so....Not having children=Selfish?

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

More and more people are, consciously or not, becoming aware of this. It is why fertility rates in educated countries are so abysmal. The will of fruitless perpetuity is being eroded from the human mind.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that that is the cause?

Scientific data? No. Observations? The fruit of years studying dozens of different viewpoints on thousands of issues? Yes. You may dismiss my words on the shift in the zeitgeist due to not matching the common lust for catalogued data, but you cannot dismiss that there is evidence of what I expound in this very thread

"Fertility Rates" was a poor choice in words. Willingness to procreate would have been better.

Introspectionism, anomie, hedonism, and other forms of self-worship/self interest illustrate that people in the developed world are shifting their focus from the biological impulses to reproduce, and historical human pursuits of striking out in the name of their beliefs to matters of what one may call selfishness. This is not a bad thing, as the concepts of good and bad are just as meaningless a creation of man as any other. Selfishness, when manifested as the conscious decision to not reproduce is simply another choice made on that same road to the ultimate end.

snip.

ohhh...so you think that people dont want children because they have realised its all meaningless in the grand scheme of things?....

I disagree

1. I'd say its more likley with more options in life some peopel would rather just do other things than have children

2. peopel have already given lots of reasons as to why they have children, and its biological..somtimes we dont need reasons

3. alot of people (myself included) find it kind of pointless to think that far ahead, I'd rather focus on...saaaaay Mass effect 3 coming out...than the fact that the universe is beyond my control...I can go and get my copy of ME3, I cant do a damn thing about the universe, so why worry? not everyone is as miserable as you are over the whole thing

4. I'd say its HIGHLY debatle that being blissfully ignorant was such a good thing back in the day...especially at time when peopel were under the Iron fist of the church and unable to think for themselfs or deviate from society...

1) People would rather do other things than procreate. Because they don't see the purpose in doing it themselves. Why bother? The conscious thought is that there are thousands of other things I can do to occupy myself, the unconscious end to that thought is "...Before the end".

2) Life is hardwired to continue itself, yet the only beings with higher intelligence in the world can choose to resist this urge. That illustrates the power of one's outlook and ability to reason, and how it is destroying us.

3) I'm not miserable. I occupy myself with the same things you do. It is only that I am truly awakened to what life is. I acknowledge that everything I do is pointless, yet still do it. The ultimate point of looking to the known end of all things, is being able to look at anything from a totally unencumbered perspective.

4) Being ignorant isn't a good thing, nor is being informed. They are both just states of being. One allows for a blissful existence, as biologically intended, the other allows informed nihilism.

 

[Vault101]

snip.

1. PLENTY of people like procreating, plenty of people will continue to do it...your blowing things out of proportaion

2. we arnt being destroyed (at least not for a few life times..and even then I doubt it)..and even if we are didnt you say its all going to end anyway? (I think I saw on a documentry, if you could have an atom for every year untill the end of the universe...there atill arnt enough atoms) you say everthing is meaningless because it will eventually end yet you also talk about how our current attitudes are "somwhow" leading us to doom becuse some peopel dont want ot have babies

I dont wan to have babies because "Alien: chest burster" seriously

3. you sound pretty miserable to me if you think everything is so horrible you dont want ot bringa child into the world

4. highly debatable, all depends on how you look at it

 

[mik1]

I wouldn't say that your being selfish... people don't have children because they want have a clean conscious.
People have children so that when you are an old fuck you can look at what you've left on this world. If you had kids, that's usually what comes to mind.
If you have kids who grow up to good adults, confident in who they are, productive members of society or maybe even they have given you grandchildren. You can see that your life's significance was giving the world a positive addition in the form of a quality human being.

Or your children will be fuck ups and you will hate yourself and them. It's really just a gamble.

 

[ablac]

I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population, but since there are factors such as early death, sterility, homosexuality inhibiting us, couple must produce above 2 children or the population will dwindle over the years. Then of course there's the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is not equal, so even more children need to be produced.

Lowering the national reproductive rates to below the par required for sustaining to population results in age demographic imbalances. China is famous for it's one child policy they introduced to help counter overpopulation. This has been disastrous because it actually worked to an extent and since people stopped producing enough children, the country's average age is very high compared to most countries, it's a big problem when your country mostly contains seniors for obvious reasons.

Canada's population is actually at risk because too many people don't feel it's worth their time to have kids. Personally I think the government needs to offer more incentives to parents. Sure you will have welfare bums who will only benefit further from this, but more good will come of it than bad I think.

