Is having kids selfish?

[Twisties]

Well, there is this thread about people buying used motorcycles:

 

LINKY

 

And it got off on why people would do that, and this lead to environmental issues, and then I said that Bullett and I had chosen not be selfish and have kids, in the context of other things we had done to reduce our environmental burden.

 

This caused a bit of a ruckus, but it seemed there was interest in discussing the matter over here in RDOT, and not hijacking the other thread further. So here we have it:

 

My thesis: Having a child in an inherently selfish act which places a burden on the environment.

 

Have at it.

[Tony_K]

I suggest you rent this movie Idiocracy

 

It's funny in a very bleak way. It could happen!

[Francois_Dumas]

I can see where you're coming from Jan, and can even agree to some extent. Especially if the thesis should be "having more than xx children is a selfish act"....

 

On the other hand, with my mother ill now (and 88 years old) and my father (also 88) hardly able to walk any longer..... I wonder what they would have done now without their son(s).

If they 'made us' with the intent of looking after them as we do now, then yes, that was pretty selfish (I don't hold it against them).

 

We have one fine daughter, and our son died on birth.... we too chose NOT to have any more children..... mostly for different reasons. But we already HAD decided that TWO would be the maximum we would unleash on the society..... we live in a FULL country and an increasingly full world.

 

Having uncountable children means killing ourselves and this globe at some point, knowing we have limited resources eventually.

 

But I can also appreciate the offense David is taking with the statement.... having children may be 'convenient' at some point, I don't think most of us in the rich Western world do it for selfish reasons (depending on the definition of that).

 

That's pretty different in the un(der)developed countries of this world, where children are the only burden AND insurance one has to survive.

 

Just my 0.3 cents

[Bob Palin]

So Twisties do you think that nobody should have children? That would seem to have rather drastic implications about where you see the species as an inhabitant of a sustainable ecosystem.

[BFish]

selfish from a personal financial standpoint i suppose. selfish from the soul, love, and pure joy/bewilderment from a childs development and growth, nope. selfish due to time it requires to be a parent...what the hell else would we do with our time.

 

if i was gone tomorrow my life is complete, mission accomplished, no complaints, wouldn't change a thing. i'd plant a thousand trees and walk to work if that was the price to have my child again. sadly, and this is not a personal slam, you'll never know what you're missing.

[ghaverkamp]

Depending on where one lives, it's almost entirely selfish, as Jan described in the other thread. If one lived in a country with a limited labor force, an argument can be better made that it's for the greater good. Even in agrarian economies, where children are necessary to provide a continuing workforce, it's still selfish, as the principal goal is simply to have the equivalent of indentured servants.

 

David, in the original thread, said:

You've raised environmentalism nearly to the point of religion, and you've failed to make a distinction between different types of parents. On the one hand, there is the responsible, loving couple who chooses to have two children and care for them, as well as preparing them to be terrific influences on the world. That's us. Then there's the single mother who has seven children and can't provide for even one of them. And all sorts of points along that spectrum.

 

And it's "selfish" to have children, but that's "not a criticism of those who have children"? You've lost me, there.

 

I don't see how there's a distinction between how you raised your children and whether or not it was selfish to have them. In this age, people largely have children because they want to be parents -- it fulfills them, it's something they feel they must do, etc. -- not out of some need to contribute offspring to society.

 

That said, I don't view it as a criticism to label someone selfish. We're all selfish in many ways.

[Twisties]

I don't think most of us in the rich Western world do it for selfish reasons (depending on the definition of that).

 

As I pointed out to David in a PM, "selfish" refers to motivation. It does not imply judgment (criticism) in and of itself.

 

The word means acting in your own interest without regard for others. I believe it's the exact right word.

 

That said we are all selfish. Eating, using the bathroom, just plain staying alive is selfish. At least, I'm not doing it for you, I do it for me. Recognizing that staying alive and doing things is for myself, and that it carries an environmental burden should not be controversial at all in my opinion. It is a simple and unavoidable fact.

[David]

To catch us up, I said:

 

can't even believe my eyes when reading that statement. I sincerely hope I've missed your meaning entirely.

 

---proud father of a 23- and 25-year old, one of whom is graduating tomorrow

 

Jan replied:

 

Unfortunately, I doubt it.

 

It's not a criticism of those who have children. Having them is after all the natural thing to do, and there are very powerful motivators for doing so. Perhaps even some rational arguments for doing so, though not so many as in a pre-technological agricultural society.

 

On the other hand, having them is an inherently selfish act: You did it because you wanted them, not for their sake. They didn't have a sake, as it were, prior to conception. Yes, I do realize there are some religions that would say that's wrong, e.g. the theory that there are souls waiting to be born and we have a duty to provide them vessels into which they may come. But this is certainly a minority position and I'm sure not why you had your two fine children.

