Is having kids selfish?

[Twisties]

It will self regulate, but the means is not particularly nice. Wouldn't it be better to just plan ahead and prevent the problem in the first place?

 

Why do things have to be "nice?" That is indeed part of the natural cycle of life that we're all a part of, and to think that we're the only species that can fix it, or at least prolong it is worse than selfish, it's arrogant.

 

Well, maybe we have a semantic disconnect here. Not "pretty", the term I used earlier, or "nice", generally refers to a state in which we experience mass die off's as a species, and which threaten or even destroy civilization.

 

For me, that's an unacceptable outcome. I'm advocating that we do all that we can with these minds of ours to prevent it. I've made the point repeatedly, that our population is no longer anywhere near natural, which I have defined as that which could be supported without technology and consumption of finite resources. Given that, why would we not act to save our civilization and prevent a disaster? Our population must therefore be managed.

 

Why would you bring a child into this world, as you have done, and then advocate for a course that will likely kill him or his descendants, or at best leave him a savage in a poisoned world?

[Lets_Play_Two]

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

 

Quoting from your "more reliable source".

 

"As a result of declining fertility and increasing longevity, the populations of more and more countries are ageing rapidly. Between 2005 and 2050, half of the increase in the world population will be accounted for by a rise in the population aged 60 years or over, whereas the number of children (persons under age 15) will decline slightly. Furthermore, in the more developed regions, the population aged 60 or over is expected to nearly double (from 245 million in 2005 to 406 million in 2050), whereas that of persons under age 60 will likely decline (from 971 million in 2005 to 839 million in 2050)."

 

Thus your premise has no validity!

 

 

[tallman]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3503/

[Matts_12GS]

For me, that's an unacceptable outcome. I'm advocating that we do all that we can with these minds of ours to prevent it. I've made the point repeatedly, that our population is no longer anywhere near natural, which I have defined as that which could be supported without technology and consumption of finite resources. Given that, why would we not act to save our civilization and prevent a disaster? Our population must therefore be managed.

 

Why would you bring a child into this world, as you have done, and then advocate for a course that will likely kill him or his descendants, or at best leave him a savage in a poisoned world?

 

Jan,

To paraphrase the loud pipe crowd, if I have to explain this to you then you'll never understand it. Despite posting this thread, you CHOOSE not to understand it. You appear to have more satisfaction touting how virtuous you are by not having children.

 

to that I say "Bravo. Foxtrot. Delta." (BFD for the phonetically challenged.) I'm not saying that having kids is any more virtuous than not having them, but I don't believe that each additional child in the world is one more match held to the fuse that will destroy the world.

 

I like what Sage Rider said about this above. If more of the folks who believe that population is too high were taking themselves out of the equation (which truly would be a selfless act) things would be better for all of the planet. That'd be commitment to the cause, bold, decisive action. This planet is crying out for leadership, why aren't you folks saving us from ourselves by ending your own metabolic processes?

 

My guess is that they're either too "selfish" to shake off the mortal coil or they're convinced that "they" shouldn't be the ones removed from the ecosystem.

 

BTW, Jan, if you'd like to chat about this more, I'll be glad to continue this out of the board, as any more of my responses would likely violate many clauses of the user agreement.

[DavidEBSmith]

Are these people "selfish"?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24537885&GT1=43001

 

[Matts_12GS]

Are these people "selfish"?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24537885&GT1=43001

 

Seems they can afford it so I don't think I'll be able to judge them.

 

If I were to offer them any advice, it'd be to get cable or maybe a different hobby.

 

Or, a vasectomy. My guess is that Dr. Ruth would approve of their technique though...

[Firefight911]

Perhaps we could try this - Logan's Run

 

Everyone over age 30 to the check out lane please!

 

And then we can use them to solve the world's food problems - Soylent Green

 

Mmmm, liver!!!

[Firefight911]

Better info links

 

Soylent Green

 

Logan's Run

[SeanC]

but I still say population is the root cause of the deaths by starvation in China and Darfur.

