To not have children

[Ocean11 0]

First, I'd like to point out that I'm not getting at all heated about this issue. If you don't want to have children, no problem. I'm simply not at all convinced by the reasons many of you give for it though.

 

Likening the wish to have children to the behaviour of your dog is uncalled for db. For somebody who has got all exercised about my supposedly graceless behaviour on this forum, that is rank hypocrisy (but I expect no less from you). The case for having children - that it is natural, that it brings joy to several generations of your family, that it perpuates human culture and gives it the potential for improvement (however unrealized) - has got very little to do with your mutt shagging your leg.

 

I cannot see the point of the environmental argument. If we have 2 children, we have not multiplied. If we have 1 child, the population is in decline, at least as far as we have contributed to the issue. I suspect that most of the 'environmentalists' here only contribute their 'environmentalism' on a very ad hoc, partial, and personal level anyway, and wouldn't give up say, international travel or snowboarding because it damages the environment. And yet they claim to give up their biological prerogative for that reason. That just doesn't convince me.

 

And what do you see as the goal of the environmentally sensitive human? The extinction of humanity and human culture? Or maybe scattered bands of self-sufficient humanity living in complete harmony with nature? In how many hundreds of years in the future is this vision - the fruit of you not having children - going to be realized? I do not mock, I simply wonder what you think you're thinking...

 

As for the people who say those in favour of children are getting heated, look at some of things that have been said that have gone without comment from the childless camp. There's at least one radical eugenicist among them (or complete bullshitter), but he goes unmolested while those of us arguing for simply having children have to put with being likened to dogs.

 

Since none of these arguments are at all convincing, and since some of you admit to being too selfish and introverted to have children anyway, I can only conclude that that is actually the case. Given the apparent horror with which many of you seem to view the state of the world I would add to that, loathing of your own humanity. Especially those who freely admit to not liking children, it has to be pointed out that children are human just like you, and that you were once children too. You hate children, you hate yourselves.

 

But hey, this is all just clever words, signifying nothing (that's my job, right db and 21c, so just take no notice).

[klingon 10]

 Quote:

You hate children, you hate yourselves.

Hilarious!

[Ocean11 0]

I'm soooooooooo bored of these one-line posters.

 

Listen, Instant Graemlins are not a substitute for communication. If you have the time to press the Graemlin buttons, you have the time to say something using words.

[klingon 10]

YES SIR!

 

er....

 

Hilarious.

 

Your reasoning and comments are hilarious. Understand?

[Ocean11 0]

Hilarious to somebody who is too young to understand them...

[klingon 10]

Surely not hilarious to someone who does not understand them.

 

But definitely hilarious to the majority of the people reading your sorry comments.

 

[Ocean11 0]

Laugh on.

[veronica 2]

I also can't see what all the fuss is about. Informed intelligent people can make a choice if they want to have children or not... it's really really simple.

 

Many people want kids for many different and varied reasons - that's great and fine.

 

But an increasing number of people decide that they don't want children, for many many different and varied reasons.

 

Good luck and happiness to all you parents, that's what I say! Rather you than me!

 

[damian 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
The case for having children - that it is natural, that it brings joy to several generations of your family, that it perpuates human culture and gives it the potential for improvement (however unrealized) - has got very little to do with your mutt shagging your leg.

Agreed. And given this very reasonable case for children, I ynderstand how a comparison to the humpy mut would cause offence. My Mutt comment was not aimed at degrading or insulting these family qualities. I was posing the mutt-hump comment against the statement made earlier:

"FAIL at the only task you or any other species has in the evolutionary scheme - procreation - continuing of the species".

This very basic comment reminded me of my dog, as by instinct, this is what he tries to do.

[miteyak 0]

The way forward for 'humanity, obvious to all those of a scientific-rationalist bent, is a move toward gene manipulation, and the joining of a loving couple's sperm externally, maximizing both partner's gene potential. This will in effect send evolution into hyperdrive, ensuring the survival of homo sapiens.

 

Not much fodder for the pseudo-enviro-romanticist though, for sure...

[barok 0]

I can`t believe I missed this one, still time, I guess.

 

To address the evolutionary biological issues - some of you have it backwards.

 

The selfish gene theory, still popular today turns the tables on living things and their genes, stating that we are merely vehicles that our genes use to replicate themselves. According to this idea, and in this case it holds up, it would be the people who are having children, or who want to have children, who make personal sacrifices to ensure the propagation of their genes, who are the most selfish of us all.

 

Some scientists questioned the selfish gene theory, by citing cases of altruism - person sacrificing themselves so that others may live - the "hero" example. One bird emits a call to alert the rest of the flock of an incoming predator, thereby attracting the attention of that very predator to itself - the increasing danger example. The myxoma virus - introduced to Australian rabbits in an attempt to control the population, initially killed many rabbits, but later, learned to sacrifice itself individually, allowing the rabbit, and hence it`s sister virii to live in an equilibrium state within the rabbit. And before you point it out to me, I know virii are not living things, but their genetic material, and behavior is similar enough to living things to qualify it as an example under the heading of selfishness vs. altruism of genes and species. The oft-cited lemming-suicide example is a farce theorized, but not actually witnessed, by a group of scientists who discovered a large group of lemmings who had accidentally fallen to their deaths, co-incidentally during a bad food year for these creatures, and theorized suicide.

