NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, somebody please explain that one to me, because I can't for the life of me understand this idea.

There was a radio show on earlier today where they discussed people and couples who decide against having children. The show was ok, listing a lot of the arguments and showing different angles of the whole family-concept. It was when they started getting texts from outraged parents that I suddenly felt like I had somehow passed the invisible threshold into some sort of parallel universe. The parents and parents-in-spe who felt compelled to get their opinions heard were literally throwing hissy-fits about the selfishness of not having and not even wanting to have children.

Now, I've recently been thinking about maybe having some kids myself after all, and I felt that this would be the most selfish thing I'll ever do in my life. I'll create a little person without asking his or her consent, and for years this person will have to live with me and follow the rules I'll decide to put up.
I'll add another additional person to a planet that's ecosystem is already stretched to the limit with 6.5 billion individuals of my species.
I'll eventually die and those kids of mine will have to somehow come to terms with the world that my generation and the generations before have fucked up to the best of their abilities.
All because I want children. Not because anyone else desperately wants the little buggers I'll produce. Not because those kids can't wait to be exposed to this world with BSE in beef and heavy metals in mushrooms, melting glaciers, Islamic extremists and Western neofascists, religious nutcases, Dublin Bus, and all sorts of everyday madness and viciousness.

How is that not selfish beyond description??? How is it selfish not to have kids??? :confused:

Hey, hey, relax. Wanting to have children, and not wanting to have children... none of them is selfish.

You're worrying too much.

EDIT: And yeah, go forth and multiply. I want to see pics of your cute young 'uns. Can I be their internet godfather?

I don't want to have kids because I want more for myself. If I reach a point where my fortunes are secured, I might have kids, but other than that it's not likely to happen. Besides, it gives me more money to spend on charity and things like that. Truth be told, I'm kind of a greedy bastard and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

That might be selfish, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with selfishness unless it hurts other people.

It's your god given duty to fuck like bunnies. Nevermind if you figure your genes are flawed and won't further the species by passing them on, or if you just don't want the little bastards.

It's your god given duty to fuck like bunnies. Nevermind if you figure your genes are flawed and won't further the species by passing them on, or if you just don't want the little bastards.

*lol The way we fuck will make bunnies green with envy ;)
Thank god for contraception!

It's your god given duty to fuck like bunnies. Nevermind if you figure your genes are flawed and won't further the species by passing them on, or if you just don't want the little bastards.

If you get to the point where you can choose to have children, then by definition your genes aren't flawed. That's evolution for you.

I'm selfish with my time and money and want to spend it all on myself and my own life rather than sharing it with some little brats :D

If you get to the point where you can choose to have children, then by definition your genes aren't flawed. That's evolution for you.

That's actually rather true. It's also not coincidental that said people have fewer children.

I don't want to have kids because I want more for myself. If I reach a point where my fortunes are secured, I might have kids, but other than that it's not likely to happen. Besides, it gives me more money to spend on charity and things like that. Truth be told, I'm kind of a greedy bastard and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

That might be selfish, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with selfishness unless it hurts other people.

Just think of children as investments. After buying them through college you hope that they support you when you are to old to support yourself. Simple economics really.

Selfishness is a good reason not to have kids, as a person who decides to have children must be prepared to put those children's before themselves - seeing to the children's needs even if it means sacrificing to do so. Some people aren't capable of that, which is fine, but such people shouldn't have children.

Selfishness is not, however, a prerequisite for not having children or for not wanting to have children. That's really just a personal choice.

Click Stand;13179651']Just think of children as investments. After buying them through college you hope that they support you when you are to old to support yourself. Simple economics really.

Simple economics would be realizing that pyramid schemes don't actually work.

Click Stand;13179651']Just think of children as investments. After buying them through college you hope that they support you when you are to old to support yourself. Simple economics really.

That's a high risk investment though.

Click Stand;13179651']Just think of children as investments. After buying them through college you hope that they support you when you are to old to support yourself. Simple economics really.
That's what many people here think of. At least they would have someone to support them when they're too old...

Click Stand;13179651']Just think of children as investments. After buying them through college you hope that they support you when you are to old to support yourself. Simple economics really.

"A mother can feed and clothe 12 children, but 12 children will never feed and clothe a mother."

Old German proverb *nods*

Click Stand;13179651']Just think of children as investments. After buying them through college you hope that they support you when you are to old to support yourself. Simple economics really.

I kind of hope my money will be able to take care of such a problem by the 2080's. If not, then obviously something somewhere has failed and I likely wouldn't be alive anyways.

Having kids is a personal choice. And to say not having kids is selfish is just beyond my comprehension. My mind can only take on a retard's p.o.v. to a certain extent. If you don't want kids, you certainly aren't doing anything wrong.

Now if you are bringing children into the world, than you better be a good parent and raise someone who isn't going to be a problem for the Earth.

Personally I believe we are desperately overpopulated and the quality of all of our lives is decreasing at a steady rate parallel to the increasing population. I will not ever be passing on my DNA, there is no reason for me to.

And I'm not selfish, but I do in fact want a life to myself. I do not want children nor do I want to be married. I am an independent person who can't stay in one place for too long, and if you hate stability like I do, you probably wouldn't want to have children, who do better with stability in their early years.

I don't think it's at all selfish to not want to have kids.

I would probably like to have kids but I'm not going to because I'm not going to have sex no matter what. I might adopt though, but I don't know if raising a kid on my own would be plausible. That would interfere with a career and that would be really bad.

Personally I believe we are desperately overpopulated and the quality of all of our lives is decreasing at a steady rate parallel to the increasing population. I will not ever be passing on my DNA, there is no reason for me to.

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Higher populations stimulate technological and economic development, which enables them to escape the Malthusian trap and enter a higher economic growth model that becomes increasingly free from the constraints of physical resources as technology advances further. Now, in a situation where technology is constant, population growth reduces the steady-state equilibrium of the economy, resulting in lower long-term living standards and lower marginal capital per worker.

You worry like my boss. Always concerned about the other parties. Wait...I worry like that....shit.

Anyway, before I digress and head into that ever-downward spiralling move toward the cliff edge, go ahead and have your kids. They might not appreciate it for the first few years, but they'll damn well appreciate it after that, once you've turned them into fine, upstanding citizens. Non-indoctrinated citizens. Besides, if it's good enough for everybody else to have kids on a whim, it should be good enough for you. Besides, the planet can take a little more :p *cue ice age*

EDIT: Oh, hey Miss Chandelier.

I don't think it's at all selfish to not want to have kids.

I would probably like to have kids but I'm not going to because I'm not going to have sex no matter what. I might adopt though, but I don't know if raising a kid on my own would be plausible. That would interfere with a career and that would be really bad.

Oh see I wouldn't do that. I don't want kids or a commited relationship with anyone. But I want lots of sex.

And I'm really not even a career person, I'm a "find, coast through, and move on" person. Generally a bad person, but whatever.

Oh see I wouldn't do that. I don't want kids or a commited relationship with anyone. But I want lots of sex.

And I'm really not even a career person, I'm a "find, coast through, and move on" person. Generally a bad person, but whatever.

I kind of want to adopt, because I love working with young children (not babies, though). But I don't want any sort of romantic or sexual relationship, or any sex.

And I don't have a career yet, as I'm still in high school. But I hope and expect to have one someday. :)

EDIT: Oh, hey Miss Chandelier.

Hi! :)

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Higher populations stimulate technological and economic development, which enables them to escape the Malthusian trap and enter a higher economic growth model that becomes increasingly free from the constraints of physical resources as technology advances further. Now, in a situation where technology is constant, population growth reduces the steady-state equilibrium of the economy, resulting in lower long-term living standards and lower marginal capital per worker.

A market society is based on growth. Unfortunately, while growth of the population can serve as a temporary stimulus, growth of our resources is declining. Either declining or at a steady rate. The planet doesn't get any bigger.

We are in fact destroying the planet. The human race is multiplying at a viral rate. And we don't need any more technology. When you cure a disease, a new one comes along. When you circumvent an inconvenience, there are harmful side effects. The last thing we need is to inflate the market any further. We are bound to it, slowly becoming hopelessly attached to it.

Not only is life quality decreasing, likewise is intelligence. People as a whole are becoming increasingly more obedient and docile. From earlier ages every year, new children are trained to be plugged in. And nothing will come out of this cycle, except for a select few of the privelaged controlling the masses.

I look around me from time to time when walking through Wal-mart, and wish that some people would be more selfish. ;)

Oh see I wouldn't do that. I don't want kids or a commited relationship with anyone. But I want lots of sex.