Or more accurately, China and Darfur's population is the root cause of the deaths and starvation in China and Darfur. Is a Utah couple's decision not to have children going to change that by even the slightest degree? Will there be less death and starvation in the world by the time they die childless because of their childlessness?

 

he says we can't support an expanding population because of dwindling resources, and I say we can't have Utopian land use and food allocation because we're human beings, and humans have always hoarded scarce resources for their tribes

It's not unique to humans, Dave. It's a feature common to all life forms. To what degree does the hardship of the Carpathian or Tibetan wolf affect the breeding/territorial behavior of the North American Grey wolf? Is the unexplained die off of honey bees in North America causing bee colonies in Sumatra to re-think their colonization and pollen gathering routines?

 

C'mon.

 

There are any number of valid reasons not to have children, but for members of the North American subspecies of h. sapiens to claim global environmental impact as one of them -- and further, to postulate that the decision to have children is inherently selfish -- is nothing more than an irrational rationalization.

 

I want to make the world a better place, and a critical component of my plan is to make better people to inhabit it. In other words, my wife and I will leave behind new and improved replacements of ourselves for the future. It's a huge job with incredible responsibility, fraught with all sorts of hardship and sacrifice. Sean 2.0 is but three years into the process, and Adria 2.0 is zero minus five months. There's no guarantee they will be better, but it won't be for lack of trying. Anyone's free to label us "selfish," but I consider the decision to leave no one for the future (on the flimsy basis put forth in this thread) lazy, cynical, pessimistic and uncourageous.

[rdsmith3]

I have not been able to read all 108 responses, so apologies if I repeat a point.

 

I just have two main responses.

 

First, as a Christian, it is my belief that the OP is worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. In other words, the priorities are skewed, IMO. I will not judge someone else's motives; I do not know what someone else is thinking; but IMO many people who choose not to have kids are making a decision out of selfishness. We now have the "convenient truth" that a possibly selfish decision can be rationalized as being good for the environment. So what? Who says that the environment should be our pre-eminent concern in life? I agree that we should be good stewards of the resources that we have, but we have a much higher purpose in life than just that.

 

Second, there have been so many doomsday predictions over the course of history, and they have been wrong. Thomas Malthus is a prime example.

[russell_bynum]

It will self regulate, but the means is not particularly nice. Wouldn't it be better to just plan ahead and prevent the problem in the first place?

 

Why do things have to be "nice?" That is indeed part of the natural cycle of life that we're all a part of, and to think that we're the only species that can fix it, or at least prolong it is worse than selfish, it's arrogant.

 

Well, maybe we have a semantic disconnect here. Not "pretty", the term I used earlier, or "nice", generally refers to a state in which we experience mass die off's as a species, and which threaten or even destroy civilization.

 

For me, that's an unacceptable outcome. I'm advocating that we do all that we can with these minds of ours to prevent it. I've made the point repeatedly, that our population is no longer anywhere near natural, which I have defined as that which could be supported without technology and consumption of finite resources. Given that, why would we not act to save our civilization and prevent a disaster? Our population must therefore be managed.

 

Why would you bring a child into this world, as you have done, and then advocate for a course that will likely kill him or his descendants, or at best leave him a savage in a poisoned world?

 

Tangental question: I seem to recall you weighing in as in favor of "nationalized healthcare" because it would mean more people can get coverage. Wouldn't that go against your belief that overpopulation is a big problem? I mean...from a "Survival of the organism" perspective, it seems to me that the best thing we could do is let the old, weak, and stupid die. That's cold and not compassionate, but if it is selfish to add people to the Earth, then isn't it also selfish to "unnaturally" keep people on the Earth?

 

 

On the original topic: While there are certainly many unselfish things you have to do when you're a parent, I'd say that with every person I've talked to, their decision to become parents was selfish. Meaning...they did it because it provided something that they wanted. Honestly, though, so what? I'm having a hard time thinking of any decision that couldn't be called selfish. We evaluate the choices and make the decision that we think is best. Whether "best" means "makes us feel good" (like choosing to give money/time to charity) or whatever...if the decision makes your life worse and doesn't give you anything in return, we generally don't pick that option.