 

But you still have plenty of examples in the human and animal kingdom where one organism chooses or behaves in such a way to diminsh it`s survival or fecundity, and it is not considered an evolutionary oddity. Why? There is one school of thought, considered to be largely correct, that says that with regards to procreation and survival, animals, genes, etc. behave in such a way that benefits 1)the in-group (those members of the species psychologically most closely associated with the individual organism, and 2) the organism itself. The species as a whole doesn`t play an important role in behavior or the decision making process - that could partially explain why Africa is quickly rotting away.

 

The selfish gene theory conflicts somewhat with this latter theory, but you can extend the selfish gene theory if you recognize that the altruistic individual (or it`s genome) recognizes that in the in-group there is a very high probabliity that those same genes exist in the individuals kin.

 

That said, if people ULTIMATELY don`t want to have children, on an evolutionary level, it is because they recognize on some level that this decision would compound to become bad for 1)their own survival, and 2)propagation and survival of the in-group - not an unlikely scenario for people living in the world today (let`s face it, the world could be a much better place, to put it mildly) Whether or not that person`s instincts are correct or not is up to debate, but it is instinct that leads people not to have children, as much as it is that leads them to have children.

 

One thing interesting to note is that often, thought of the individual children`s survival is considered far less important than the survival of at least one offspring, as in places where you have less chance of survival, people, animals produce more offspring.

 

When talking about 2 parents, 2 children = zero popluation growth (as a model for a sustainable western family plan), it is largely inaccurate as well, because it doesn`t take into account the high percentage of divorces, remarriages, and children that result from remarriages, present in western society. When talking about overpopulated vs. mismanaged, we have to look at that mismanaged picture, as we don`t exist inside a vaccuum.

 

In the case of Japan, this country is faced with rapid, impending population decline, to the tune of 30-40%. Many experts predict that this population decline will be the nail in the coffin for the Japanese way of life, as in order for Japan to keep any kind of economy going, she will need to import workers from other countries, to the tune of tens of millions of people. Why is Japan`s population in decline ? You hear alot of media about parasite singles, and people getting married older, but on average, modern Japanese are simply having fewer children then their ancestors, I seem to remember something about half as many. Japanese folks recognize this fact, but resources (survival of self) is the problem that prevents many japanese from having more than 2 children. It is very expensive to raise children in this country, probably moreso than in any other country. People don`t want to live destitute just to have more children. And again, the species or in this case the nation isn`t taken into account. Japanese people know of their impending population decline, but they don`t reproduce themselves any more because of it. Nobody is "having one for Japan," methinks.

 

That said, I`ll probably have kids one day, although not here. And I think with regards to the worlds population, there will be a big crunch, just as there was a big bang (unrivaled continued exponential growth of the past 60 or so years). Most people (about 60%) on the planet will die (I believe this has already started to happen, what with the famine and disease that we face today), as the planet itself won`t be able to sustain the human condition as it exists. At this time, the remaining people will be faced with an ultimatum - change the way you do things or suffer the same fate.

 

Any environmentalist worth his/her salt, recognizes that saving the earth really means not destroying the earth to the point where in can`t accomodate us. Baby seals are great, but we face real threats (undeniable climate change problems, more of that famine and disease, diminishing habitats) in the coming years. Serious stuff people.

[barok 0]

I can`t believe I missed this one, still time, I guess.

 

To address the evolutionary biological issues - some of you have it backwards.

 

The selfish gene theory, still popular today turns the tables on living things and their genes, stating that we are merely vehicles that our genes use to replicate themselves. According to this idea, and in this case it holds up, it would be the people who are having children, or who want to have children, who make personal sacrifices to ensure the propagation of their genes, who are the most selfish of us all.

 

Some scientists questioned the selfish gene theory, by citing cases of altruism - person sacrificing themselves so that others may live - the "hero" example. One bird emits a call to alert the rest of the flock of an incoming predator, thereby attracting the attention of that very predator to itself - the increasing danger example. The myxoma virus - introduced to Australian rabbits in an attempt to control the population, initially killed many rabbits, but later, learned to sacrifice itself individually, allowing the rabbit, and hence it`s sister virii to live in an equilibrium state within the rabbit. And before you point it out to me, I know virii are not living things, but their genetic material, and behavior is similar enough to living things to qualify it as an example under the heading of selfishness vs. altruism of genes and species. The oft-cited lemming-suicide example is a farce theorized, but not actually witnessed, by a group of scientists who discovered a large group of lemmings who had accidentally fallen to their deaths, co-incidentally during a bad food year for these creatures, and theorized suicide.