 

On the other hand, having children, particularly in our highly consumptive society, places a demand on the environment to support them and their issue. We have not in our society chosen, as a matter of custom and practice, to place responsibility for a child's environmental burden on the parents. Rather we say that each individual has an entitlement to use the environment in his own right. This is really a myopic point of view that is unsustainable.

 

As for us, we chose not to have them. It was a multi-factorial decision. Nobody makes such a decision based on one thing alone. I can't claim it was all altruism. I can claim that altruism was a significant part of the decision, and that I do feel deprivation as a result of it. I certainly have no problem whatsoever claiming credit for environmental stewardship based on the decision.

 

To which I replied:

 

I'm flabbergasted by what you've written.

 

You've raised environmentalism nearly to the point of religion, and you've failed to make a distinction between different types of parents. On the one hand, there is the responsible, loving couple who chooses to have two children and care for them, as well as preparing them to be terrific influences on the world. That's us. Then there's the single mother who has seven children and can't provide for even one of them. And all sorts of points along that spectrum.

 

And it's "selfish" to have children, but that's "not a criticism of those who have children"? You've lost me, there.

 

Anyway, I'm continuing the hijack. If this gets punted to "Other Topics," I'll continue, otherwise we ought to be talking about used bike sales and not religious views of selfishness.

 

For the record, I'm still flabbergasted. I don't even know where to start in this discussion. It seems like the earth is more important to you than humans.

 

Having said that, I know that's an overstatement, because you're going to say that we should haven't more humans, not just for the sake of the earth, but for the sake of other humans already inhabiting it.

 

But without that distinction I pointed out, I don't want any part of the values that seem to feed your beliefs about this. AS Brian pointed out above, the relationship (or possible relationship) between parent and child isn't so easily dismissed as selfish.

[David]

I didn't get your PM, Jan. There's probably something messed up in the DB system at the moment.

 

So you are defining selfish as "acting in your own interest without regard to others." Could you frame that specifically in terms of my children? I don't think you see what this sounds like from the perspective of a parent. I don't see how to read that other than it would be better if he wasn't alive. Is he not one of the "others" you refer to? Or is that just all the other people who were alive on that sex-filled night? But now that he's born, it's okay?

[ghaverkamp]

But without that distinction I pointed out, I don't want any part of the values that seem to feed your beliefs about this. AS Brian pointed out above, the relationship (or possible relationship) between parent and child isn't so easily dismissed as selfish.

 

As it happens, Brian's description only seems to reinforce the label.

[David]

I'm not following you, Greg.

[Twisties]

So Twisties do you think that nobody should have children? That would seem to have rather drastic implications about where you see the species as an inhabitant of a sustainable ecosystem.

 

A sudden cease in all births would probably be a disaster. I'm not suggesting we eliminate ourselves. I'm more concerned with how we are going to survive.

 

A gradual reduction in population would, with proper planning, would be the best long term solution to species sustainability. I'm not sure living through such a time would be easy.

 

The fact is however, that (globally) we live in a period of rampant population growth on an exponential curve. Most all of our truly serious problems relate to overpopulation. At the moment technology is sustaining us, but with ever increasing consequences, and I would argue without long term sustainability.

 

A reduction of population would seem to be the most rational approach.

[ghaverkamp]

I'm not following you, Greg.

 

Clearly. You seem to have latched on to "selfish" as a pejorative.

 

Brian described the value he received from raising his children. It's a value so great, no one else can even begin to comprehend it.

 

So, it reads to me like Brian considers his life complete only because he had children, from which the obvious inference is that Brian raised his children because he considered it a key element of living a complete life. He didn't have children to contribute labor to the economy. He didn't have children to give a lost soul a vessel. He had children because he wanted to have children. He declares that justification enough.

 

I don't disagree. But it's hardly selfless, which makes it selfish.

 

Edit: *grumble* Before people start harping on how I'm anti-birth, should I point out that I'm not taking a position that having children is wrong, only agreeing with the characterization that it's selfish. It's generally hopeless to try to point out such distinctions, but there it is.

[SeanC]

My thesis: Having a child in an inherently selfish act which places a burden on the environment.

That's flawed on so many levels, I don't even know where to start... So let me propose a counter-thesis: There could be no environment without kids. Every species -- be they single-celled organisms, algae, plants, fungi, invertebrates, reptiles, fish, mammals, whatever -- eats to live and lives to reproduce. That is the essence of "environment." It's not some picture on a wall we look at. We're part of it, embedded in it, just like wolves or giant redwoods or blue whales. We're not distinct from it or outside it, and I believe it's inherently selfish, not to mention arrogant and misguided, to think we're somehow separate from it.