 

I don't want kids because I like to keep my free time and money as my own and the whole thing sounds like a big hassle. I want kids because they're fun and it's always gratifying when someone you've been teaching finally "gets it" and the lightbulb comes on. My decision to have/not have kids is made by weighing those things (and a gazillion other variables) and in the end my decision is what makes sense for me...which makes it selfish. Even if it means I have to miss Spring Torrey.

[roydog007]

Wouldn't it be better to just plan ahead and prevent the problem in the first place?

 

Ain't gonna happen.

I'm constantly facinated at how smart humans think they are.

I think as a whole, members of this board excluded, humans are about as smart as a box of rocks.

[russell_bynum]

Wouldn't it be better to just plan ahead and prevent the problem in the first place?

 

Ain't gonna happen.

I'm constantly facinated at how smart humans think they are.

I think as a whole, members of this board excluded, humans are about as smart as a box of rocks.

 

That statement is offensive to rocks.

 

And boxes.

 

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

Ain't gonna happen.

I'm constantly facinated at how smart humans think they are.

I think as a whole, members of this board excluded, humans are about as smart as a box of rocks.

 

That statement is offensive to rocks.

 

And boxes.

 

 

 

 

And we in the rock and box Lobby are going to have our say, our voices will be heard! And someday, those who so casually disrespect the rocks, boxes and boxes of rocks in this country shall pay their fair share. I have a dream that one day all the great 's rocks will be judged on their mineral content and not the condition of their boxes!

 

 

Now, don't get me started about the slanderous treatment of bags of hammers!

[roydog007]

Your right, how could I have been so insensitive.

I want any boxes, rocks or boxes of rocks to know that I am deeply sorry for such a casual dismissal of your superior intelligence.

 

I know you would never do anything stupid.

[eddd]

Perhaps we could try this - Logan's Run

 

Everyone over age 30 to the check out lane please!

 

And then we can use them to solve the world's food problems - Soylent Green

 

Mmmm, liver!!!

 

 

That's one way to pass along your genes!

[DiggerJim]

I've made the point repeatedly, that our population is no longer anywhere near natural, which I have defined as that which could be supported without technology and consumption of finite resources.

Humans (of the Homo Sapiens type) have never been "natural" under your definition. As soon as the first one picked up a rock to be used to cause the death of his dinner, he started using technology and consuming finite resources. Given enough whacks on the heads of Mastodons that initial rock is shattered and turned to flakes & sand...the rock is gone and our erstwhile hominid needs to get another rock to turn into a weapon. Sooner or later (really a long long later) all the rocks are turned into sand and unless more advanced technology (perhaps metallurgy?) is used, all humans die. Lest we believe it's only the carnivores that consume finite resources thru technology, unless the farmer human uses nothing more than his finger to poke a hole in the soil and then finds some way of directing all excretions (including his body's final decomposition) in the same field he uses for farming, he too will consume all of the nitrogen and other nutrients and ultimately deplete the soil rendering its resources finitely consumed.

 

The only "natural" human population under your definition is an extinct one. Which brings us all the way back to the question of why folks who believe as you do don't avail themselves of personal extinction lest they continue their selfish consumption of resources.

 

At least one of our hypotheses appears to have been proven.

[Quinn]

When I was 25, if you'd given me the choice of having a baby or buying a boat, I'd have pick the boat. Luckily for my son, God looked down from heaven and decided I needed to be selfish.

 

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

Second, there have been so many doomsday predictions over the course of history, and they have been wrong.

 

So far.