And I'm really not even a career person, I'm a "find, coast through, and move on" person. Generally a bad person, but whatever.

Couldn't agree more on that part.

I think my kids will learn about sex from a very early age... "Mommy, why are you eating daddy's penis?" :p:D

If you get to the point where you can choose to have children, then by definition your genes aren't flawed. That's evolution for you.

Intellect and self awareness don't necessarily mean genetic fitness. I've got two potentially fatal congenital defects, both of which have nearly killed me in past. Add in various disease and cancer histories and it doesn't take a great deal of introspection to realize that any offspring do not have a huge chance of a healthy life.

Personally I believe we are desperately overpopulated and the quality of all of our lives is decreasing at a steady rate parallel to the increasing population. I will not ever be passing on my DNA, there is no reason for me to.

I puzzle for a moment at your claim, but if you feel that your DNA is not suitable for passing on, well, at least there are people willing to do that. I only wonder if you are the one that should be claiming that your DNA is unsuitable for further presence in the human genome.

As for the over-population problem, we need to focus on the places where dealing with it will do the most to alleviate the problem. The developed world already has the lowest rates of population growth, or even a population decline (Germany), but the most drastic action has to be taken where it will be most effective (Africa, India).

I puzzle for a moment at your claim, but if you feel that your DNA is not suitable for passing on, well, at least there are people willing to do that. I only wonder if you are the one that should be claiming that your DNA is unsuitable for further presence in the human genome.

As for the over-population problem, we need to focus on the places where dealing with it will do the most to alleviate the problem. The developed world already has the lowest rates of population growth, or even a population decline (Germany), but the most drastic action has to be taken where it will be most effective (Africa, India).

Each to his own. I won't have more than 2 kids either way, I don't want the population to grow anywhere.

I kind of want to adopt, because I love working with young children (not babies, though). But I don't want any sort of romantic or sexual relationship, or any sex.

And I don't have a career yet, as I'm still in high school. But I hope and expect to have one someday. :)



Hi! :)

So am I, unfortunately. Basically I have found I can't deal with the school system and am far too intelligent to waste time there.

I will likely pursue free-lance journalism and independent writing. I might have to deal with deadlines and shit like that, and publishing contracts, but I can't see myself "working for someone".

Also, I hate being in one place. I need to be traveling constantly, so I can't have any job that requires me to stay in one place to do it.

And relationships never work for me, but I still want to have casual sex when it comes to me. I'm very morally detached and basically don't understand the concept of "guilt". So my plans are essentially to indulge myself and push reality to the limit til death.

Obviously I'm not the type to parent children.

Simple economics would be realizing that pyramid schemes don't actually work.

It's not a pyramid scheme, it's an investment. You put time, energy, and money into your investments (children) and after several years, you get dividends based on how well you raised them.
There are other risks, beyond your control, but that's how it is with all high-yield investments.

A market society is based on growth. Unfortunately, while growth of the population can serve as a temporary stimulus, growth of our resources is declining. Either declining or at a steady rate. The planet doesn't get any bigger.

Well, no. You have to conserve resources and use them more efficiently in order to drive continued economic growth; that's why in the developed world the vast majority of growth comes from productivity as opposed to additional consumption of resources.

There's a finite amount of land and resources; as you reduce the amount you consume per unit of GDP, growth potential in the economy increases at an exponential rate (presumably towards infinity, but it is impossible to consume zero resources, of course).

We are in fact destroying the planet. The human race is multiplying at a viral rate. And we don't need any more technology. When you cure a disease, a new one comes along. When you circumvent an inconvenience, there are harmful side effects. The last thing we need is to inflate the market any further. We are bound to it, slowly becoming hopelessly attached to it.

We always need new technology. That is really the only thing that can preserve our planet and our economy. It is the single most important thing that exists in our society today and technological advancement is the only way we can survive in to the future. Without it, humans would not only keep growing at an exponential rate but would be plagued again by famine and disease on a massive scale.

Without technology, mankind dies and we revert to the state of misery that existed in the past. The most advanced societies have the fewest kids and the most ability to conserve their resources and reduce the economic impact of their activities.

Not only is life quality decreasing, likewise is intelligence. People as a whole are becoming increasingly more obedient and docile. From earlier ages every year, new children are trained to be plugged in. And nothing will come out of this cycle, except for a select few of the privelaged controlling the masses.

People seem to be getting smarter, really. World literacy is at its highest levels ever and more people have college degrees than any time in the past; education has long since ceased to be the privelege of the elite and is now available to more people than anytime in the past. Overall, populations are better educated than they have been at any time in history.

As much as crap like creationism seems to persist, it really has declined massively over the years. Ignorance really is a dying breed. Human civilization is at its highest point ever and has only continued on that trend.

I puzzle for a moment at your claim, but if you feel that your DNA is not suitable for passing on, well, at least there are people willing to do that. I only wonder if you are the one that should be claiming that your DNA is unsuitable for further presence in the human genome.

As for the over-population problem, we need to focus on the places where dealing with it will do the most to alleviate the problem. The developed world already has the lowest rates of population growth, or even a population decline (Germany), but the most drastic action has to be taken where it will be most effective (Africa, India).

Forgive my arrogance, but I have an extremely high intelligence standard and a child with half of my talents would be an amazing human being. I simply want to cease existence after death, I feel it will make my personal death complete.

Simple economics would be realizing that pyramid schemes don't actually work.

Of course they do, just look at this detailed graph...

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/291/moneysrp8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Click Stand;13179651']Just think of children as investments. After buying them through college you hope that they support you when you are to old to support yourself. Simple economics really.
Unless you raise a pair of artists...haha! My parents are bone...


I'm not going to have sex no matter what.

Really? I hadn't heard...

So am I, unfortunately. Basically I have found I can't deal with the school system and am far too intelligent to waste time there.

I will likely pursue free-lance journalism and independent writing. I might have to deal with deadlines and shit like that, and publishing contracts, but I can't see myself "working for someone".

Also, I hate being in one place. I need to be traveling constantly, so I can't have any job that requires me to stay in one place to do it.

And relationships never work for me, but I still want to have casual sex when it comes to me. I'm very morally detached and basically don't understand the concept of "guilt". So my plans are essentially to indulge myself and push reality to the limit til death.

Obviously I'm not the type to parent children.

I want to be a chemical engineer. Sometimes I get frustrated with the school system, especially when they mess up my schedule (putting AP Calculus and AP Physics at the same time so that I have to choose between them! :headbang:) but I'm taking an extra AP class online so that I'll be challenged (8 classes instead of just the 7 at school).

I seem to have overactive guilt or something... I'll dwell over things I've done wrong for years, even if it was a small lie (which is pretty much the worst that I've done) or if it really wasn't anything that most people would consider wrong. I'm getting better at not beating myself up over stuff (usually figuratively...) but I still have a lot of trouble forgiving myself for things.

I like tutoring children and I've done so for the past three years, and will again this year, but I'm not sure if I'd be a great parent, either.

It's not a pyramid scheme, it's an investment. You put time, energy, and money into your investments (children) and after several years, you get dividends based on how well you raised them.
There are other risks, beyond your control, but that's how it is with all high-yield investments.

If you invested the money spent raising a bastard you'd definitely have retirement money, not just if the kid wants you to have it. There's no certainty that they'll like or even be in contact with you by the time you hit retirement age. Of course there's no assurances that your kids will live to that age.

Really? I hadn't heard...

Yeah, sorry for repeating myself... :(

Hmm. If you don't want kids just so you can buy more goodies for yourself that is a little selfish, but understandable. If you don't want kids because the world is overpopulated then more power to you.

I consider not having kids to a neutral act, though if push comes to shove I'd probably lean more towards selfish. Your ancestors all had children, and now, you are just going to stop the family line? That seems like a crime. I want to have kids because I do like children, and I also want to carry on the family line and pass my genes on. I also view family and friends as the most important things in life, so that might some affect on my decision.

I want to be a chemical engineer. Sometimes I get frustrated with the school system, especially when they mess up my schedule (putting AP Calculus and AP Physics at the same time so that I have to choose between them! :headbang:) but I'm taking an extra AP class online so that I'll be challenged (8 classes instead of just the 7 at school).

I seem to have overactive guilt or something... I'll dwell over things I've done wrong for years, even if it was a small lie (which is pretty much the worst that I've done) or if it really wasn't anything that most people would consider wrong. I'm getting better at not beating myself up over stuff (usually figuratively...) but I still have a lot of trouble forgiving myself for things.