Former Premiere of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell made the situation a little worse in 2010 with the introduction of the new tax system. Yeah, let's tax all children's clothing and goods, I'm sure more people will have kids if we do that.

You ether
A. Had to write a paper on this or
B. Have spent too much of your free time thinking on this.

Besides, don't you have a greater responsitlity to yourself? This is even more true if you do have kids, as everything you do is seen by them. If they see to working yourself to the bone try to feed them, what does that tell them? that you live solely as a way for them to get what they want?

Now you will say:
No, it will show them that they should sacrifice for the greater good of their country and the world.

To which I will say:
Unless they work for the government, that isn't and shouldn't be their job.

Then you say something sarcastic in a vain attempt to outdo me and win an internet debate, and then I will start ignoring you, then you will think you won, and so on and so forth.

So people should only be concerned for themselves? If normal people viewed things like you then there would be little life worth living. Your parents raised you to what you are yet you criticise people who want to do the same for other children. I doubt they raised you to belive that you shouldnt have kids else they wouldnt have had you.

Life is all about living, if we don't live our live our selves who will? Life isn't about having kid, or making piles of money, or going rock clime ling or mediating or going to church every Sunday or waking up in pool of vomit from an all night party. It's about doing what makes you happy and fulfilled. So long as you don't hurt anyone along the way, what does it matter?
And don't call me normal, if we were all normal, we'd living in caves slowly starving to death. And hey, guess what? I'm over 18, my parents don't have any say in what I do, and even if they did, they raised me to think for myself, not blindly do what they did. I never said that people shouldn't have kids. Unlike some people here, I like kids. I just don't want any. Not right now anyway. If that make me wrong, well, you should know the rest of that saying.
Also? you replied fast.

"life not lived for others is not a life". Thats my philosophy (thats from Mother Teresa by the way im not claiming it is my statement). What I said about your parents was that they raised you from a child to who you are now. Being legally an adult doesnt change that you to were once a helpless child who wouldnt be breathing if it werent for people who took care of you. You shouldnt look down on those with children and Iview it that you owe someone else a childhood and life because you had one as well and to decide that you shouldnt so you can further only yourself os rather selfish.

 

[ablac]

I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population, but since there are factors such as early death, sterility, homosexuality inhibiting us, couple must produce above 2 children or the population will dwindle over the years. Then of course there's the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is not equal, so even more children need to be produced.

Lowering the national reproductive rates to below the par required for sustaining to population results in age demographic imbalances. China is famous for it's one child policy they introduced to help counter overpopulation. This has been disastrous because it actually worked to an extent and since people stopped producing enough children, the country's average age is very high compared to most countries, it's a big problem when your country mostly contains seniors for obvious reasons.

Canada's population is actually at risk because too many people don't feel it's worth their time to have kids. Personally I think the government needs to offer more incentives to parents. Sure you will have welfare bums who will only benefit further from this, but more good will come of it than bad I think.

Former Premiere of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell made the situation a little worse in 2010 with the introduction of the new tax system. Yeah, let's tax all children's clothing and goods, I'm sure more people will have kids if we do that.

Agreed. Just look to Japan for a worst case scenario. They have a rapidly aging population and no-one to care for them. Their economy is suffering for it too. Australia is in a similar boat, we have more Baby Boomers who will need aged care that we can afford while maintaining sensible tax rates.

So it's selfish to not want to raise kids to take care of a bunch of people you don't know? People need to care for the aging so it's the duty of the young to crank out kids to provide for them?

No no you misinterpret what theyy are saying. What they are saying is that if a generation does not have as many children as exist in their generation then when the 1st generation ages there is not enough people to support them. You basically have a majority or at least large amount of the population needing support which is not ideal and isnt good for anyone. The elderly dont receive the support they need just what can be given and the young give more than they should have to to support them. This sint simply physical care simply financial aswell. hing is this is the problem and its new because before baby boomers life expectancy was not nearly as high on average as it is now (at least for the average person). This mean no one really knows what to do about it and thats a scary thought. It isnt a matter of "we need to have more kids to look after old people" more a matter of the amount of old people will exceed the young and how will we be able to cope. Birthrates in first worlds have decreased and life expectancy has risen. Its bad for the economy in more ways than one.

Yes, I get that. I am, however, contesting the notion that because of this issue we should feel obligated to have more kids. I don't think they were just recognizing the problem, I'm fairly certain they were saying that is why it would be selfish not to have kids.