[Dave McReynolds]

Humans (of the Homo Sapiens type) have never been "natural" under your definition. As soon as the first one picked up a rock to be used to cause the death of his dinner, he started using technology and consuming finite resources. Given enough whacks on the heads of Mastodons that initial rock is shattered and turned to flakes & sand...the rock is gone and our erstwhile hominid needs to get another rock to turn into a weapon. Sooner or later (really a long long later) all the rocks are turned into sand and unless more advanced technology (perhaps metallurgy?) is used, all humans die. Lest we believe it's only the carnivores that consume finite resources thru technology, unless the farmer human uses nothing more than his finger to poke a hole in the soil and then finds some way of directing all excretions (including his body's final decomposition) in the same field he uses for farming, he too will consume all of the nitrogen and other nutrients and ultimately deplete the soil rendering its resources finitely consumed.

 

The only "natural" human population under your definition is an extinct one. Which brings us all the way back to the question of why folks who believe as you do don't avail themselves of personal extinction lest they continue their selfish consumption of resources.

 

At least one of our hypotheses appears to have been proven.

 

I don't really understand why you and several others have concluded that Jan feels that human extinction is the answer to the problem. He has stated that he would like to see a better world in the future for all of your children, rather than a world with rampant pollution, starvation, and other atrocities that result from overcrowding. I don't think there is a single person who has written in on either side of this issue who feels the world would be a better place without any people. Or that any of your children shouldn't have been born.

 

We are talking here about reducing the population of people who haven't been conceived yet. If you believe there is a line of souls in heaven waiting to be born, and we would be interfering with God's plan if we did that, then God bless you and let's just agree to disagree; I don't have any response to that. Aside from that religious argument, however, it's really just a question of whether the world would be better or worse off in the future with more or less people that there are now. In 1900, there were around 6 million people in Africa. Now, there are well over 600 million. Were they happier then or now?

 

There is a sub-question, as discussed by Sean and others, of whether the world would be better or worse off without those special, yet-to-be-born, middle class, well-cared for offspring, of intelligent American parents, who will no doubt contribute so much more than they consume during their lifetimes. As with the religious arguments, I really have no answer to that either. On the one hand, I agree that calling anyone "selfish" who has the means and desire to raise a potentially contributing member of society stretches the meaning of the word beyond recognition and flies in the face of the basic drive of the human race for self-preservation. For any one middle class American to believe he is having an impact on world population by deciding not to have a child is about as meaningful as buying a Prius to have an impact on global warming. That person is making a statement: nothing more; nothing less.

 

On the other hand, everyone who is concerned about population growth realizes that the real problem is in Africa, and Asia, and a few other places like Mexico. What are you going to do about that, in any real sense? Send them condoms? They'd probably end up using them to repair their cars. So you're pretty much left with making a statement, however pitiful it may be.

 

Some of you, when we've discussed the question of raising taxes to pay for public health care or some other public benefit, have tossed off the remark that if someone feels that strongly about it, he should send in some more of his own money. Well, here we have someone who is willing to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, and not have a child of his own because he feels so strongly about the problem of world population growth. I don't feel that strongly about it; I have two of my own who I dearly love, but I have to respect someone who does.

[Matts_12GS]

I don't really understand why you and several others have concluded that Jan feels that human extinction is the answer to the problem. He has stated that he would like to see a better world in the future for all of your children, rather than a world with rampant pollution, starvation, and other atrocities that result from overcrowding. I don't think there is a single person who has written in on either side of this issue who feels the world would be a better place without any people. Or that any of your children shouldn't have been born.

 

 

It's that selfish thing again Dave...

 

See, Jan tossed out that he thinks there should be fewer of us h. sapiens in the world, but, when he has the power to lessen the burden on the earth by sacrificing the joy of the people he knows he opts no to do so showing he's being as selfish as those of us "breeders." It's an argument made ridiculous to show that Jan's comments are little else "moral grandstanding." I'm certainly not advocating that Jan go out and make himself extinct, it's merely an exaggeration.

 

What scares me most in his argument is that Jan believes that we humans should have our growth "managed" presumably by a third party or government. I can only imagine the nature of government program he has in view for that. I bet the UN gets the nod to lead that one. I'll quit there to avoid this becoming political.