I like tutoring children and I've done so for the past three years, and will again this year, but I'm not sure if I'd be a great parent, either.
Ooooh, somebody who likes chemistry!

(and someone with an overactive guilt too! sounds like me...)

I consider not having kids to a neutral act, though if push comes to shove I'd probably lean more towards selfish. Your ancestors all had children, and now, you are just going to stop the family line? That seems like a crime. I want to have kids because I do like children, and I also want to carry on the family line and pass my genes on. I also view family and friends as the most important things in life, so that might some affect on my decision.

My family's line won't end just because I won't have kids. I have two brothers. :p

My family's line won't end just because I won't have kids. I have two brothers. :p

They could be gay. It's also quite possible to have kids without having sex. IVF.

I'm selfish with my time and money and want to spend it all on myself and my own life rather than sharing it with some little brats :D
But you could teach the brats to bring you beer. That's a time-saver.

They could be gay. It's also quite possible to have kids without having sex. IVF.

They haven't said anything about their orientations yet (they're 15). They could also be asexual (I am, after all)... I have no idea what they are in that respect.

That's true about IVF, but I'd still be raising a child alone, and that would still have the same problems with interfering with career and such...

Ooooh, somebody who likes chemistry!

(and someone with an overactive guilt too! sounds like me...)

I love chemistry. :)

I love chemistry. :)
Yes. Me too. Wanna go out on a date? :cool:

Yes. Me too. Wanna go out on a date? :cool:

If you couldn't tell from my posts, I don't date. :p

But you could teach the brats to bring you beer. That's a time-saver.

The things I want time for, kids bringing me beer won't help with. Number one need for time: traveling the world. Without kids, I have more money and time to do it.

The things I want time for, kids bringing me beer won't help with. Number one need for time: traveling the world. Without kids, I have more money and time to do it.

But who will pull your carriage?

I want to be a chemical engineer.

What industry?

Seriously, somebody please explain that one to me, because I can't for the life of me understand this idea.
{deleted}
How is that not selfish beyond description??? How is it selfish not to have kids??? :confused:
Of course it's selfish -- But that isn't a bad thing. It just means you are doing something that's in your own best interest.

It's selfish to HAVE children, too. I'm glad we raised our kids and I look forward to the thought of grandchildren and great grandchildren...But I fail to see how anyone could get hysterical over the idea of someone else not raising kids... moms, dads, and in-laws excluded...

You wonder if the ones in hysterics aren't just a little bit miffed about those that choose a little easier path.

Click Stand;13179796']But who will pull your carriage?

I get a carriage!? I assume robot horses would do it. Flying robot horses with jet engine asses, most likely.

Methinks they are just jealous of the people who aren't strapped with a crying, whining parasite for 18+ years.

If you couldn't tell from my posts, I don't date. :p
Awwww. :(

So am I, unfortunately. Basically I have found I can't deal with the school system and am far too intelligent to waste time there.

I will likely pursue free-lance journalism and independent writing. I might have to deal with deadlines and shit like that, and publishing contracts, but I can't see myself "working for someone".

Also, I hate being in one place. I need to be traveling constantly, so I can't have any job that requires me to stay in one place to do it.

And relationships never work for me, but I still want to have casual sex when it comes to me. I'm very morally detached and basically don't understand the concept of "guilt". So my plans are essentially to indulge myself and push reality to the limit til death.

Obviously I'm not the type to parent children.

basically you just want to be hunter s. thompson.

I didn't read the whole thread yet but if anyone hasn't mentioned it yet not having kids helps control over population

They haven't said anything about their orientations yet (they're 15). They could also be asexual (I am, after all)... I have no idea what they are in that respect.

That's true about IVF, but I'd still be raising a child alone, and that would still have the same problems with interfering with career and such...

You, Miss Chandelier, should come to Britain. Chemical Engineers are hot property over here, and Labour loves single parents - you'll get a fortune from the government! In fact, you'd probably get more if you didn't work at all.

However, we're very good I hear with maternity leave, and if you feel you're being treated unfairly, make like every body else and take it to the employment tribunal. You'll probably win anyway.

Awwww. :(

You're not the first, comrade, and I doubt you'll be the last.

basically you just want to be hunter s. thompson.

It is a pretty great dream to have.

I could never understand why someone wouldn't want kids, unless they were in some situation where bringing children into the world would be a bad thing. I feel obligated to have kids for two reason:

1. My parents had me, and I'm glad every day that I'm alive.
2. I want to continue my bloodline.

Also, I just plain want kids.

I don't want to have kids because I want more for myself. If I reach a point where my fortunes are secured, I might have kids, but other than that it's not likely to happen. Besides, it gives me more money to spend on charity and things like that. Truth be told, I'm kind of a greedy bastard and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

That might be selfish, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with selfishness unless it hurts other people.

Are you my long lost brother? I find myself in sync with you on a variety of different issues. This is perhaps the best description of my position on children and it came from you. Kudos Sir.

I could never understand why someone wouldn't want kids, unless they were in some situation where bringing children into the world would be a bad thing. I feel obligated to have kids for two reason:

1. My parents had me, and I'm glad every day that I'm alive.
2. I want to continue my bloodline.

Also, I just plain want kids.


I don't want kids. They annoy the hell out of me after about 5 minutes with them. I'm not glad I was brought into this hellish world. I don't think it's fair to bring anyone else into this hellish world. What is the big deal about continuing a bloodline?

I have more time and money for myself by not having children, not to mention less stress.

It is a pretty great dream to have.

it would be great, but i doubt it's possible to follow in his footsteps these days. at least not for a generation or so.

it would be great, but i doubt it's possible to follow in his footsteps these days. at least not for a generation or so.


true that

I'll just role play it at home

I don't want kids. They annoy the hell out of me after about 5 minutes with them. I'm not glad I was brought into this hellish world. I don't think it's fair to bring anyone else into this hellish world. What is the big deal about continuing a bloodline?

I have more time and money for myself by not having children, not to mention less stress.

What's the big deal about continuing the bloodline...?

Everything. Continuing your genes, making sure your family line doesn't die out, continuing history. Besides, kids are fun.

Blood will stand by you through best of times and the worst of times. Blood will help you in time of need. Blood is a legacy that lasts until the end of the human species.

Im glad most of you are too lazy/ greedy to have kids. After who wants more of YOU folks around.

What's the big deal about continuing the bloodline...?

Everything. Continuing your genes, making sure your family line doesn't die out, continuing history. Besides, kids are fun.

Blood will stand by you through best of times and the worst of times. Blood will help you in time of need. Blood is a legacy that lasts until the end of the human species.
Blood is composed of 55% plasma and 45% formed elements. Blood is what vampires drink. Blood... mmm, I want more. :D

I could never understand why someone wouldn't want kids, unless they were in some situation where bringing children into the world would be a bad thing. I feel obligated to have kids for two reason:

1. My parents had me, and I'm glad every day that I'm alive.
2. I want to continue my bloodline.

Also, I just plain want kids.
But are people that don't want kids doing something wrong? Are they harming anyone by not bringing forth the little rug rats?

What's the big deal about continuing the bloodline...?

Everything. Continuing your genes, making sure your family line doesn't die out, continuing history. Besides, kids are fun.

Blood will stand by you through best of times and the worst of times. Blood will help you in time of need. Blood is a legacy that lasts until the end of the human species.

That's assuming human contribution is primarily through the passing on of genes. I'd argue that the greater contribution of an individual is his tangible contributions to society, not the continuing of a genetic line. A scientist, artist, businessman who has led advances in his respective field, etc. who dies childless has certainly contributed more to society than the subsistence farmer with 5 kids.

Besides, I'm pretty damn sure it's the gametes that are important. Blood's just a meal for vamps.

Edit: Damn you Kylesburg!!! :p

What's the big deal about continuing the bloodline...?

Everything. Continuing your genes, making sure your family line doesn't die out, continuing history. Besides, kids are fun.

Blood will stand by you through best of times and the worst of times. Blood will help you in time of need. Blood is a legacy that lasts until the end of the human species.


I'm not getting it. So what? My friends are more reliable than my family. I am my immediate family's last chance to to continue our bloodline and I got a vasectomy. My mom knows and supports me. In fact, she doesn't blame me at all.

Who needs a family to make history? That makes no sense. How can you continue history by having kids? History is in the past. Thats silly. History is recorded.

And kids are fun for 5 minutes and then they are annoying with all of the crying because, boo hoo, I broke his arm throwing him across the room. Whiner.

My biological father was a gambling drunk and left my mom before I was even one year old. Now he wants my help because he's homeless. He can help his damn self. Blood means nothing unless you make it mean something.