 

The environment created us, through eons of evolution, by a relatively straightforward process of creating kids.... millions of generations of kids.

[BFish]

 

As it happens, Brian's description only seems to reinforce the label.

 

don't quite follow that, but i'll take the selfish label and wear it proudly based on my being a parent. i am a selfish person on many levels, and if one of them is the joy in MY soul and heart and the fact that i truly believe being a parent has made me a better person, i'm selfish. it made me, my life and the realtionship with my wife better and also, in an unselfish way, required both of us to put our offspring's wants and needs

above our own.

 

in response to greg's latest post the described feelings were not why we had a child...but a very pleasant benefit as it turned out.

[ghaverkamp]

The environment created us, through eons of evolution, by a relatively straightforward process of creating kids.... millions of generations of kids.

 

And every one of those creations placed a burden on its environment. Most were created by organisms that have no concept of self, which makes it difficult to be selfish.

[David]

I truly believe being a parent has made me a better person, i'm selfish. it made me, my life and the relationship with my wife better and also, in an unselfish way, required both of us to put our offspring's wants and needs above our own.

 

Which leads me to observe that perhaps the selfish ones are on the other side of the argument. The people I'm personally acquainted with (Jan is not someone in that category) choose to not have children to be selfish and not unselfish. It gets in the way of the lifestyle they want. I'm sure that's not universal, but there it is.

[Twisties]

I didn't get your PM, Jan. There's probably something messed up in the DB system at the moment.

 

So you are defining selfish as "acting in your own interest without regard to others." Could you frame that specifically in terms of my children? I don't think you see what this sounds like from the perspective of a parent. I don't see how to read that other than it would be better if he wasn't alive. Is he not one of the "others" you refer to? Or is that just all the other people who were alive on that sex-filled night? But now that he's born, it's okay?

 

The definition is paraphrased from a widely recognized online dictionary.

 

You weren't a parent when you decided to have the first kid, or perhaps, failed to decide not to have a kid, however the case may have been. Your kid(s) weren't kids (or "others") then when the decision was made, but they are now.

 

Assuming you, being a relatively competent person of means, made decisions regarding your issue, and then carried them out to your satisfaction, you did so for your reasons. Are you arguing that you sat around convinced yourselves the world needed more kids before you had yours?

 

That's all I mean. It has nothing to do with your relationship with your kids, or how your raised them or how they turned out, or anything else of the sort. We're talking about why you had them, not who they are.

 

Once they are here, of course I accept are unique and wonderful and all of that. I like people. Did you miss the part where I said that I do feel deprivation? Good grief, I'm not even suggesting you should feel guilty for having them. All I said was that we chose not to in part due to recognition of the environmental burden. How about a thank you?

 

Jan

[smiller]

Under some circumstances the decison not to have chlidren could be construed as being selfish. In some countries (Japan, Russia, etc.) their socities (at least to the extent that they want to retain a national identity) are threatened by a low birthrate due to a generation of young couples putting off starting families in order to enjoy a higher standard of living (in economic terms at least.) The resultant demographic shift is looking to make for some severe problems as their populations gray. In fact in the two countries I mentioned the government offers significant financial incentives for couples planning a first child.

 

Edit: Looks like David and I were typing at the same time.

[Twisties]

My thesis: Having a child in an inherently selfish act which places a burden on the environment.

That's flawed on so many levels, I don't even know where to start... So let me propose a counter-thesis: There could be no environment without kids. Every species -- be they single-celled organisms, algae, plants, fungi, invertebrates, reptiles, fish, mammals, whatever -- eats to live and lives to reproduce. That is the essence of "environment." It's not some picture on a wall we look at. We're part of it, embedded in it, just like wolves or giant redwoods or blue whales. We're not 1. distinct from it or outside it, and I believe it's inherently selfish, not to mention arrogant and misguided, to think we're somehow separate from it.

 

The environment created us, through eons of evolution, by a relatively straightforward process of creating kids.... millions of generations of kids.

 

I agree with your counter-thesis almost completely. You are just missing two points.

 

1. I never suggested we are somehow separate. My concern is that we are not. We are all too natural for my level of comfort I'm afraid.

 

2. World population continues to grow exponentially. All the evidence at hand indicates that this is a problem. Have you looked at what happens to natural populations when they over-populate. It's not pretty.

 

To the extent that we are not any longer a natural population it is because of two things:

 

a. We have the power to choose our fate, unlike bacteria or fish, and

 

b. So far we have managed to far exceed our normal population limits through the application of technology and the consumption of finite natural resources.

