out at an extraordinary rate. Non-human species don't get the chance to adapt in some cases. For example, due to humans, a fungus called chytrid was introduced to frog populations in the Americas. The chytrid evolved side-by-side in Africa would other species of frogs, but when introduced to frogs in the Americas, there was literally no way frogs could adapt since relocation of that magnitude is unnatural, which is causing mass extinctions.

The Halocene extinction is a name being proposed for the mass extinction humans are causing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction



Foxi4 said:


> Evolution doesn't create benevolent beings, it creates efficient ones.


Not only does evolution indeed create benevolent beings (e.g. humans), but it's not mutually exclusive with creating efficient beings. The biological predispositions to things like morality and altruism are well documented, as well as their evolutionary origins/benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Evolutionary_explanations



Foxi4 said:


> Ah, because we have the greatest gift of all, a creative brain (which we suddenly grew as we moved from a raw diet to meat, especially cooked meats, as evolutionary scientists and paleontologists agree on that). How's about we use that gift creatively rather than squander it on waiting for mother nature to do our job, hmm?


 
I don't recall anyone asking for _mother nature_ to do the work, but I could have missed it. Speaking for myself, I said humans need to alter their behavior for any of my previously mentioned problems to be solved.



FAST6191 said:


> As previously discussed a lack of resources is not necessarily the issue but a lack of resource distribution.


With a high enough population, it's both.



FAST6191 said:


> Forced how? The introduction of an invasive species has annihilated plenty of species, or at least forced speciation, all throughout history.


The non-human species can hardly be blamed if humans are at fault here. Natural is usually a more gradual process, and what your describing usually occurs in the modern world when humans introduced a species where it wasn't before. I'm not saying animals haven't caused other animals to go extinct in the wild; it has happened a lot. However, no animal other than humans has caused mass extinctions like we have.



FAST6191 said:


> I see amazing technology, eradication of various diseases (give or take troubles like antibiotic resistance and the anti vaccination cretins), an increasing understanding of basic concepts of the universe, less crime/violence than most other points in human history, social progress at at pace basically never seen before and lots more besides. There does not quite look to be a downward slope coming either.


Human inginutity has been responsible for both very good things and very bad things. Let's talk about how to stop or minimize the bad.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 6, 2015)

Lacius said:


> Humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. Compared to the age of the Earth and the age of the universe, that's not long enough to be able to say anything about the future of humanity. In fact, catastrophic events decreased the human population to between 3,000-10,000 people about 70,000 years ago, and that's without the level of technology we have to destroy the world today (either incrementally or suddenly). There's also the idea that, statistically, we've either beaten incredible odds that we would be born so early in human history or the human species doesn't last very long.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
> 
> Note that I'm not saying we're doomed. I'm just saying that you shouldn't argue that we're resilient enough to not need to alter our actions as a species. That's like a teenager thinking he or she is immortal just because he or she doesn't get sick and/or hurt much, if at all.


You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not saying that we should switch to coal power plants, fill the sea with industrial waste and blow up the rainforest, what I'm saying is that we should continue tinkering with solutions to our problems and lowering our population is not a solution, at least not _"our"_ population. I think it's safe to say that the majority _(if not all)_ of the participants of this discussion come from affluent areas not affected by the problems of resources vs. population. We're not directly responsible for uncontrolled growth, we barely have children to begin with. That kind of preaching should be directed at Mo'nique from the poor side of town or Sharquanda somewhere from the middle of Africa, both having 8 kids without the ability to support them when they should opt for Planned Parenthood instead. That _is_ a problem that should be addressed, but instead of doing that we're too busy sending care packages of food that just gets eaten and doesn't make a difference. We're not using fishing rods like we should, we're using fish, and that's not a solution.


> It doesn't really matter if we're currently at a comfortable level if the population is increasing drastically.


See answer above. The population may very well be increasing, but in all the wrong areas.


Spoiler











From what I'm seeing, practically every single developed country is suffering from _low_ birth rates. I'm sure that all the preaching about overpopulation _on the internet_ is reaching all those people in the middle part of Africa.


> Our knowledge of how many resources we have vs. how many resources we need? It's mostly just bookkeeping, which isn't too difficult.


Resources are poorly managed, not scarce.


> Perhaps you should be.


I would rather just die already.


> The difference between humans and other non-human animals is we don't give animals a chance, and we wipe them out at an extraordinary rate. Non-human species don't get the chance to adapt in some cases. For example, due to humans, a fungus called chytrid was introduced to frog populations in the Americas. The chytrid evolved side-by-side in Africa would other species of frogs, but when introduced to frogs in the Americas, there was literally no way frogs could adapt since relocation of that magnitude is unnatural, which is causing mass extinctions.
> 
> The Halocene extinction is a name being proposed for the mass extinction humans are causing.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction


Just reading that made me want to shoot a white tiger.

I kid, I kid - I know exactly what you're talking about. My argument was that us just _"being here"_ and occupying certain plots of land is already being in the way of other creatures on this planet, what's the solution for that? Should we just kill ourselves? That would possibly be the best scenario for the natural kingdom, right? Wrong, of course not, that's insane. The cross-contamination you mention isn't entirely avoidable, but we should pay attention to such issues when introducing new species to ecosystems.


> Not only does evolution indeed create benevolent beings (e.g. humans), but it's not mutually exclusive with creating efficient beings. The biological predispositions to things like morality and altruism are well documented, as well as their evolutionary origins/benefits.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Evolutionary_explanations


I would argue that humans are not benevolent creatures. In fact, I'd argue that benevolent species don't exist. Bleak, but that's the way I see it. It's all about survival, it's always been about survival. I'd sooner say that _"benevolence"_ comes in the form of a gradable spectrum and with that in mind, we're pretty benevolent in comparison to the average wolf that doesn't know any better and would kill anything in its path given the chance just to provide resources to make its pack bigger. Wolves don't self-regulate _(efficiently enough)_ - we regulate them.


> I don't recall anyone asking for _mother nature_ to do the work, but I could have missed it. Speaking for myself, I said humans need to alter their behavior for any of my previously mentioned problems to be solved.


I agree, humans need to do something, namely advance on the path we've already taken once we've realized that our presence has an impact on the environment. I choose to be the gardener of this garden, not a patch of cabbage. Often times the extreme environmentalist message is _"live in a small cottage, maaaaan"_ and I oppose that idea - I don't think it's productive nor is it a solution.


----------



## Smuff (May 6, 2015)

Lacius said:


> That's a silly argument to make when it's unreasonable to combine every sperm with every egg. There are lots of things that could have gotten in the way of any given person being born. That doesn't mean we should alter our actions to maximize the population.


 

I disagree.

My comment was quite clear and undeniable I thought - If your parents had felt that they didn't want to have children, then you would not be here to complain. Simple as that. They would not have had children. Therefore you would not exist.

Also it would be impossible to combine EVERY sperm with EVERY egg in any case, as sperm outnumber eggs in the order of millions.


----------