But are people that don't want kids doing something wrong? Are they harming anyone by not bringing forth the little rug rats?

Well, if they are the last one in the family line, then yes, they are failing everyone in their family line who ever lived.

If you have siblings and they have kids, then not so much.

Blood is composed of 55% plasma and 45% formed elements. Blood is what vampires drink. Blood... mmm, I want more. :D


Biologists state that sperm has more nutrients than blood... so why don't vampires suck dick instead?

What's the big deal about continuing the bloodline...?

Everything. Continuing your genes, making sure your family line doesn't die out, continuing history. Besides, kids are fun.

Blood will stand by you through best of times and the worst of times. Blood will help you in time of need. Blood is a legacy that lasts until the end of the human species.

I just really don't understand :( What's important about the family line? To the best of my knowledge, all the family were normal average individuals doing their own thing and I'm here because they didn't have birth control, not because they were trying to build some great legacy. Not trying to be obtuse, I just don't get it :confused:

I'm not getting it. So what? My friends are more reliable than my family. I am my immediate family's last chance to to continue our bloodline and I got a vasectomy. My mom knows and supports me. In fact, she doesn't blame me at all.

Who needs a family to make history? That makes no sense. How can you continue history by having kids? History is in the past. Thats silly. History is recorded.

And kids are fun for 5 minutes and then they are annoying with all of the crying because, boo hoo, I broke his arm throwing him across the room. Whiner.

My biological father was a gambling drunk and left my mom before I was even one year old. Now he wants my help because he's homeless. He can help his damn self. Blood means nothing unless you make it mean something.

Yes there are deadbeats, especially in this day and age, but the family is still the most important thing in the world.

I cannot grasp how you could get a vesictimy, ever, especially since you are your families last chance! How could you do that? Why did you do that?

Continuing the bloodlines provides a living link with past.

Well, if they are the last one in the family line, then yes, they are failing everyone in their family line who ever lived.

If you have siblings and they have kids, then not so much.

Actually those of us who are hindering the continuation/evolution of the human species are heroes. History is filled with violent idiots and the sooner we die out, the better.

Yes there are deadbeats, especially in this day and age, but the family is still the most important thing in the world.

I cannot grasp how you could get a vesictimy, ever, especially since you are your families last chance! How could you do that? Why did you do that?

Continuing the bloodlines provides a living link with past.


Just take a DNA sample and preserve it. It's easier to care for.


I dislike children and would rather spend my time going to school to learn fun stuff, traveling and buying stuff for myself. My wife is right there with me.

Kids require too much work and worry.

That's assuming human contribution is primarily through the passing on of genes. I'd argue that the greater contribution of an individual is his tangible contributions to society, not the continuing of a genetic line. A scientist, artist, businessman who has led advances in his respective field, etc. who dies childless has certainly contributed more to society than the subsistence farmer with 5 kids.

Besides, I'm pretty damn sure it's the gametes that are important. Blood's just a meal for vamps.

Edit: Damn you Kylesburg!!! :p

If you don't have kids your life is missing something and shallow. I'd personally value and respect the subsistance farmer over any artist, scientist, and especially business person regardless of how many kids either had, but especially the farmer with kids to the other without.

It is every man's duty to have children to pass on their genes and continue the family line. I cannot comprehend how someone can willingly abandon this duty or be against it.

Biologists state that sperm has more nutrients than blood... so why don't vampires suck dick instead?
Nope, too much competition already. :D

If you don't have kids your life is missing something and shallow. I'd personally value and respect the subsistance farmer over any artist, scientist, and especially business person regardless of how many kids either had, but especially the farmer with kids to the other without.

It is every man's duty to have children to pass on their genes and continue the family line. I cannot comprehend how someone can willingly abandon this duty or be against it.

So you respect people who make their lives deliberately difficult? i.e. susbsistence farming, children? Or did I get that wrong? Please explain more about why you see kids as a duty as I am seriously confused by your view point. Also, is this a duty that just applies to men? or you were using "man" to mean person? Thanks.

It is every man's duty to have children to pass on their genes and continue the family line. I cannot comprehend how someone can willingly abandon this duty or be against it.
It depends on your values. It's a personal choice after all.

Actually, your thinking is the norm here. Just lettin' you know you ain't alone. ;)

If you don't have kids your life is missing something and shallow. I'd personally value and respect the subsistance farmer over any artist, scientist, and especially business person regardless of how many kids either had, but especially the farmer with kids to the other without.

It is every man's duty to have children to pass on their genes and continue the family line. I cannot comprehend how someone can willingly abandon this duty or be against it.

Explain how it is a duty. You have not yet done so in a realistic, sensible, or even remotely convincing manner, and this discussion makes little sense if you can't justify your most basic premise.

The suggestion that something is missing is an unfounded opinion. Given that you don't even have kids, I find it an even more specious claim.

If you don't have kids your life is missing something and shallow. I'd personally value and respect the subsistance farmer over any artist, scientist, and especially business person regardless of how many kids either had, but especially the farmer with kids to the other without.

It is every man's duty to have children to pass on their genes and continue the family line. I cannot comprehend how someone can willingly abandon this duty or be against it.

I don't have a duty to do anything I don't want with my life, and the same goes for everyone else - if someone doesn't want to have children, that is their right, and it is not yours to try to stop them. If you want there to be more kids in the world, have more yourself to balance it out. For the record, I'm not against having children, but I respect the rights of other people to choose whether or want they to raise kids without bitching at them about some perceived shallowness.

Also, I'd say yours was the life that was missing something - namely, a view of the big picture - if you'd respect a scientist who spends their lives trying to stop other people's children dying of hideous diseases less than someone who happens to have had more children themselves - There are other ways to make a contribution to the world than just firing out children.

I keep my duties to myself, I don't dictate them to other people.

Biologists state that sperm has more nutrients than blood... so why don't vampires suck dick instead?

Vampires support family values.

How is that not selfish beyond description??? How is it selfish not to have kids??? :confused:

I think those who think it is selfish not to have kids are really more of the mind that if they have to deal with the responsibilities, how DARE those of us who chose not to have children be responsibility free.

In other words, "I'm working here, why the hell aren't YOU!?"

If you get to the point where you can choose to have children, then by definition your genes aren't flawed. That's evolution for you.

Hemophilia? Tay Sachs disease? Down's syndrome? Sickle cell anemia?

Hmmm, I think your premise is flawed.

Seriously, somebody please explain that one to me, because I can't for the life of me understand this idea.

If you think that there's a serious risk of running out of members of the next generation, then it's selfish not to have kids. If society is going to continue we need members, and raising kids is a lot of work. It would be unfair to refuse to take up your share of the burden.

Fortunately for those who don't want kids, there are lots of people who do. More than are strictly needed.

It is selfish to do anything that satisfies your own desired while unfairly consuming the resources of others, or shifting an unfair burden onto them. Refusing to have kids is not doing that. At least, not in this day and age. There were many times in history that it was, but not now.

Now it is selfish to have lots of kids. Especially when you can't afford to raise them. The more kids you have the less taxes you pay (at least in the US). Why should the childless subsidize the spawning of the breeders (which happens to include me)?

If you want to have no kids fine, pay taxes on an extra $3,300, per child that you don't have. Greedy self-absorbed people like me, who think that the greatest gift we can give the world is a reasonable approximation of another one of ourselves, will enjoy the tax breaks the attention, and (if our incomes dip low enough) the earned income tax credit (sadly, that no longer includes me).

I am way to self involved to have kids. And i offer zero apologies for it either. This says it all .. www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ

If you want to have no kids fine, pay taxes on an extra $3,300, per child that you don't have.

Hmmm, $3,300 tax discount per kid per year, versus the cost of feeding, clothing them, and putting them through college? Never mind child care, regular doctor visits, and all of life's little emergencies?

Gee, what a choice. I'm losing SO much money here.

Nothing at all is selfish. If you don't want kids then fair enough. I don't want kids, I'll never be able to have them, but I don't want them. I really don't get why people say it's selfish not to.

Surely it's more selfish to have kids? There are millions of people starving worldwide, yet you introduce one more person who is eating all they want, just to satisfy your socially engineered desire to procreate as soon as possible?

Not having children is selfish because it reduces the amount of taxable possible future citizens and workers. That makes baby government cry.

Seriously, somebody please explain that one to me, because I can't for the life of me understand this idea.

