Do you want kids?

[Caligastia]

This is just as stupid as che's post.

There's nothing selfish in the decision to have kids or not. If somebody chooses not to have kids, there's no way this can be a selfish reason. That just doesn't make any sense.

Re-read what I said: "people often choose not to have kids for selfish reasons". I agree, there's nothing inherently selfish in the decision not to have kids - the selfishness depends on the reason for not having kids. As an example, an earlier poster said she was too selfish to have kids. Therefore she is choosing not to have kids for selfish reasons.

[Arrian]

The only way it can been totally UNselfish is if you have kids not because you want them, but because you believe you have an obligation (to society, to God, to your parents, whatever) to have them.

And if you do THAT, I'd argue you're messed up.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

And, while Che took it to the extreme (hey, it's Che), the reality is that people have kids for selfish reasons. Hell, I believe that they SHOULD have selfish reasons. Otherwise, how are they going to be able to put up with the downside?

edit: to clarify/explain further... people are by nature selfish, to varying degrees. Selfish desires motivate us. Therefore, to expect that people would do something as difficult as child rearing w/o reward (reward = fulfillment of said selfish desires) strikes me as rather silly.

-Arrian

Good points. I guess the desire for personal growth could be considered a somewhat selfish motivation for having kids.

[Caligastia]

The only way it can been totally UNselfish is if you have kids not because you want them, but because you believe you have an obligation (to society, to God, to your parents, whatever) to have them.

And if you do THAT, I'd argue you're messed up.

-Arrian

I don't think it's humanly possible to undertake something as life-changing as having kids without there being at least some degree of selfishness involved - even if it's of the positive kind we mentioned earlier.

[Jon Miller]

Uh, there are ways to give back to society other than having children. Aren't you a scientist?

Yeah, I am. And just having one kid that is raised to be a productive member of society will be a lot greater benefit to future generations than all the scientific knowledge that I discover. It is true, if you go around and change a lot of kids from being useless to being productive members of soceity that this is as good (or better from some perspectives) as having kids of your own. But how many of the people who plan to never have kids is this true of?

All your wealth/etc will be gone and pretty meaningless after you die. Acheivements will be surpassed. Productive people with opportunities is a requirement. And they generally perpetuate themselves also, unless they become too selfish.

Sure, but I think it's also true that a lot of people do have children for selfish reasons.

Some do, but I think that even more don't have kids for selfish reasons.

And before you say you don't have the opportunities, even the poorest person in the US has more opportunities than the majority of the earth's population.

Note I am saying that you shouldn't be selfish. But I recognize that most of us are, to one extant or another. I am just making people honest about it.

Most likely every person in this thread who said they didn't want children (or might not) should have at least one. Well, maybe not Che.

JM

[Caligastia]

Sure, but I think it's also true that a lot of people do have children for selfish reasons.

Yup, definitely.

[Jon Miller]

The only way it can been totally UNselfish is if you have kids not because you want them, but because you believe you have an obligation (to society, to God, to your parents, whatever) to have them.

And if you do THAT, I'd argue you're messed up.

-Arrian

I think that people have an obligation to society, to biology, and to God to have children (excluding if there is something seriously wrong with them). Apparently you think I am messed up.

I mean, if you think about it, not having chlidren is being an evolutionary and culturally failure. You aren't passing on your genes (or the genes of your community) and you aren't passing on your culture. The biology aspect is actually why I favor having (some at least) of my own children, otherwise I would think it better to adopt.

JM

[Arrian]

Yep, we agree (edit: to Caligastia)

This was part of my response to my mother, who called me selfish for *maybe* not wanting kids. She was upset... because I might leave her selfish desire to be a doting grandmother unfulfilled. Heh.

I may yet have a kid. If I do, it will be because my wife and I decide that the good stuff we stand to get out of it outweights the difficulties, risks, etc., such that we want to do it.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I think that people have an obligation to society, to biology, and to God to have children (excluding if there is something seriously wrong with them). Apparently you think I am messed up.

JM

Yes, on this issue, I most certainly do.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I mean, if you think about it, not having chlidren is being an evolutionary and culturally failure.

I don't really care.

You know, I probably should get out of this thread now. Otherwise, I'm going to get royally pissed and it might have some impact on how I'm thinking right now... in the midst of making this really important decision w/my wife, and that would be STOOPID.

-Arrian

[Krill]

I think that people have an obligation to society, to biology, and to God to have children (excluding if there is something seriously wrong with them). Apparently you think I am messed up.

Only because producing too many offspring leads to the collapse of the local environment (which to humanity is the entire world) and teh death of the species. Producing too many offspring is as bad as not producing any.

[Lorizael]

Yeah, I am. And just having one kid that is raised to be a productive member of society will be a lot greater benefit to future generations than all the scientific knowledge that I discover.

Of what benefit is it to society to create one more resource-hoarding organism who will almost undoubtedly do a thoroughly replaceable job that only has meaning within the specific context of our society and then die after 80 years?

It is true, if you go around and change a lot of kids from being useless to being productive members of soceity that this is as good (or better from some perspectives) as having kids of your own. But how many of the people who plan to never have kids is this true of?

It doesn't matter for how many it's true. What matters is that there are multiple ways to give back to society, and having children is only one of them.

[Lorizael]

I don't really care.

You know, I probably should get out of this thread now. Otherwise, I'm going to get royally pissed and it might have some impact on how I'm thinking right now... in the midst of making this really important decision w/my wife, and that would be STOOPID.

-Arrian

Oo, but I want to see a pissed off Arrian. You're always so goddamn reasonable!

[Jon Miller]

Only because producing too many offspring leads to the collapse of the local environment (which to humanity is the entire world) and teh death of the species. Producing too many offspring is as bad as not producing any.

But you want offspring that can produce and solve problems. And who is likely to be able to do that? Offspring that is raised in the first world.

First world countries having fewer kids, and third world countries having more kids, just means that the producers in society have to bear more and more weight. I admit that we producers in the first world countries have mostly fallen short of our duty towards our fellow humans in third world countries though, we really should be trying to educate them and provide the necessities so that they can live happy and productive lives.

JM

[Arrian]

Some people believe that one should reproduce for the survival of the species. Others believe one should NOT reproduce for the survival of the species.

**** that noise. Make the decision on personal grounds.

-Arrian