 

Aside from that religious argument, however, it's really just a question of whether the world would be better or worse off in the future with more or less people that there are now. In 1900, there were around 6 million people in Africa. Now, there are well over 600 million. Were they happier then or now?

 

Again Dave, this is the "crux of the biscuit" as Frank Zappa used to say... David pointed this (purported global warmism) as a religious dogma to Jan, and others have intoned with dogma of their own. Is either side more virtuous than the other? Nope, just different paths up the same mountain. The sad part is that the warming crowd seems much better at marketing their idea as the only answer and is thus pretty well dedicated to obtaining taxpayer money to ensure they're the dominant strain. Coexistance schmoexistance...

 

For any one middle class American to believe he is having an impact on world population by deciding not to have a child is about as meaningful as buying a Prius to have an impact on global warming. That person is making a statement: nothing more; nothing less.

 

So you're pretty much left with making a statement, however pitiful it may be.

 

Two points of agreement!!

[SeanC]

Well, here we have someone who is willing to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, and not have a child of his own because he feels so strongly about the problem of world population growth.

But see, that's the thing... there isn't a problem of world population growth. The problem is regional population growth (albeit in several different regions). There's a serious problem of rabbit overpopulation in Australia, but does that equate to a worldwide rabbit population problem? Would a rabbit farmer in Arkansas be "putting his money where his mouth is" by breeding fewer rabbits, you know, to help the problem? Would Australians even notice?

 

Like you said, such an act wouldn't be very meaningful, so what's the point of putting your money where your mouth is when your mouth isn't saying anything particularly meaningful or helpful?

 

That said, I really don't see how anyone could honestly label Jan's decision as somehow akin to relocating his assets to his pie-hole coordinates. I mean, as a parent you know that it costs money to raise and care for a child (a lot of money), so the decision not to have children doesn't cost you anything. In fact, it will leave a lot more money in your bank account. It's literally the least one can do for the world's problems.

[awagnon]

But see, that's the thing... there isn't a problem of world population growth. The problem is regional population growth (albeit in several different regions).

 

What people are saying is that the over population problem is in Africa, Asia, perhaps Mexico, but there isn't an over population problem in America now so why worry about it. At one time, there wasn't an over population problem in those areas either and no one thought there ever would be. Now massive numbers of people are starving, dying of disease or killing each other over resources. Look at reliable population growth predictions for the the Americas and we will be in the same boat eventually. Already, there are shortages of water in some places in the US. Yes, the population growth RATE is slowing because of sensible family planning by certain social and ethnic groups, but not by everyone. I have two children and I'm glad I have them. However I want their world and their childrens' world to be free from the hardships that plaque the over populated countries. No, you can't stop over population by deciding on your own not to have more than 0-2 children. But as mentioned, you can do what your conscience says is right and hope others will too. I guess we will have to disagree on what is right by how we each read and interpret the data.

[Francois_Dumas]

Hmmmmm..... define 'over population' ??

 

Dafur... with MANY people and NO FOOD. Sorta obvious....

 

But also: Los Angeles with MANY people and MANY CARS and not enough space to drive them in the morning?

 

Holland's western provinces: MANY inhabitants and not enough roads and housing to make them happy anymore.

 

In general, all major developed world and 3d world cities with overcrowded crime infested suburbs ?

 

As for 'curbing' that problem we must be pretty stupid indeed if we believe that providing Western help (if we do already) to stricken areas such as Birma, Dafur, the Tsunami coast, is going to help any.

mode off>

 

That would not be very 'humane' (whatever that means these days).

 

On the other hand, the population problem in Africa (yes there are several IMHO) is NOT a problem for Africa and those people alone..... the trouble is, they come HERE ! Bringing their burden, their diseases and wanting 'our' resources !

In that sense,there is a real issue..... but not having children HERE would not solve the problem.

 

Actually, we need children here to 'fend off' the hordes from the poor regions, don't we ??

 

Note the word 'need'...... so having kids is selfish, because we have a goal for it that serves us and our areas. Right!?