[...] It was when they started getting texts from outraged parents that I suddenly felt like I had somehow passed the invisible threshold into some sort of parallel universe. The parents and parents-in-spe who felt compelled to get their opinions heard were literally throwing hissy-fits about the selfishness of not having and not even wanting to have children. [...]


The answer to your question lies in an examination of the source of the complaints. They're parents, therefore it's in their self-interest to make parenthood look like the only legitimate life choice. If it isn't "selfish" or "immoral" or "bad" to not-have children, then their choice to have children is no longer necessarily more noble or moral or good. What's more, if it's okay not to have kids, then all of their sacrifices on the altar of parenthood-- and any unhappiness they might feel in their lives as a result-- was their own doing. In other words: a lot of them are jealous of the free time, disposable income, and reduced stress that non-parents have.

Well you see... I hate children. I hate them more then anything else. Why would I curse myself with a lifetime of having them? If I wanted to torture myself I'd slam my dick in a car door. At least that heals up in a few weeks. With children in a few weeks I'd still have brats shitting themselves and screaming for attention.

I'm smart enough to know that I am WAY to selfish to care for children. I don't have enough time, love, or money to give. So by not having kids I'm being anti-selfish......or something. So it's not a selfish decision to not have kids. Not at all.

isn't the world pretty much over-populated anyway?

with the US leading the way.
....
allow me to explain.
given the amount of the planet's resources we in the US use,
we use waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than our fair share
of the planet's resources.


true,
there is no food shortage,
just a food distribution problem.

but we do seem to be overfishing the oceans,
and cutting down the rain forests, etc...

so, per capita use of resources makes the US the most populated.




one could actually make the argument that wanting
to have kids is selfish, given the problems the world has today.

given the amount of the planet's resources we in the US use,
we use waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than our fair share
of the planet's resources.

Not really. The amount of resources we use is pretty proportionate to the amount of economic output we produce; the US sustains a much bigger share of the world's population than ourselves, especially given the amount of trade we do with other nations. That doesn't mean our current situation is acceptable (indeed, there is a lot of room for more efficient use and conservation), but our resources go towards a lot more than just ourselves.

We need to do more to reduce the environmental impact of our actions because so many people rely on us for the things they need and want. As the world's biggest economy, there's a level of responsibility that we carry above and beyond the actions of other nations.

Not really. The amount of resources we use is pretty proportionate to the amount of economic output we produce; the US sustains a much bigger share of the world's population than ourselves, especially given the amount of trade we do with other nations. That doesn't mean our current situation is acceptable (indeed, there is a lot of room for more efficient use and conservation), but our resources go towards a lot more than just ourselves.

We need to do more to reduce the environmental impact of our actions because so many people rely on us for the things they need and want. As the world's biggest economy, there's a level of responsibility that we carry above and beyond the actions of other nations.

i'm not talking about some rigged numbers that economy is.

i'm talking about resources used per capita.
there's a site from some group in which you can enter the type of car you use, if any, how much you drive, how big your house is (to heat it), etc...
and calculates how many earths it would take if everybody lived your lifestyle.

i'm not talking about some rigged numbers that economy is.

Economic data is the only way to accurately measure resource consumption and the way our resources are used.

i'm talking about resources used per capita.
there's a site from some group in which you can enter the type of car you use, if any, how much you drive, how big your house is (to heat it), etc...
and calculates how many earths it would take if everybody lived your lifestyle.

I've seen it. The thing is, though, that not all, even a significant share, of the resources the US uses are not consumed by its inhabitants. Many are used to make products that we export to the rest of the world.

Economic data is the only way to accurately measure resource consumption and the way our resources are used.



I've seen it. The thing is, though, that not all, even a significant share, of the resources the US uses are not consumed by its inhabitants. Many are used to make products that we export to the rest of the world.


but...isn't it common knowledge the US has a trade imbalance?

debt to chin due to imports for instance

but...isn't it common knowledge the US has a trade imbalance?

debt to chin due to imports for instance

Yes, but we still export a lot. The US is the single biggest exporter in the world.

Yes, but we still export a lot. The US is the single biggest exporter in the world.


yeah but when talking "economics" or whatever that non-science is (Nobel prize in economics isn't really a Nobel prize because Nobel recognized it not as a science, i digress)

there is this supposed "added value" stuff.
like i buy something, throw a nike sticker on it, and suddenly poof, like magic it is worth more. strange i know, and unjust even, but...?

so when someone talks about export in terms of $ or yen or euros or whatever, this does not represent the real amount of resources used.
the amount of pollution going into producing things i believe are also factored into these things.
for instance, if boxes are produced in the us but sold to venezuela, venezuela does not take up 100% of the pollution 'value'.

Seriously, somebody please explain that one to me, because I can't for the life of me understand this idea.

There was a radio show on earlier today where they discussed people and couples who decide against having children. The show was ok, listing a lot of the arguments and showing different angles of the whole family-concept. It was when they started getting texts from outraged parents that I suddenly felt like I had somehow passed the invisible threshold into some sort of parallel universe. The parents and parents-in-spe who felt compelled to get their opinions heard were literally throwing hissy-fits about the selfishness of not having and not even wanting to have children.

Now, I've recently been thinking about maybe having some kids myself after all, and I felt that this would be the most selfish thing I'll ever do in my life. I'll create a little person without asking his or her consent, and for years this person will have to live with me and follow the rules I'll decide to put up.
I'll add another additional person to a planet that's ecosystem is already stretched to the limit with 6.5 billion individuals of my species.
I'll eventually die and those kids of mine will have to somehow come to terms with the world that my generation and the generations before have fucked up to the best of their abilities.
All because I want children. Not because anyone else desperately wants the little buggers I'll produce. Not because those kids can't wait to be exposed to this world with BSE in beef and heavy metals in mushrooms, melting glaciers, Islamic extremists and Western neofascists, religious nutcases, Dublin Bus, and all sorts of everyday madness and viciousness.

How is that not selfish beyond description??? How is it selfish not to have kids??? :confused:

I always figured I wouldn't be able to have kids because no one would hump me. So far, I've been correct.

Hmm. If you don't want kids just so you can buy more goodies for yourself that is a little selfish, but understandable. If you don't want kids because the world is overpopulated then more power to you.

So, having kids and then buying goodies for them is not selfish? Why? :confused:


I consider not having kids to a neutral act, though if push comes to shove I'd probably lean more towards selfish. Your ancestors all had children, and now, you are just going to stop the family line? That seems like a crime. I want to have kids because I do like children, and I also want to carry on the family line and pass my genes on. I also view family and friends as the most important things in life, so that might some affect on my decision.

I'm pretty sure my ancestors didn't have much choice concerning the numbers of brats they put into the world. After all, most of them lived well before contraception was widely available... I know my grandmother certainly wouldn't have had kids if she'd had a choice, and I know my youngest brother is what my mom calls "my little accident".
Looking at my family line, that's certainly not anything that would be worth preserving, and if I do have kids I'll make sure to keep them away from my family. Luckily, these days, there's an ocean between me and them :D

That's actually another argument for why having kids is more selfish than not having them... you're inflicting family on them.

What's the big deal about continuing the bloodline...?

Everything. Continuing your genes, making sure your family line doesn't die out, continuing history. Besides, kids are fun.

Blood will stand by you through best of times and the worst of times. Blood will help you in time of need. Blood is a legacy that lasts until the end of the human species.

Bullshit.
I've been through a lot in life, and it's friends that will stick by you.
Family is nothing but the genetic union of people who otherwise might have been very good enemies.

Biologists state that sperm has more nutrients than blood... so why don't vampires suck dick instead?

Actually, there have been vampire stories that... oh, I take it you never read one of those? :p

If you don't have kids your life is missing something and shallow. I'd personally value and respect the subsistance farmer over any artist, scientist, and especially business person regardless of how many kids either had, but especially the farmer with kids to the other without.

It is every man's duty to have children to pass on their genes and continue the family line. I cannot comprehend how someone can willingly abandon this duty or be against it.

Duty? To whom? And what for?
You're not making any sense at all here...

And no, my life isn't missing anything. If your life isn't complete without kids, it's not complete with them either. You can't put the burden of completing your life on the little buggers...

i don't personally see not wanting kids as selfish, just something i don't quite understand. wanting children, for me, has been a drive i've always had. i can't remember not wanting kids of my own, being a parent, raising my own family. i feel there is almost nothing more important or responsible i can do with my life than raise a family as well as i can. as such not wanting kids is a little alien to my mindset. but then family has always been very important to me.
i don't think its selfish.

though i do think if nobody had kids any more, the species would become extinct. and i don't want that.

Duty? To whom? And what for?
You're not making any sense at all here...