 

[David]

Assuming you, being a relatively competent person of means, made decisions regarding your issue, and then carried them out to your satisfaction, you did so for your reasons. Are you arguing that you sat around convinced yourselves the world needed more kids before you had yours?

 

No, we did not have that argument among ourselves. We came at it from a different presumption. You start with the idea that having kids is bad, and then seek a justification that is not (in your own very unique definition) selfish. We started from the premise that kids are good to have*, and then asked ourselves if there are mitigating reasons that would seem to counter that in our situation, leading to a decision to be childless. The only significant hesitation we had at that time was whether we wanted to subject them to some of the people in the world.

 

*Why are they good to have? Because it's the essence of what it means to be human. Kids, after all, bring enormous heartache, unbelievable expense, sleepless nights, and all kinds of shit that squeezes out of their diapers at the most inappropriate times. Yeah, kids are definitely a selfish decision!

 

That's all I mean. It has nothing to do with your relationship with your kids, or how your raised them or how they turned out, or anything else of the sort. We're talking about why you had them, not who they are.

 

I don't see how you can separate those strains in the argument.

 

Did you miss the part where I said that I do feel deprivation? Good grief, I'm not even suggesting you should feel guilty for having them. All I said was that we chose not to in part due to recognition of the environmental burden. How about a thank you?

 

A thank you for what? I'm sad for you (my reaction to your deprivation). Maybe you ought to run it through a spreadsheet and weigh the environmental footprint of having kids versus a nice house, motorcycles, and all sorts of other things. I don't say this judgmentally, but could you have made other choices, had kids, and not violated the environment?

[Twisties]

I truly believe being a parent has made me a better person, i'm selfish. it made me, my life and the relationship with my wife better and also, in an unselfish way, required both of us to put our offspring's wants and needs above our own.

 

Which leads me to observe that perhaps the selfish ones are on the other side of the argument. The people I'm personally acquainted with (Jan is not someone in that category) choose to not have children to be selfish and not unselfish. It gets in the way of the lifestyle they want. I'm sure that's not universal, but there it is.

 

Totally agree with you and Seth on that, that choosing not to have kids can be a selfish choice. It's in no way relevant, but certainly true.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

My thesis: Having a child in an inherently selfish act which places a burden on the environment.

 

In a way, this gets back to that old saw: "there's no such thing as altruism."

 

Having kids is selfish: your pursuit of family will consume more of the world's dwindling resources (air, water, fuel, food, land, etc.), but you do it because you want to personally experience the fulfillment of parenthood.

 

Having kids is selfless: you know it's going to be a burden in your life, but you view your kids as "your gift to the world" in that they will grow up to contribute to the future well-being of society as a whole, so you defer to the needs of the many.

 

Having no kids is selfish: you don't want to share your time, money, or personal space with a resource-intensive midget, and you don't want to be compelled to do the many difficult things that are required to be a good parent and raise a healthy, well-adjusted kid.

 

Having no kids is selfless: children would complete you, but you recognize that the world would be a better place with fewer people in it, and so you defer to the needs of the many.

 

Have I now offended everybody equally?

[BFish]

Jan, i applaud your world order/environmental concerns. i say this with all sincerity. you obviously have a passionate desire to make a difference in conserving/preserving our finite resources. i'm not mocking you, but truly salute your passion.

 

back to the debate, as one of the admitted selfish parents i applaud your efforts to do your little part to make this a better world for our offspring. serious, no winks here.

 

now that you've explained your position it tempers my initial reaction to the original post.

 

i ain't going to feel guilty tho!

[OoPEZoO]

That said we are all selfish. Eating, using the bathroom, just plain staying alive is selfish.

 

Yup......being on top of the food chain is rough work.

 

On a more serious note.....Going by the definition of selfish. Yes, about 95% of what we do is selfish, the rest is involuntary reaction. You could have the argument that everything that we do that involves a thought process could be considered selfish. The best thing we could do for the environment would be to run naked out into the wilderness and die, but I'm sure the preservatives in our bodies would still probably have some negative long term effects. I'm not going to be the first person in that line. No matter what thought process is used, it is animal instinct to survive......and that involves popping out kids. Its kinda hard to reprogram the general population from thousands and thousands of years of evolution geared towards surviving. Me personally, I don't have any of my own kids yet, but in the mean time I've made the decision to help raise someone else's child (my girlfriends daughter). And on top of it all......30 years from now, I would rather have MY kids making decisions about the future than the idiot kids that live next door. Oops, there's that animal instinct again. Selfish......sure by definition, but in the interest of self preservation, I think my Mom will kill me if I don't get her some grand kids within the next few years .

 

This has been some good reading, but I think its about time to start consuming fried food and beer.