 

[KDeline]

Are these people "selfish"?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24537885&GT1=43001

 

 

No just stupid and a little creepy. I saw them on TLC or Discovery, building there dream home, all the girls are in dresses, boys in jeans, and all play violins. Good God fearing breeders. BTW they live on a lot of donations from there church, they cannot support themselves.

[JerryMather]

.... so the decision not to have children doesn't cost you anything. In fact, it will leave a lot more money in your bank account. It's literally the least one can do for the world's problems.

Maybe ... that's if you don't have some type of will to direct all that money where you'd like it to go. But on the other hand, when your gone and the money left over in those bank accounts is allocated to organizations that are working towards population no growth, then you may if fact be doing something about population control.

[Francois_Dumas]

Money ? Money? Hang on.. it DOES ring a bell somewhere..... must've had some of that stuff at some time..... hmmmmm....

 

 

Children or not, I wasn't planning on leaving any of it behind.... more like planning of making it to good use while I still can. Now THAT is selfish..... and ???

[JerryMather]

Money ? Money? Hang on.. it DOES ring a bell somewhere..... must've had some of that stuff at some time..... hmmmmm....

 

 

Children or not, I wasn't planning on leaving any of it behind.... more like planning of making it to good use while I still can. Now THAT is selfish..... and ???

That's the way to do it.

[Couchrocket]

,,,generally refers to a state in which we experience mass die off's as a species, and which threaten or even destroy civilization.

 

For me, that's an unacceptable outcome. ... our population is no longer anywhere near natural, which I have defined as that which could be supported without technology and consumption of finite resources. Given that, why would we not act to save our civilization and prevent a disaster? Our population must therefore be managed.

I think your definition of "natural" needs re-thinking. You sound like a "materialist" from your post here. By that, I mean only that you believe that we're here only through natural processes "only." If that is your positoin, then it seems to me that it would folow that everything that happens within the life span of a given species is, by definition, "natural." You may not like what our species is doing to the larger ecosystem, but it hardly seems appropriate to call it "un" natural. Much like criticizing lions for being predators, and calling it un-natural behavior.

[Bob Palin]

I never realised that the first definition of materialism, or for that matter any definition, was the way you have used it in this thread:

 

a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

b: a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress

 

I only knew the second definition. I certainly am one in the first sense and certainly not in the second.

[Couchrocket]

I never realised that the first definition of materialism, or for that matter any definition, was the way you have used it in this thread:

 

a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

b: a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress

 

I only knew the second definition. I certainly am one in the first sense and certainly not in the second.

 

Good grief man! Be careful... you're dangerously close to admitting that you learned something from "one of those people!"

 

I'm pretty careful in choosing my words... or perhaps better put, I "try" to be careful in choosing my words. One of the problems in our post-modern world is the decay of meaning through an inability to use precise language. Everyone's "meta-narrative" is equally valid, so we are challenged even know "if" we know what the other person means when he or she posits something. Add to that the general "dunder-headed-ness" produced in modern American schools, toss in MTV, rap, iPod-brain-rot, and it is pretty depressing.

 

Today, high level communication sounds something like, "Would you like fries with that?"

[Matts_12GS]

One of the problems in our post-modern world is the decay of meaning through an inability to use precise language.

 

Well said!

[Huzband]

... an inability to use precise language.

 

And even when we do manage it, it gets picked apart like a frog in ninth grade biology.

[Christian_rider]

W/O getting into too much trouble I hope. Biblically we are supposed to have, raise and cherish our children. Will go no further in hopes this can stay!

[Francois_Dumas]

W/O getting into too much trouble I hope. Biblically we are supposed to have, raise and cherish our children. Will go no further in hopes this can stay!

 

That's more like 'we' as in you I guess ;-) Not the same for everybody, so beside the original point. Unless you want to force this onto everybody and then you're being selfish again

[tallman]

The "dunderheadedness" "produced" in schools has a direct correlation to the ability of the parental units involved (most of the time).