 

But you still have plenty of examples in the human and animal kingdom where one organism chooses or behaves in such a way to diminsh it`s survival or fecundity, and it is not considered an evolutionary oddity. Why? There is one school of thought, considered to be largely correct, that says that with regards to procreation and survival, animals, genes, etc. behave in such a way that benefits 1)the in-group (those members of the species psychologically most closely associated with the individual organism, and 2) the organism itself. The species as a whole doesn`t play an important role in behavior or the decision making process - that could partially explain why Africa is quickly rotting away.

 

The selfish gene theory conflicts somewhat with this latter theory, but you can extend the selfish gene theory if you recognize that the altruistic individual (or it`s genome) recognizes that in the in-group there is a very high probabliity that those same genes exist in the individuals kin.

 

From an evolutionary perspective, if people ULTIMATELY don`t want to have children, on an evolutionary level, it is because they recognize on some level that this decision would compound to become bad for 1)their own survival, and 2)propagation and survival of the in-group - not an unlikely scenario for people living in the world today (let`s face it, the world could be a much better place, to put it mildly) Whether or not that person`s instincts are correct or not is up to debate, but it is instinct that leads people not to have children, as much as it is that leads them to have children.

 

One thing interesting to note is that often, thought of the individual children`s survival is considered far less important than the survival of at least one offspring, as in places where you have less chance of survival, people, animals produce more offspring.

 

When talking about 2 parents, 2 children = zero popluation growth (as a model for a sustainable western family plan), it is largely inaccurate as well, because it doesn`t take into account the high percentage of divorces, remarriages, and children that result from remarriages, present in western society. When talking about overpopulated vs. mismanaged, we have to look at that mismanaged picture, as we don`t exist inside a vaccuum.

 

In the case of Japan, this country is faced with rapid, impending population decline, to the tune of 30-40%. Many experts predict that this population decline will be the nail in the coffin for the Japanese way of life, as in order for Japan to keep any kind of economy going, she will need to import workers from other countries, to the tune of tens of millions of people. Why is Japan`s population in decline ? You hear alot of media about parasite singles, and people getting married older, but on average, modern Japanese are simply having fewer children then their ancestors, I seem to remember something about half as many. Japanese folks recognize this fact, but resources (survival of self) is the problem that prevents many japanese from having more than 2 children. It is very expensive to raise children in this country, probably moreso than in any other country. People don`t want to live destitute just to have more children. And again, the species or in this case the nation isn`t taken into account. Japanese people know of their impending population decline, but they don`t reproduce themselves any more because of it. Nobody is "having one for Japan," methinks.

 

That said, I`ll probably have kids one day, although not here. I think it is great as long as you can provide for them. I can`t right now.

 

And I think with regards to the worlds population, there will be a big crunch, just as there was a big bang (unrivaled continued exponential growth of the past 60 or so years). Most people (about 60%) on the planet will die (I believe this has already started to happen, what with the famine and disease that we face today), as the planet itself won`t be able to sustain the human condition as it exists. At this time, the remaining people will be faced with an ultimatum - change the way you do things or suffer the same fate.

 

Any environmentalist worth his/her salt, recognizes that saving the earth really means not destroying the earth to the point where in can`t accomodate us. Baby seals are great, but we face real threats (undeniable climate change problems, more of that famine and disease, diminishing habitats) in the coming years. Serious stuff people.

[sexer 0]

Wooah! Big post there barok.

[enderzero 0]

This is incredibly over-simplified (and hypothetical) Darwinism, but think about this for a moment:

 

The most critical and highly intelligent thinkers make up (let's say) 10% of the world's population. These folks are so smart, they decide the earth cannot sustain such a high population and they will not have kids. Therefore they do not reproduce and their "intelligent" genes are wiped out. Now the earth's population is that much less intelligent. So in the next generation, another 10% (now the most intelligent by default) decide the same thing. The population just got dumber again. As this progresses we get "de-volution" as it were, until we are just a bunch of knuckleheads running around with clubs.

 

Okay, this is way oversimplified and there are more holes in the theory than cheesman's photo album of his trip to Switzerland...but you get my point.

 

Personally I don't really like kids all that much (currently). I recognize that my wife will more than likely have a stronger feeling about this one way or another. I am also absolutely not trying to take away any person's right to do whatever it is they want to do. But I have always sorta felt that if I didn't reproduce I would be failing on a biological level.

[miteyak 0]

Barok, well done for putting forward that, never got time for the essay meself, but some good points...

 

I do disagree on one thing though, and that's the increase in poverty/famine. Although an impending disaster may loom environmentally, the inhabitants of this planet, on average, used to have less access to resources than they do now.

 

Famine is rare compared to fifty, even fifteen years ago.

 

Disparity of wealth has grown, but not absolute poverty.

 

I dont believe there will be a 'crunch' but we can all look forward to a huge demographic shift regarding population location.