[smiller]

Totally agree with you and Seth on that, that choosing not to have kids can be a selfish choice. It's in no way relevant, but certainly true.

The relevance is that if it's both selfish to have children and selfish to not have children then the question itself is pretty much moot. At least to the extent that any question can ever be moot on this forum.

[David]

It's only moot until the argument pool dwindles to three people, typically, who all finally lose their audience and argue among themselves, forcing only the moderators to read it with itchy trigger fingers, just HOPING to find a reason to close it down.

[Lets_Play_Two]

I agree with your counter-thesis almost completely. You are just missing two points.

 

1. I never suggested we are somehow separate. My concern is that we are not. We are all too natural for my level of comfort I'm afraid.

 

2. World population continues to grow exponentially. All the evidence at hand indicates that this is a problem. Have you looked at what happens to natural populations when they over-populate. It's not pretty.

 

 

To the extent that statement 2. is one half of your thesis I went looking for population data. What is presented below is 5 years old, but it seems to deny the major premise for being selfless in not having children.

 

"UN REPORT TO SHOW FERTILITY RATES WORLDWIDE TO DROP TO BELOW REPLACEMENT

NEW YORK, February 4, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A United Nations report due to be released later this month warns that the world will soon be in a dangerous situation of overall population decline. Far from the population controllers predictions that the world will be completely overpopulated, the UN demographers warn that the decline in fertility rate shows no indication of stopping at 2.1 - the replacement rate.

 

"All the evidence suggests fertility is falling rapidly in developing countries with no sign it is going to stop at the magical number of two," said Larry Heligman of the UN population division. The UN report warns that the average fertility rate will decline to 1.85 - dangerously lower than the replacement rate - by 2050.

 

The Sunday Times which provided a sneak preview at the report notes that Thailand's fertility rate went from 5 in the 1970s to just under 2 today. In Iran the rate has gone from 6.5 children in the 1980s to 2.75 today. While the current world average for women bearing children is 2.7, in the West the average is much lower with countries such as Italy at 1.2 children per woman.

 

Jacqueline Kasun, a researcher who has warned for years about the coming population decline and the erroneous predictions of those espousing overpopulation, warned that that crunch will be felt in attempting to care for the elderly with few earners to support welfare and pension systems."

 

 

[steveknapp]

If you care about the future there are two things you can do. Just my humble opinion.

 

You can try to change others in THIS generation to agree with you. Hope some of them has some kids and those kids listened to you and carry your ideals on. If none of you or your friends have any kids, then when you die, so do your thoughts with you. Unless of course you're writings make a serious impact on others.

 

Or get the clothes off and get busy. Have a family. Share your ideals with them, raise them to be good people as best you can. When you're long gone hope that your kids live on and carry those ideals forward.

 

Having David has been rewarding, but it's not been easy. It's hard to describe how reading the same silly book for the 1000th time to a 2 year old can be rewarding.

 

I hardly see it as selfish. That's rather insulting actually.

[finallyabeemer]

My thesis: Having a child in an inherently selfish act which places a burden on the environment.

 

In a way, this gets back to that old saw: "there's no such thing as altruism."

 

Having kids is selfish: your pursuit of family will consume more of the world's dwindling resources (air, water, fuel, food, land, etc.), but you do it because you want to personally experience the fulfillment of parenthood.

 

Having kids is selfless: you know it's going to be a burden in your life, but you view your kids as "your gift to the world" in that they will grow up to contribute to the future well-being of society as a whole, so you defer to the needs of the many.

 

Having no kids is selfish: you don't want to share your time, money, or personal space with a resource-intensive midget, and you don't want to be compelled to do the many difficult things that are required to be a good parent and raise a healthy, well-adjusted kid.

 

Having no kids is selfless: children would complete you, but you recognize that the world would be a better place with fewer people in it, and so you defer to the needs of the many.

 

Have I now offended everybody equally?

 

 

Offended? Nope, sorry. Actually, I am very appreciative as you saved me a whole lot of typing! Well said! All are valid and objective arguments - it dependends on an individuals subjective opinion on which one is "most" true for THEM.

 

At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, there is also an undeniable supporting argument to "having kids is selfish" when considering having your own when there are so many millions available for adoption.

 

On the other hand, it seems to me that adopting unwanted children remains the only truly selfless decision.

[Twisties]

Jan, i applaud your world order/environmental concerns. i say this with all sincerity. you obviously have a passionate desire to make a difference in conserving/preserving our finite resources. i'm not mocking you, but truly salute your passion.

 

back to the debate, as one of the admitted selfish parents i applaud your efforts to do your little part to make this a better world for our offspring. serious, no winks here.

 

now that you've explained your position it tempers my initial reaction to the original post.