The frog is now a virtual frog, another sign of how we "protect" our children.

Society has given schools responsibilities that were once the provenance of the family.

We feed them breakfast and lunch.

We teach them, right from wrong, what to eat, how to exercise, where babies come from, cyber safety, provide day care, fend off their lawsuits, oh, and how to pass their exit exams.

This is what Society has dictated,

while simultaneously sending messages through our media and their spokespersons/role models that are often inappropriate and destructive.

Sharing the responsibilty for raising children is not selfish.

From any rational point of view, choosing to have children, and then accepting the responsibility to raise them is far from selfish and certainly an expensive proposition.

So, having children, isn't selfish.

It is a lifelong commitment.

My thesis is that "choosing" not to have children is inherently self-centered, egocentric, and counterproductive in today's world.

[Francois_Dumas]

NOT having children sure seems a lot easier from where I stand.... and I AM jealous at times at those with so much extra free time, abundant money and freedom of spending it all to their OWN liking

 

Having said that, once you DO have a child/children I am sure you can't do without

 

The really 'selfish' people IMHO are those that DO have children but don't care for them... dumping them at day care centers, on the streets or even worse.

[rdsmith3]

W/O getting into too much trouble I hope. Biblically we are supposed to have, raise and cherish our children. Will go no further in hopes this can stay!

 

That's more like 'we' as in you I guess ;-) Not the same for everybody, so beside the original point. Unless you want to force this onto everybody and then you're being selfish again

 

It is not selfish to care about someone else's salvation, as long as it is being offered and not forced.

 

 

[Bob Palin]

My thesis is that "choosing" not to have children is inherently self-centered, egocentric, and counterproductive in today's world.

Nice, just pass judgment on us, very tolerant, I'm sure you know best.

[SeanC]

My thesis is that "choosing" not to have children is inherently self-centered, egocentric, and counterproductive in today's world.

Nice, just pass judgment on us, very tolerant, I'm sure you know best.

I understand how you'd feel that way, Bob, but how many taxpayers and Social Security contributors did you add to the system?

[Francois_Dumas]

W/O getting into too much trouble I hope. Biblically we are supposed to have, raise and cherish our children. Will go no further in hopes this can stay!

 

That's more like 'we' as in you I guess ;-) Not the same for everybody, so beside the original point. Unless you want to force this onto everybody and then you're being selfish again

 

It is not selfish to care about someone else's salvation, as long as it is being offered and not forced.

 

 

Maybe, although some people out there don't really want to be salvaged ;-)

 

Anyway, I used the word 'force' specifically.

[Francois_Dumas]

My thesis is that "choosing" not to have children is inherently self-centered, egocentric, and counterproductive in today's world.

Nice, just pass judgment on us, very tolerant, I'm sure you know best.

I understand how you'd feel that way, Bob, but how many taxpayers and Social Security contributors did you add to the system?

 

He didn't add any illegal immigrants, benefiting from that tax payer's money, to it either, did he now ??

[SeanC]

He didn't add any illegal immigrants, benefiting from that tax payer's money, to it either, did he now ??

That remains to be seen. The investigation of his garage alone could take years, and might well reveal several families of illegals living in there.

[Francois_Dumas]

He didn't add any illegal immigrants, benefiting from that tax payer's money, to it either, did he now ??

That remains to be seen. The investigation of his garage alone could take years, and might well reveal several families of illegals living in there.

 

ROFL !!!!

[Bob Palin]

My thesis is that "choosing" not to have children is inherently self-centered, egocentric, and counterproductive in today's world.

Nice, just pass judgment on us, very tolerant, I'm sure you know best.

I understand how you'd feel that way, Bob, but how many taxpayers and Social Security contributors did you add to the system?

That's just another unsustainable failure of the system, the reliance on a growing population to pay the benefits for the previous generations, hardly a reason to create more kids.

[tallman]

My thesis is that "choosing" not to have children is inherently self-centered, egocentric, and counterproductive in today's world.