Well its a ligitamate problem with only one real solution. Im not saying people should be forced to have kids but not having kids or having them at a rate lower than one child to match one person is unsustainable. If we fail to recognize that and act on it then it will be our destruction. Im not having a go just saying that people who choose not to have kids are seen as selfish as when they get older will still take from the younger generation as the aged naturally do and must. When you age you have certainly earned your keep in life but if there is a disproportion of old to young then everyone is worse off.

I never denied it was a legitimate problem. I am, however, denying that that solution is something we should feel obligated to provide.

And it is simply not selfish to not have kids. It's selfish to ask that of anyone. You're asking for more of their life than is reasonable.

Try and see it like this. I dont want my future kid's taxes ( I am as of yet childless but intend to have some) paying for your support when you are old. This is not specific to you but thats my logic. The world will treat you differently when your old and that cost of better treatment will be paid for by the younger generation. If you havent contributed to that then you are being selfish. Im not saying to you you must have kids im simply saying most people ought to

Then you're freely rejecting any of my tax money? If not then that makes no sense. I still contribute to society, pretending that the only contribution that counts is children is stupid.

The only reason people deserve to be aided with money is because they gave it themselves. Asking for children too and years of my life is you being selfish for the sake of your kids. You're the one asking for disproportionate compensation.

Ok you are completely mis interpreting what im saying. I will probably have kids and you will probably grow old. When you get old you will probably need some sort of support or at least will take from society on account of no longer being able to work. That is fine and the elderly should be cared for. My childrens taxes will go to supporting you rather than your childrens taxes on account of you not having children. You are the one who (seems to) believe that people should only support themselves so if you want to compensate for you drain one society in later life then you should have kids to support you. That is obviously not the only reason but dont expect help if you havent contributed. Your taxes only pay for what is spent now and do not in any way pay for you later on in life.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

If people call you selfish for not having children, ask them if they're an organ donor. Then call them selfish for not killing themselves already.

That's probably the best thing I've heard on this thread so far. And possibly the worst...

OT: I doubt me adding one person to the 7 billion we have is really going to change things. And will it help the economy? No. Why? I live in an area with the second lowest youth employment rate in the UK (slightly better than part of Liverpool). Not because nobody is trying, but because there are no jobs. Throw another generation in there. A lot of them are going to end up on the dole, living off the government not contributing to society.
Not to mention that you need to be in a financially stable state. Not just that, but you can't be working too hard. Lawyers make lots of money, but do you think they have enough free time to properly raise a child while maintaining a good relationship with their partner?

 

[ablac]

I only skimmed your post, but it's selfish because you are jeopardizing the economy and stability of your country by refusing to have children. Every couple must produce at least two children on average to sustain your population, but since there are factors such as early death, sterility, homosexuality inhibiting us, couple must produce above 2 children or the population will dwindle over the years. Then of course there's the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is not equal, so even more children need to be produced.

Lowering the national reproductive rates to below the par required for sustaining to population results in age demographic imbalances. China is famous for it's one child policy they introduced to help counter overpopulation. This has been disastrous because it actually worked to an extent and since people stopped producing enough children, the country's average age is very high compared to most countries, it's a big problem when your country mostly contains seniors for obvious reasons.

Canada's population is actually at risk because too many people don't feel it's worth their time to have kids. Personally I think the government needs to offer more incentives to parents. Sure you will have welfare bums who will only benefit further from this, but more good will come of it than bad I think.

Former Premiere of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell made the situation a little worse in 2010 with the introduction of the new tax system. Yeah, let's tax all children's clothing and goods, I'm sure more people will have kids if we do that.

Agreed. Just look to Japan for a worst case scenario. They have a rapidly aging population and no-one to care for them. Their economy is suffering for it too. Australia is in a similar boat, we have more Baby Boomers who will need aged care that we can afford while maintaining sensible tax rates.

So it's selfish to not want to raise kids to take care of a bunch of people you don't know? People need to care for the aging so it's the duty of the young to crank out kids to provide for them?

No no you misinterpret what theyy are saying. What they are saying is that if a generation does not have as many children as exist in their generation then when the 1st generation ages there is not enough people to support them. You basically have a majority or at least large amount of the population needing support which is not ideal and isnt good for anyone. The elderly dont receive the support they need just what can be given and the young give more than they should have to to support them. This sint simply physical care simply financial aswell. hing is this is the problem and its new because before baby boomers life expectancy was not nearly as high on average as it is now (at least for the average person). This mean no one really knows what to do about it and thats a scary thought. It isnt a matter of "we need to have more kids to look after old people" more a matter of the amount of old people will exceed the young and how will we be able to cope. Birthrates in first worlds have decreased and life expectancy has risen. Its bad for the economy in more ways than one.