 

i ain't going to feel guilty tho!

 

And you should not.

 

I wasn't attacking anyone's choice to have kids, I was just saying we did not, and counting it a credit of sorts. I don't believe in martyrdom, and I'm not living an ascetic lifestyle, far from it. I don't ask that anyone else martyr themselves either.

 

I don't even claim environmental concern was our only motivation. Just a major one. Perhaps it was an easier sacrifice for us to make than for others. As I said, no criticism was implied in the thesis. Only a recognition that there is an environmental cost, and that having them would have been for our own reasons despite that cost. I think my point of view is not that kids are bad, but simply that there are more than enough as is.

 

If kids are important to you, then by all means, everything in moderation as they say. I certainly agree that having kids is not all bad, but that does that mean there is no value in choosing to refrain?

 

Jan

[Art..]

 

 

All I said was that we chose not to in part due to recognition of the environmental burden. How about a thank you?

 

Jan

 

I'm sorry, but but I have to raise the bullshit flag on this. What you seem to be saying is that you and your spouse are "less selfish" because you sat down and decided not to have children to save the planet? (in part.......) Really?!

 

Before you call us "breeders" selfish, let's hear all the other reasons that you came up with, in order of importance. Then, we can all decide who is MORE selfish.

 

Hey, you threw the first stone, Jan. Hope you don't live in a glass house.

 

Raising kids is one of the most selfless acts on the planet, period. (and before you try, yes, both my wife and I sincerely contemplated the weight of our decision to HAVE and RAISE kids, thanks for asking). You literally sacrifice your personal freedom, assets, privacy, and dignity. Sometimes you get a reward and sometimes you don't. Is that selfish? No. It's frustration, exhaustion, commitment, risk, challenge, fear, joy, pride, faith, and love. Raw and visceral emotion.

 

It's LIVING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob Palin]

Having no kids is selfish: you don't want to share your time, money, or personal space with a resource-intensive midget, and you don't want to be compelled to do the many difficult things that are required to be a good parent and raise a healthy, well-adjusted kid.

I don't buy this at all, it implies that somebody is being denied your attention when that somebody doesn't exist, you can't be selfish about something that doesn't exist.

 

(I have no kids, although I've never been driven to have kids I didn't really choose not to, it just worked out that way.)

[Twisties]

Bill,

 

LifeSiteNews???? I think I need that "sick" emoticon.

 

Here is what the UN has to say today about population growth:

 

UN Current Release (2007)

 

Jan

[90%angel]

Is having kids selfish? Maybe the decision to have them is (it always starts with I/we WANT a kid...unless it is an oops, of course!). But the process of hatching and raising them - -i.e., BEING a parent, requires you to turn into a selfless person, and I see that as a good thing. You learn how to be giving, humble and patient.

 

As for the environment, yeah, I can see how having uncontrolled numbers of kids is bad. Probably especially bad in that this day and age we endeavor daily on ways we can all live longer, so there will be a lot of old people on the planet too... but I digress.

 

I have read about and heard from a LOT of people who actually start caring more for the environment after they have kids. Suddenly, they realize that they aren't just going to die one day, and leave the earth behind, "who cares the state I leave it in?" - now, there is another generation they want to preserve it for.

 

Anyway, just my rambly thoughts on all this.

 

[DavidEBSmith]

On the other hand, it seems to me that adopting unwanted children remains the only truly selfless decision.

 

Mmm, why? Many people adopt children to satisfy their own egos, just as some people conceive children to satisfy their own egos. Or to have an heir to carry on the family name. There are many "selfish" reasons to adopt children.

 

I put "selfish" in quotes because this whole thread seems to be about people confusing "selfish" meaning "driven by self-gratifying motives" with "selfish" meaning "lacking due consideration for the welfare of others". It can (and will be) argued endlessly whether having children who will use up natural resources exhibits a lack of consideration for others on the planet, but that has nothing to do with the subjective motivations of the people having the children.

 

Brought to you by Carl's Jr. Because Brawndo's got Electrolytes.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Having no kids is selfish: you don't want to share your time, money, or personal space with a resource-intensive midget, and you don't want to be compelled to do the many difficult things that are required to be a good parent and raise a healthy, well-adjusted kid.

I don't buy this at all, it implies that somebody is being denied your attention when that somebody doesn't exist, you can't be selfish about something that doesn't exist.

 

So why haven't you adopted?

[SeanC]

World population continues to grow exponentially. All the evidence at hand indicates that this is a problem. Have you looked at what happens to natural populations when they over-populate. It's not pretty.