And no, my life isn't missing anything. If your life isn't complete without kids, it's not complete with them either. You can't put the burden of completing your life on the little buggers...

A duty to your species and to your ancestors.

You may not realize it yet, but if you die childless you'll realize something was missing from your life.

A duty to your species and to your ancestors.

You may not realize it yet, but if you die childless you'll realize something was missing from your life.

And why would I have a duty to them?
They've been acting incredibly selfish by having kids themselves, bringing them into this hellhole of a world and expecting them to be happy about it.
If anything, I feel it would be my duty not to impose this on anybody else, but being selfish I might end up doing so.

And, to be perfectly honest with you, the most fulfilled people I met while working in retirement homes were people who didn't have kids and instead did something meaningful with their lives.
I feel I've had my fair share of meaningfulness now, I've done almost everything I wanted to do (with the exception of a few sexual depravities I haven't lived out yet, but I'm working on that), so now I thought I'd give "normality" a try.

A duty to your species and to your ancestors.

You may not realize it yet, but if you die childless you'll realize something was missing from your life.

If she died childless she'd be dead and wouldn't really be realising anything ;)

You may not realize it yet, but if you die childless you'll realize something was missing from your life.
Of course, if you DO have children you may end up like my grandmother, who confessed that her single greatest regret in life was becoming a mother. She loved her children, and they as people were the only thing that redeemed what she believed was a huge mistake. She wished, until her dying day, that she had divorced her husband, gone back to school, and skipped motherhood. See, while she loved and cherished her kids, she realized that she wasn't a very good mother, mainly because she HATED parenting. But in her generation it was simply unthinkable for a woman to not have babies, so she had babies even though she knew she didn't want them.

Personally, I think people tend to be happiest with their lives when they listen to their own drives and desires.

If you really want kids, you're probably going to be bummed out if you never have them. If you really don't want kids, you're probably going to be bummed if you go ahead and have them.

Instead of supressing your own dreams and goals and desires in favor of pleasing other people, try focusing on what you feel is right. You know yourself better than they do.

Of course, if you DO have children you may end up like my grandmother, who confessed that her single greatest regret in life was becoming a mother. She loved her children, and they as people were the only thing that redeemed what she believed was a huge mistake. She wished, until her dying day, that she had divorced her husband, gone back to school, and skipped motherhood. See, while she loved and cherished her kids, she realized that she wasn't a very good mother, mainly because she HATED parenting. But in her generation it was simply unthinkable for a woman to not have babies, so she had babies even though she knew she didn't want them.

Personally, I think people tend to be happiest with their lives when they listen to their own drives and desires.

If you really want kids, you're probably going to be bummed out if you never have them. If you really don't want kids, you're probably going to be bummed if you go ahead and have them.

Instead of supressing your own dreams and goals and desires in favor of pleasing other people, try focusing on what you feel is right. You know yourself better than they do.

Fair enough.

What industry?

I've always wanted to work with nanoscience. Not sure which specific industry though.

You, Miss Chandelier, should come to Britain. Chemical Engineers are hot property over here, and Labour loves single parents - you'll get a fortune from the government! In fact, you'd probably get more if you didn't work at all.

However, we're very good I hear with maternity leave, and if you feel you're being treated unfairly, make like every body else and take it to the employment tribunal. You'll probably win anyway.

I don't think I'd want to be a single parent, but there wouldn't be any other way for me to raise a child... :(

To be completely honest although I understand the necessity for the family and children for society, I am like really awkward about the whole idea of it, I mean I like girls and love the company etc, but to me it's just way too much responsibility, too serious.

To be completely honest although I understand the necessity for the family and children for society, I am like really awkward about the whole idea of it, I mean I like girls and love the company etc, but to me it's just way too much responsibility, too serious.

Personally, my biggest concern is that I can't stand small kids.
But I decided to take people's word on the fact that they'll grow up quickly. I prefer teenagers, really.

Childrens, Serious Business.

Personally, my biggest concern is that I can't stand small kids.
But I decided to take people's word on the fact that they'll grow up quickly. I prefer teenagers, really.

Skip the child bits and adopt at ~12 year old.

And, to be perfectly honest with you, the most fulfilled people I met while working in retirement homes were people who didn't have kids and instead did something meaningful with their lives.
Something that really annoys me is how some people act as if having babies is the only way I could possibly contribute to humanity.

Um, fuck that? Think of all the countless ways that brilliant people have contributed to humanity over the ages. Music, medicine, art, exploration, technology, science...there are an infinite number of ways that a person can contribute, and making babies is only ONE of them.

Sadly, in my society we still have a system where women are expected to give up all their other many avenues of contribution when they have kids. While great men are allowed to go on writing symphonies, running countries, creating great art, and making great discoveries while their wife takes care of the kiddies, a woman who does the same will be branded Bad Mother and will be summarily blamed for any and all misbehavior on the part of her offspring. She probably will also be accused of castrating her husband, encouraging Satanism, and hating America.

Not the best sales pitch, if you ask me.

Skip the child bits and adopt at ~12 year old.

That was my thinking originally... but my BF likes little kids, so he'll be the one who gets to stay home, I think. :D

That was my thinking originally... but my BF likes little kids, so he'll be the one who gets to stay home, I think. :D

Ah, this makes sense.

That was my thinking originally... but my BF likes little kids, so he'll be the one who gets to stay home, I think. :D
For whatever it's worth, my mother had this to say about children (rough transcript of a conversation we had):

"Having kids is like having a relationship. You can look at somebody else's relationship and be happy for them, but you don't actually want their relationship. Think about friends of yours who you like, but who you really wouldn't want to date. It's the same with kids. You can look at somebody else's kids and be happy for them, and you may even think their kids are pretty cool, but you don't want their kids.

If you have a child you are basically starting a new relationship. It's not any old kid, just like your partner isn't just any old person. They're an individual, and you're forming a unique relationship with them. The cool thing with kids is that you form the relationship from Day 1. You are getting to know a new person from the very beginning. It's a relationship unlike any other you might have with another person."

My dad adds:

"There's nothing quite like holding your infant daughter in your arms and marveling at the tiny perfection of her toes as she manages to shove the entire foot into her mouth."

For whatever it's worth, my mother had this to say about children (rough transcript of a conversation we had):

"Having kids is like having a relationship. You can look at somebody else's relationship and be happy for them, but you don't actually want their relationship. Think about friends of yours who you like, but who you really wouldn't want to date. It's the same with kids. You can look at somebody else's kids and be happy for them, and you may even think their kids are pretty cool, but you don't want their kids.

If you have a child you are basically starting a new relationship. It's not any old kid, just like your partner isn't just any old person. They're an individual, and you're forming a unique relationship with them. The cool thing with kids is that you form the relationship from Day 1. You are getting to know a new person from the very beginning. It's a relationship unlike any other you might have with another person."

My dad adds:

"There's nothing quite like holding your infant daughter in your arms and marveling at the tiny perfection of her toes as she manages to shove the entire foot into her mouth."

1: Awwwww, baby Bottle
2: Am I the only one who wonders if you could still fit your whole foot in your mouth? :p

1: Awwwww, baby Bottle

My parents have ridiculously cute baby stories about me. I mean, so cute that you kind of have to think that either they're making it all up, or that I was dropped on my head at some point and lost all ability to be cute.

My dad insists that he carried me exactly like a football and never "fumbled a pass," but I do have an uncle who is notorious for dropping babies whenever he tries to hold them.


2: Am I the only one who wonders if you could still fit your whole foot in your mouth? :p
Well, I've got small feet and a very big mouth...

For whatever it's worth, my mother had this to say about children (rough transcript of a conversation we had):

"Having kids is like having a relationship. You can look at somebody else's relationship and be happy for them, but you don't actually want their relationship. Think about friends of yours who you like, but who you really wouldn't want to date. It's the same with kids. You can look at somebody else's kids and be happy for them, and you may even think their kids are pretty cool, but you don't want their kids.

If you have a child you are basically starting a new relationship. It's not any old kid, just like your partner isn't just any old person. They're an individual, and you're forming a unique relationship with them. The cool thing with kids is that you form the relationship from Day 1. You are getting to know a new person from the very beginning. It's a relationship unlike any other you might have with another person."

My dad adds:

"There's nothing quite like holding your infant daughter in your arms and marveling at the tiny perfection of her toes as she manages to shove the entire foot into her mouth."