Yes, I get that. I am, however, contesting the notion that because of this issue we should feel obligated to have more kids. I don't think they were just recognizing the problem, I'm fairly certain they were saying that is why it would be selfish not to have kids.

Well its a ligitamate problem with only one real solution. Im not saying people should be forced to have kids but not having kids or having them at a rate lower than one child to match one person is unsustainable. If we fail to recognize that and act on it then it will be our destruction. Im not having a go just saying that people who choose not to have kids are seen as selfish as when they get older will still take from the younger generation as the aged naturally do and must. When you age you have certainly earned your keep in life but if there is a disproportion of old to young then everyone is worse off.

I never denied it was a legitimate problem. I am, however, denying that that solution is something we should feel obligated to provide.

And it is simply not selfish to not have kids. It's selfish to ask that of anyone. You're asking for more of their life than is reasonable.

Try and see it like this. I dont want my future kid's taxes ( I am as of yet childless but intend to have some) paying for your support when you are old. This is not specific to you but thats my logic. The world will treat you differently when your old and that cost of better treatment will be paid for by the younger generation. If you havent contributed to that then you are being selfish. Im not saying to you you must have kids im simply saying most people ought to

Then you're freely rejecting any of my tax money? If not then that makes no sense. I still contribute to society, pretending that the only contribution that counts is children is stupid.

The only reason people deserve to be aided with money is because they gave it themselves. Asking for children too and years of my life is you being selfish for the sake of your kids. You're the one asking for disproportionate compensation.

Ok you are completely mis interpreting what im saying. I will probably have kids and you will probably grow old. When you get old you will probably need some sort of support or at least will take from society on account of no longer being able to work. That is fine and the elderly should be cared for. My childrens taxes will go to supporting you rather than your childrens taxes on account of you not having children. You are the one who (seems to) believe that people should only support themselves so if you want to compensate for you drain one society in later life then you should have kids to support you. That is obviously not the only reason but dont expect help if you havent contributed. Your taxes only pay for what is spent now and do not in any way pay for you later on in life.

No, I am not misinterpreting it. I am pointing out that you are narrow mindedly refusing to consider that I am simply be recompensed for current contributions made.

And where did you pull out that I believe that people should only support themselves? Don't be stupid, I said nothing of the sort and the fact that I mentioned paying taxes says as much.

And taxes do only pay for what is spent now. But for our elderly now. Is the fact I contributed to that supposed to be ignored? Seems so according to you.

Do stop continuously ignoring that you're asking for disproportionate compensation btw. Are your kids going to give me years of their lives and give up their own goals for my sake? No? Then stop being so selfish.

I give up this is like talking to a brick wall. You will not budge from your position so it is pointless to argue with someone who refuses to listen to argument. It is complex and you seem to have taken this as a demand that you have children. You benefit for the taxes paid now as does everyone else. You have a selfish view that life is to be lived only for yourself and that the taxes you partially benefit from (as they benefit the nation you live in) somehow pay for you in later life. Yes your taxes pay partially for care of the elderly but they probably balance out the cost of your parents. You have exagerated what I said about my children paying for you by seeming to think it means waiting on you at all times. If you do this then where am I to stand? I make an argument you take a personal insult from what is nnot an insult and you exagerate my argument rather than listen to it.

 

[requisitename]

Sidestepping the arguing, I will just say that I don't want children because I'd be a shitty parent. If that makes me selfish, I can live with that. I'd rather be selfish than fuck some poor, defenseless kid up nine ways to Sunday.

And before anyone says something along the lines of "You couldn't possibly know that!" or "You might surprise yourself!".. it isn't worth it to me to find out because life doesn't really give "do-overs" on such things.

 

[Antares]

Ha ha ha! This thread is great! I love all the folk posturing that they don't want kids. No woman in her right mind would allow herself to be inseminated by you bunch of losers in the first instance so please, go ahead and convince yourselves that this is your choice and not a defence mechanism related to your hideous physique/ personality/ both.

Cheers!

The fact that you chose to say this instead of just reading the posts tells me that you have a much bigger problem then your own Hideous physique/personality/both. To be fair I replied, so that doesn't make me much better.

Now you will say:
So you admit that you have a Hideous physique/personality/both.

Then I'll say:
I'm told that I'm rather handsome, but prone to the odd sarcastic remark, but their funny enough that no one has disown me over them.

Your mum doesn't count when people tell you you're rather handsome.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

It's selfish to HAVE kids, adoption is the only selfless option.
When there are tons of children wishing for a family every night and you decide you'd prefer one with your own genes, that's selfish

There are an insufficient number of children to create a replacement population if you only adopt.