So you're concerned with keeping things pretty? Well I can tell you, as the father of a three-year old boy, that not having kids will help you accomplish such a goal. And I suppose if you multiplied that out a few billion times, you could say the world would be a prettier place. You could even say the world would be a prettier place without humans. Can't agree or disagree with that. It's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

 

To the extent that we are not any longer a natural population[...]

But we are a natural population. All populations are natural populations, to whatever extent they've managed to eke a niche.

 

We have the power to choose our fate, unlike bacteria or fish

It's easier when you have no offspring to feed or care for, to only have yourself to worry about, but does that make you less selfish?

 

Re the power to choose our fate, we're not that different from bacteria and fish. We (humans, bacteria, fish, et al.) are not the pinnacle of evolution. As long as the sun has fuel and the planet maintains an orbit within the Goldilocks zone, there will be plenty of replacements in the future, be they descended from us or not.

 

So far we have managed to far exceed our normal population limits through the application of technology and the consumption of finite natural resources.

And just what is our "normal" population limit? How does one know if we've exceeded it, much less "far" exceeded it? Have we outgrown our food source? Maybe... It certainly looks as though some human herds and tribes have. Has yours?

[Twisties]

 

 

All I said was that we chose not to in part due to recognition of the environmental burden. How about a thank you?

 

Jan

 

I'm sorry, but but I have to raise the bullshit flag on this. What you seem to be saying is that you and your spouse are "less selfish" because you sat down and decided not to have children to save the planet? (in part.......) Really?!

 

Before you call us "breeders" selfish, let's hear all the other reasons that you came up with, in order of importance. Then, we can all decide who is MORE selfish.

 

Hey, you threw the first stone, Jan. Hope you don't live in a glass house.

 

Raising kids is one of the most selfless acts on the planet, period. (and before you try, yes, both my wife and I sincerely contemplated the weight of our decision to HAVE and RAISE kids, thanks for asking). You literally sacrifice your personal freedom, assets, privacy, and dignity. Sometimes you get a reward and sometimes you don't. Is that selfish? No. It's frustration, exhaustion, commitment, risk, challenge, fear, joy, pride, faith, and love. Raw and visceral emotion.

 

It's LIVING.

 

You and David seem to think I'm throwing stones. I see that I made a simple factual statement and was attacked for it. I've been defending myself ever since.

 

So far, so as as I can see no one has even come close to refuting the thesis by the way. I'm about to add "incontrovertable" to my list of adjectives above. :-)

 

Now the two of you want to pile irrelevancy on top of irrelevancy. Also, you can't seem to stop conflating the outcome with the choice, even as that outcome seems to prove the point for the most part.

 

Again, you seem to be attaching judgment to "selfish". That is neither my intent, nor part of the standard definition, see Merriam-Webster LINKY

 

Oh, and I never said anything about "less selfish", only that choosing to have children would have been selfish. I have no idea what selfless things others do and I have no desire to judge the relative merits of your selfless acts versus mine.

 

We're both living, you and I.

 

Jan

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Brought to you by Carl's Jr. Because Brawndo's got Electrolytes.

 

ROTFLMAO

[David]

Jan, help me out. You just said:

 

You seem to be attaching judgment to "selfish."

 

You have "attached" a presumably wasteful environmental footprint to having children, and you think that's wrong, so how is this not to be taken as judgmental?

 

Bigger environmental footprint = wrong

 

Having a child = bigger environmental footprint

 

Having a child = wrong

 

Where have I lost your argument?

[leikam]

I see this debate going round because an action (having children or deciding to have children) and a motive (self-interest) are being conflated unnecessarily.

 

As we've seen there are many reasons one might decide to have children, many motives for breeding. Some of them are selfish (e.g., I want somebody to care for me when I'm old) and some of them are not (e.g., I'll do my part to prop up the declining national birth rate). But the real monkey wrench in answering the original question of whether having kids is selfish is that it's such a big decision involving (at least) two people that it cannot have one single motivation.

 

Having children also has many complex effects some of which are net benefits and some of which are net costs to parents, children, society, the rest of the environment, etc. How do you weigh those effects? Is the landfill cost of all those diapers too dear? Or does the possibility of raising the next Mother Theresa trump that? Or maybe the payoff of seeing a child adopt your own values is worth the eventual cost to Brazillian forests? Simply opting out of having children avoids the costs but it also foregoes the benefits -- whatever the motivations that led to conception.

 

In other words, Jan, there is no general answer to your question.

[steveknapp]

So you're concerned with keeping things pretty?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw - About 1:30 in.

 

[leikam]

Again, you seem to be attaching judgment to "selfish". That is neither my intent, nor part of the standard definition, see Merriam-Webster LINKY

From the M-W site with my emphasis:

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

Those italicized parts are exactly where the critical judgement comes into the definition. Being "reasonably" concerned with oneself and one's own advantage, while also showing concern for others, does not rise to the "excessive" level required to meet the definition.