Nice, just pass judgment on us, very tolerant, I'm sure you know best.

I understand how you'd feel that way, Bob, but how many taxpayers and Social Security contributors did you add to the system?

That's just another unsustainable failure of the system, the reliance on a growing population to pay the benefits for the previous generations, hardly a reason to create more kids.

 

Actually, that would be a sustainable facet of the system.

And all the more reason to have children.

That's why the show was called

Father Know's Best

 

Last episode aired 48 years ago next Friday.

http://www.tv.com/father-knows-best/show/659/summary.html

[Bob Palin]

My thesis is that "choosing" not to have children is inherently self-centered, egocentric, and counterproductive in today's world.

Nice, just pass judgment on us, very tolerant, I'm sure you know best.

I understand how you'd feel that way, Bob, but how many taxpayers and Social Security contributors did you add to the system?

That's just another unsustainable failure of the system, the reliance on a growing population to pay the benefits for the previous generations, hardly a reason to create more kids.

 

Actually, that would be a sustainable facet of the system.

And all the more reason to have children.

How sustainable would it be when the US population was 1 billion, or 2 billion?

[tallman]

Don't know.

Probably if we nuked the rest of the world, expanded our borders, no big deal.

 

Point is, that isn't our population, and won't be at current growth rates.

When it does reach that level, in this country, it would be due to a shift in bio-medical and agrabusiness that made such numbers sustainable.

 

You missed the point of my thesis.

An unproven argument is just that.

Depending on what side you're on, we tend to seek justification for our position.

I see more of that from one side, in this discsussion.

 

No one is judging you.

Who you are is not defined by a choice in reproductive behaviour.

Of course we all are here due to someone else making a choice.

Who we are is defined by who we were, who we are, who we become, and how others remember us.

Judging implies right or wrong.

Ths is not a matter of right or wrong (in most cases).

I do not think people who have children are better than those who choose not to.

But the thrust of the OP was one of moral superiority comparing the people who choose to/not to have children.

I find that position incongruous with my reality.

Now, someone who chooses to have children and says that is a morally superior position compared to those who don't, would also find their realm outside of my reality.

 

My thesis was the polar opposite of the OP.

It was an exercise in aquaculture and business is good.

Best wishes.

Hope to see you again one day and talk face to face as you always have a direct manner I find refreshing.

I'd even stay in the garage with the rest of the gang.

 

[Bob Palin]

My thesis is that "choosing" not to have children is inherently self-centered, egocentric, and counterproductive in today's world.

How is that not a judgment?

[SeanC]

That's just another unsustainable failure of the system, the reliance on a growing population to pay the benefits for the previous generations, hardly a reason to create more kids.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Let's assume some woman was desperate enough or ocularly challenged enough to mate with you and the two of you produced two children. :shudder icon: Unless you and your spawn possess the power of immortality, you and your poor mate have not really contributed to population growth. You've merely replaced yourselves in the larger picture. Sure, there will be an overlap period where the planet and humanity must endure four Palins souring the place up, but the overlap is necessary for you to train those godless beasts and insert them into society as productive members of it. About the time they're up to speed, you will have scaled back or ceased doing whatever the hell it is you do, complain about kids these days for a few years, and die. Your poor, now completely blind, wife will wander off into your garage and die shortly thereafter.

 

The net Palin population is back to sustainable and sufferable levels, society breathes a sigh of relief, your children bulldoze the property and sell the lot, splitting the meager proceeds betwixt themselves.

 

That's the way population works and always has. It's not a shell game or pyramid scheme. Unlike spiders, the male of our species isn't killed after copulation, nor is the female eaten by her young after giving birth. We have to stick around for a few years.

 

Now, were you and your mate to produce three children, then you could rightly claim to have created "more kids." But we know, in part, that God exists because such a scenario was too unthinkable to make it into the Book of Revelations ("And behold, I saw a pale horse and a bald rider. His name was Bob. And he was followed by three beasts from Hell: Nigel, Simon and Bobby Jr.")