Correct, however once there are enough people willing to adopt we could strike a balance.
If there are no children waiting for adoption THEN it's hardly selfish to have children

 

[renegade7]

I only skimmed your post,

Yea that's your first problem. The OP actually gave some very good reasons for her decision.

Well firstly I think the population could use a bit of thinning out tbh. We have MORE people than the economy can sustain. And what if it isn't 'worth your time'? It costs how many hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise a kid up to and through college (and don't kid yourself: It's a necessity these days)? I think the bigger problem is people having kids who can't afford to raise them. The OP's point is that she doesn't get why people are just 'expected' to, despite the fact that in some situations there is every good reason to wait. Also, many parents are in debt. Having to go into debt to pay for food because you have 3 mouths to feed is not helping the economy. As for the statement about homosexuality is inhibiting us...just how many homosexual couples do you think there are out there? If homosexuality was a threat to the population we would have died out long ago.

OP: I agree completely. A woman in our society these days has far more options than just being a baby factory.

 

[renegade7]

Agreed. Having kids when you're not capable of raising them due to a lack of a stable career or income just because you want babies would actually be more selfish.

 

[Ympulse]

The bigger question is, why are people compelled to reproduce like animals?

Also, as for the "amg who will care for the elderly" argument. Every human should be euthanized at age 70.

 

[Thistlehart]

Let's stop for a moment and consider a few points that have already been made.

1) If a person feels that they are not fit to be a decent parent, and they choose to not have children, that is a responsible decision.

2) If a person feels that they have better things to do than raise a family, they may be selfish, (but I would support an alternate view, discussed below for brevity).

3) If a person feels that they are ready to have children, and do so, they have made the responsible decision and will likely make decent parents.

4) If a person makes no decision to be a parent, but ends up one anyway, that person is both foolish and irresponsible.

5) If a person feels they must have children to be happy, but have given no thought to what that entails, they are irresponsible, selfish, and stupid.

Does this cover everything (leaving out the petty bickering, soap-boxes, and posturing)?

To my mind, those who make the decision to never have children are making as noble a sacrifice for the future as someone who has children (moreso if they later choose to adopt or foster). The childless knowingly sacrifice their genetic future (for myriad reasons I will not go into). This will leave more resources available to the future generations of the childed.

One sacrifices their present for the sake of the future, the other sacrifices their future for the sake of the present. Each is making a sacrifice, knowingly or unknowingly.

I fail to see how either is genuinely selfish (barring the irresponsible and stupid mentioned above).

 

[Lord Kloo]

We live in a mostly capitalist world.. who gives a flying fuck if we're selfish.. If people wanted us to not be selfish we'd be in a communist system that would dictate the number of children we need to have to keep population balances..

I have no obligation to continue to existence of the human race..
I have no obligation to provide children to deal with the grossly top-heavy populations of the modern world..
I have no obligation to provide children for an economy that is based on fucking greed and selfishness..

So no I'm not being selfish.. would it be selfish of me to waste the potential of my reproductive organs by living with someone incompatible or unable to produce children with me? NO it would not..

/Pointless comparisons and rants

 

[lazysquirell]

Speaking as a 23 year old guy who wants kids someday - though I have to admit not the near future - I figured I'd give you my two cents

1. If your partner doesn't want children either then no it's not selfish in the slightest it's your choice. Having said that neither is it selfish should you have agreed with a partner who wants children after discussion to not have children as a couple. It is however selfish to force your choices onto your partner without even considering their thoughts on the matter but then thats obvious I agree overall it's not selfish whatsoever.

2. Forgive me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're attacking those who want to have children - maybe the context is lost in text - again it's their choice but tbh this isn't a moral argument it's an argument regarding personal choice. It also shouldn't be about an ego boost if you're having a child to boost your own ego you had a child for the wrong reason granted children will make you proud of them but thats a perk not a reason the same way having more free time is a perk of not having children.

3. Again I agree but you have to accept the social norm is for people to have children that wont stop or at least if it does the human race is screwed though I am not saying that the norm is something everyone should aspire to.

Honestly though anyone whose attacked you for not wanting to have children is plain stupid and should be ignored and dismissed as a grade A imbecile. Having children is an awesome thing but it's not for everyone. Some people make great parents others don't it's like people who would rather live in the city or the countryside it's choices and opinions not some moral dilemma it all depends on you and it is your choice 100% not anybody elses - other than your partner but thats relationship stuff and I can't be bothered to go into that

Hope that made sense probably didn't... Oh well...