Good points, both of them. Definitely.
I'm not saying I wouldn't love them, knowing me I'd probably be all over them for the first short while. But I'm not the most patient of persons, and not the most adapted to infant mindsets really. My BF is much better suited, he's just much more into babies altogether. He in turn doesn't like teenagers much (yes, I can see conflicts somewhere down the road already, but I think I can handle them ;))

My parents have ridiculously cute baby stories about me. I mean, so cute that you kind of have to think that either they're making it all up, or that I was dropped on my head at some point and lost all ability to be cute.
Not that we don't think you're terribly cute now......
>.>
<.<

My dad insists that he carried me exactly like a football and never "fumbled a pass," but I do have an uncle who is notorious for dropping babies whenever he tries to hold them.
:eek:


Well, I've got small feet and a very big mouth...

Dooooooooooo it. For science! And take pics! For the lulz!

Not that we don't think you're terribly cute now......
>.>
<.<

My partner and I once went to the aquarium in Boston and saw a video of a baby shark devouring its brother while they were still inside their mother's womb.

I'm cute like that.


:eek:

Well he doesn't drop them FAR. We always make sure he's sitting down.

It's actually kind of interesting, because he's one of those people who is really scared of holding a baby too tight. My boyfriend is the same way about babies...he refuses to hold them because he's convinced that he'll hurt them by holding them wrong.

I can sort of understand that, because babies seem so tiny and fragile. But I had the experience of being around my kid brother and learned that babies are surprisingly durable. My dad's football-carry is actually a good one; you don't GRIP the baby, you cradle it firmly so it's not going to slip away.

Babies bonk their heads or whap their arms on stuff all the time, and there's like a two year period when it seems like all they do is eat, sleep, and fall down.


Dooooooooooo it. For science! And take pics! For the lulz!
I'm tempted to do so, if only because I'd want to snap a picture of my boss's face when she sees what I'm up to.

My partner and I once went to the aquarium in Boston and saw a video of a baby shark devouring its brother while they were still inside their mother's womb.

I'm cute like that.
How many of your siblings did you eat?


Well he doesn't drop them FAR. We always make sure he's sitting down.

It's actually kind of interesting, because he's one of those people who is really scared of holding a baby too tight. My boyfriend is the same way about babies...he refuses to hold them because he's convinced that he'll hurt them by holding them wrong.

I can sort of understand that, because babies seem so tiny and fragile. But I had the experience of being around my kid brother and learned that babies are surprisingly durable. My dad's football-carry is actually a good one; you don't GRIP the baby, you cradle it firmly so it's not going to slip away.
Makes sense. I can't actually remember the last time I held a baby.

Babies bonk their heads or whap their arms on stuff all the time, and there's like a two year period when it seems like all they do is eat, sleep, and fall down.
Ah, the good life.


I'm tempted to do so, if only because I'd want to snap a picture of my boss's face when she sees what I'm up to.

Dooooooooo it! I'll love you forever!

Seriously, somebody please explain that one to me, because I can't for the life of me understand this idea.

There was a radio show on earlier today where they discussed people and couples who decide against having children. The show was ok, listing a lot of the arguments and showing different angles of the whole family-concept. It was when they started getting texts from outraged parents that I suddenly felt like I had somehow passed the invisible threshold into some sort of parallel universe. The parents and parents-in-spe who felt compelled to get their opinions heard were literally throwing hissy-fits about the selfishness of not having and not even wanting to have children.

Now, I've recently been thinking about maybe having some kids myself after all, and I felt that this would be the most selfish thing I'll ever do in my life. I'll create a little person without asking his or her consent, and for years this person will have to live with me and follow the rules I'll decide to put up.

I'll add another additional person to a planet that's ecosystem is already stretched to the limit with 6.5 billion individuals of my species.
I'll eventually die and those kids of mine will have to somehow come to terms with the world that my generation and the generations before have fucked up to the best of their abilities.
All because I want children. Not because anyone else desperately wants the little buggers I'll produce. Not because those kids can't wait to be exposed to this world with BSE in beef and heavy metals in mushrooms, melting glaciers, Islamic extremists and Western neofascists, religious nutcases, Dublin Bus, and all sorts of everyday madness and viciousness.

How is that not selfish beyond description??? How is it selfish not to have kids??? :confused:
I was with you until the bold stuff. I've heard people say this before and I just don't understand. How would it be the most selfish thing you could ever do in your life. To have a child without asking for his or her consent?!?! >_> How would you even go about getting that consent?


Nothing at all is selfish. If you don't want kids then fair enough. I don't want kids, I'll never be able to have them, but I don't want them. I really don't get why people say it's selfish not to.

Surely it's more selfish to have kids? There are millions of people starving worldwide, yet you introduce one more person who is eating all they want, just to satisfy your socially engineered desire to procreate as soon as possible?
What?! rofl :rolleyes:
By whom and for what reason?

I was with you until the bold stuff. I've heard people say this before and I just don't understand. How would it be the most selfish thing you could ever do in your life. To have a child without asking for his or her consent?!?! >_> How would you even go about getting that consent?

You can't, that's the point.
I sure as hell wasn't asked by my parents, I had no say in their decision to have kids for themselves. But had I been asked, I would have politely declined the offer.

I have to consider the possibilty that a child I will put on the planet might not want to be here, either, and I'm essentially forcing it to.

You can't, that's the point.
I sure as hell wasn't asked by my parents, I had no say in their decision to have kids for themselves. But had I been asked, I would have politely declined the offer.

I have to consider the possibilty that a child I will put on the planet might not want to be here, either, and I'm essentially forcing it to.

that is just ridiculous. If the kid doesn't want to live it will commit suicide.

A duty to your species and to your ancestors.

You may not realize it yet, but if you die childless you'll realize something was missing from your life.

Such blithe ignorance is almost impressive. That it's combined with such arrogance is depressing.

that is just ridiculous. If the kid doesn't want to live it will commit suicide.

Especially when you consider this statement. YOU MUST HAVE KIDS! But don't worry, if they don't like being here, they'll kill themselves.

Your level of congitive dissonance is truly Presidential.

Such blithe ignorance is almost impressive. That it's combined with such arrogance is depressing.



Especially when you consider this statement. YOU MUST HAVE KIDS! But don't worry, if they don't like being here, they'll kill themselves.

Your level of congitive dissonance is truly Presidential.

the whole idea that you won't have because they 'may' not like it ridiculous. Everyone goes through bad times and thinks it would be better if they weren't born, but they get over it.

that is just ridiculous. If the kid doesn't want to live it will commit suicide.

Sigged.

the whole idea that you won't have because they 'may' not like it ridiculous. Everyone goes through bad times and thinks it would be better if they weren't born, but they get over it.

I tried. Twice. It's not quite as easy as it would sound.
And don't underestimate the level of guilt imposed on the kid : Your parents had you, so you have to be grateful and pay them back. You can't just go off and do whatever you like, there are other people to consider.

I'm ok with life now, but had I been given the choice I wouldn't have wanted to be born, submitted to that guilt trip, abused by my family and then left to fight it out on my own.

I tried. Twice. It's not quite as easy as it would sound.
And don't underestimate the level of guilt imposed on the kid : Your parents had you, so you have to be grateful and pay them back. You can't just go off and do whatever you like, there are other people to consider.

I'm ok with life now, but had I been given the choice I wouldn't have wanted to be born, submitted to that guilt trip, abused by my family and then left to fight it out on my own.

Genetic defects aside my father had no business breeding at all. He's got 8 kids none of which are on speaking terms with him. The man is a menace.

Kids are a good idea in general. Even if you do tire of them eventually, you can always sell the young ones on the black market for lots of profit. The older ones tend to be workhorses until they are able to move out on their own.

Everyone goes through bad times and thinks it would be better if they weren't born, but they get over it.
Considering that there are people who successfully commit suicide, I'd say your reasoning has a bit of a hole in it.

But even if we set that aside, you're still arguing that it's okay to subject somebody to something that makes them miserable, as long as they "get over it" and don't kill themselves. So, for instance, it's okay to rape a woman, because most women who are raped will eventually go on with their lives and won't kill themselves. Right?

Genetic defects aside my father had no business breeding at all. He's got 8 kids none of which are on speaking terms with him. The man is a menace.
What makes me sad is women like my grandmother, or like my boyfriend's mom. They're really decent women, but they really should never have had kids.

My boyfriend's mom very obviously hates motherhood. She doesn't like having kids. She doesn't like being a parent. She very, very obviously would have been much happier if she never had kids. But she felt she had to have kids, so she did, and she's taken her frustrations out on her family to the point where two of her three children dodge her phone calls and try to figure out ways to visit home without having to see her.