 

And colloquially, I don't see how you can think that throwing out a term like "selfish" could be read in a neutral way. It's just not realistic.

[OoPEZoO]

So you're concerned with keeping things pretty?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw - About 1:30 in.

 

Thats just a good 7:38 from start to finish....LOL

[SeanC]

So you're concerned with keeping things pretty?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw - About 1:30 in.

Brilliant stuff. He totally nails it.

 

So I dug around and did a little research, and do you know what I found out? George Carlin is someone's kid. Whoa. I shït you not. I for one am glad his parents were selfish enough to produce him, 'cuz otherwise the last 8 minutes or so I spent on YouTube would have been kinda pointless....

[Twisties]

Jan, help me out. You just said:

 

You seem to be attaching judgment to "selfish."

 

You have "attached" a presumably wasteful environmental footprint to having children, and you think that's wrong, so how is this not to be taken as judgmental?

 

Bigger environmental footprint = wrong

 

Having a child = bigger environmental footprint

 

Having a child = wrong

 

Where have I lost your argument?

 

The thesis is

Having a child is an inherently selfish act which places a burden on the environment.

 

It is selfish because one does it for one's own reasons despite that cost/burden. That doesn't go to right or wrong. Nothing in the thesis goes to right or wrong.

 

As I have said repeatedly, we all do selfish things, we must to survive, and most, including me, go well beyond that if they can. I don't think it's wrong to survive, but it I recognize it as selfish. Just as I recognize buying a dSLR is selfish when people are starving somewhere. I have the power to do that, and I did it. I also had the power to buy some food for someone somewhere, or provide a life saving medicine. I chose the camera. Am I bad? Am I wrong? Is every selfish act wrong? I certainly haven't said so and I don't think it was wrong to buy that camera, merely selfish. I think it's being honest with myself to recognize that and make that decision knowingly.

 

So the place where we differ is that you assume I attach "wrong" in there somewhere. I'm merely recognizing the nature of the decision and it's cost. In your terms, bigger environmental footprint does not equal "wrong". Rather it is something to be aware of that may influence your decisions. I'd be much more comfortable with, "Working towards a smaller environmental footprint is good."

 

Moreover, we need some kids. So having some is clearly not wrong. What I said (not in the restated thesis, but in the original thread, taken in it's original context) is that I placed value on not having kids. That value comes from my belief that we have too many, not from a belief that having any is wrong.

 

I can't be any clearer that. You deserved a reply, but I feel I am being repetitive and not breaking new ground, plus I have selfish things to attend to... like laundry and maybe a short ride. So I'm going to take a little break. Later.

 

Jan

 

[steveknapp]

Just as I recognize buying a dSLR is selfish when people are starving somewhere. I have the power to do that, and I did it. I also had the power to buy some food for someone somewhere, or provide a life saving medicine. I chose the camera. Am I bad? Am I wrong? Is every selfish act wrong? I certainly haven't said so and I don't think it was wrong to buy that camera, merely selfish.

 

BMWST.com, where riders of expensive German motorcycles go to open up and cleanse their soul about their $800 camera, in their $250 tank bag, on their $20k motorcycle, with their $1500 in "ATGATT".

 

After all, you at least gave thought to the fact that people somewhere are starving. And that, um....What's the point of all this again?

 

 

[Bob Palin]

So why haven't you adopted?

Several reasons but basically because I don't want to, that could be seen as selfish but I don't feel I'm responsible for somebody else's kid, not that I won't, and haven't, helped in that arena but I don't see that I need to do it full time to fulfill my societal responsibilities.

 

I doubt I'm eligible to adopt anyway as a single man living alone. (my ex had two kids, I lived with the 3 of them for almost 7 years, I didn't enjoy it)

[Dave McReynolds]

I think this thread got off on the wrong foot by choosing, or focusing, on the word "selfish."

 

In my view, the world has way too many people in it, and it would behoove us as a species, for the sake of humans to come, to do something about that.

 

But to call a basic human drive like reproducing "selfish" makes no more sense than calling a basic human drive like eating "selfish." Our species would have died out with the first generation that didn't feel a compelling urge to reproduce or eat.

 

But among the things that makes us human is the ability to look beyond basic individual drives and make decisions for our common good that no one individual would do on his own. For example, to tax people to build roads, schools, and provide for the common defense, rather than depend on individual donations. Some people would disagree with even doing that, but that doesn't stop them from driving on the roads, etc.

 

There doesn't seem to be much of a movement to reverse population growth yet, and those that have occurred, as in China, have been unpopular, to say the least, but it's a problem that isn't getting any better.