It's sad to see somebody become so bitter and angry and twisted because they felt like they had to live a life they hated. My boyfriend's mom is a smart lady, and she's got some fundamentally good qualities, but she's become a really rotten person. I wish I could meet the person she would have been if she'd just lived the life she really wanted.

Considering that there are people who successfully commit suicide, I'd say your reasoning has a bit of a hole in it.

But even if we set that aside, you're still arguing that it's okay to subject somebody to something that makes them miserable, as long as they "get over it" and don't kill themselves. So, for instance, it's okay to rape a woman, because most women who are raped will eventually go on with their lives and won't kill themselves. Right?

Yes, that is exactly what I said...NOT!

If people never did anything because someone 'may' not like it or agree with nothing would get done and everyone would die. That is your line of reasoning carries to the extreme- like you carried mine. Hyperbole, don't you love it?

Most people like living. Everyone has good times and bad times, and everyone has issues. Some people get over them and some people don't. That's life. Life is about getting over the bad times and reveling in the good. You can't have good without bad.

Yes, that is exactly what I said...NOT!

If people never did anything because someone 'may' not like it or agree with nothing would get done and everyone would die. That is your line of reasoning carries to the extreme- like you carried mine. Hyperbole, don't you love it?

Most people like living. Everyone has good times and bad times, and everyone has issues. Some people get over them and some people don't. That's life. Life is about getting over the bad times and reveling in the good. You can't have good without bad.

She quoted you directly, that's what you said. It may not of been what you meant, but it's what you said.

Yes, that is exactly what I said...NOT!

If people never did anything because someone 'may' not like it or agree with nothing would get done and everyone would die. That is your line of reasoning carries to the extreme- like you carried mine. Hyperbole, don't you love it?

Most people like living. Everyone has good times and bad times, and everyone has issues. Some people get over them and some people don't. That's life. Life is about getting over the bad times and reveling in the good. You can't have good without bad.

True, but some people wouldn't have wanted life to begin with.
Now, I'm not saying "stop reproducing cause you might force people into a life they don't want". I'm saying be aware that if you have kids, you do it because YOU want to, for your own personal pleasure and gratification. Don't expect people to admire you for it, don't expect your chilren to be eternally grateful, don't even expect them to turn out like you thought they ought to.
It's your choice, it's selfish, recognise it and live accordingly. And don't let anybody push you into that decision one way or another.

Yes, that is exactly what I said...NOT!

If people never did anything because someone 'may' not like it or agree with nothing would get done and everyone would die.

That's true. If people never did anything because somebody somewhere might not be happy about it, then we'd never do anything.

However, if people never did something DIRECTLY IMPACTING ANOTHER PERSON if they thought it was possible that person would be unhappy about it, that might not be such a bad thing.


Most people like living. Everyone has good times and bad times, and everyone has issues. Some people get over them and some people don't. That's life. Life is about getting over the bad times and reveling in the good. You can't have good without bad.
First of all, you absolutely positively CAN have good without bad. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either a cult leader or an abuser (or both). Don't buy that bullshit about how you have to suffer in order to have good things happen.

But more importantly, you state that MOST people like living (a debatable statement), but that still means that some percentage of people who live aren't happy about it.

Meanwhile, we know for a fact that 100% of people who never live are never unhappy.

Hmm.

:D

She quoted you directly, that's what you said. It may not of been what you meant, but it's what you said.

She's making connections where there are none.

She's making connections where there are none.
It's okay if you misspoke, or if you didn't mean exactly what you typed. Happens to us all at one point or another. Just don't waste your time claiming that I was making stuff up, when I directly quoted exactly what you wrote. ;)

True, but some people wouldn't have wanted life to begin with.
Now, I'm not saying "stop reproducing cause you might force people into a life they don't want". I'm saying be aware that if you have kids, you do it because YOU want to, for your own personal pleasure and gratification. Don't expect people to admire you for it, don't expect your chilren to be eternally grateful, don't even expect them to turn out like you thought they ought to.
It's your choice, it's selfish, recognise it and live accordingly. And don't let anybody push you into that decision one way or another.

Sounds fine to me, although the kids should be somewhat grateful and very respectful to his or her parents.

I don't expect people to be awe of parents, but nor should they look down on them and complain about kids- unless the kid is being a shit in public.

It's okay if you misspoke, or if you didn't mean exactly what you typed. Happens to us all at one point or another. Just don't waste your time claiming that I was making stuff up, when I directly quoted exactly what you wrote. ;)

I never said anything about rape.

I never said anything about rape.
And I never said you did.

She's making connections where there are none.

No she's not, she's replying to what you wrote. Exactly what you wrote. Stop whining that she's making things up or taking your text out of context. She's not. If it's not what you meant, fine, but don't accuse her of making shit up to avoid admitting a mistake.

First of all, you absolutely positively CAN have good without bad. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either a cult leader or an abuser (or both). Don't buy that bullshit about how you have to suffer in order to have good things happen.


But how do you know that something is good if you don't have the bad to relate it to?

Sounds fine to me, although the kids should be somewhat grateful and very respectful to his or her parents.


Assuming they're worthy of that respect

But how do you know that something is good if you don't have the bad to relate it to?
*mind boggles*

I'm capable of experiencing pleasure relative to my "neutral" or resting state. For instance, if my boyfriend gives me a back rub it feels good compared to my neutral state. I don't compare the pleasure of the back rub to being, like, stabbed in the back or something. I just compare it to the absence of the additional pleasure of the back rub.

Are other people not capable of this?

*mind boggles*

I'm capable of experiencing pleasure relative to my "neutral" or resting state. For instance, if my boyfriend gives me a back rub it feels good compared to my neutral state. I don't compare the pleasure of the back rub to being, like, stabbed in the back or something. I just compare it to the absence of the additional pleasure of the back rub.

Are other people not capable of this?

Bad times make the good times that much better.

Assuming they're worthy of that respect

Quite right. No one is automatically worthy of respect solely because they contributed DNA to making you, you. Nor are they worthy of respect simply because they decided not to abort you. Depending on how you feel about your life, this may easily make them worthy more of derision than anything.

Sounds fine to me, although the kids should be somewhat grateful and very respectful to his or her parents.

I don't expect people to be awe of parents, but nor should they look down on them and complain about kids- unless the kid is being a shit in public.

Kids should aknowldge good parenting, yes. Other than that, they should be neither more grateful nor more respectful to their parents than anyone else.

And I'll complain about whatever I bloody well like, thank you, whether that's obnoxious kids or badly synchronised traffic lights. :p

Assuming they're worthy of that respect
Yeah, simply making a baby doesn't make anybody worthy of respect in my book.

I respect and thank my parents because they were good parents. I am thankful because they supported me physically and emotionally. They protected me, they educated me, they helped me, and they've been great role models to me. They have actually EARNED my respect and my thanks.

I don't respect or thank them simply because they had sex and made a baby. I respect them for how they dealt with the baby that became me. :D

Bad times make the good times that much better.
That's just so twisted to me.

If what you're saying is true, then every man should beat his wife so that she can enjoy the "good times" of their relationship that much more. Every parent should abuse their children so that the kids can appreciate the "good times" that much more.

That's fucked up.

*mind boggles*

I'm capable of experiencing pleasure relative to my "neutral" or resting state. For instance, if my boyfriend gives me a back rub it feels good compared to my neutral state. I don't compare the pleasure of the back rub to being, like, stabbed in the back or something. I just compare it to the absence of the additional pleasure of the back rub.

Are other people not capable of this?

I think what he's saying is that if you compare the back rub to being stabbed it's even better? *shrugs*

I think what he's saying is that if you compare the back rub to being stabbed it's even better? *shrugs*
Um, thanks, but I think I can appreciate my back rubs just fine without having been stabbed in the back. :P

Kids should aknowldge good parenting, yes. Other than that, they should be neither more grateful nor more respectful to their parents than anyone else.

And I'll complain about whatever I bloody well like, thank you, whether that's obnoxious kids or badly synchronised traffic lights. :p

On the contrary, kids should be most respectful to their parents and their elder family members. (Is this an old fashioned way of looking at family?!)

Lulz, complain 'bout what you want.

Yeah, simply making a baby doesn't make anybody worthy of respect in my book.

I respect and thank my parents because they were good parents. I am thankful because they supported me physically and emotionally. They protected me, they educated me, they helped me, and they've been great role models to me. They have actually EARNED my respect and my thanks.

I don't respect or thank them simply because they had sex and made a baby. I respect them for how they dealt with the baby that became me. :D

Good points. Even if the parent is a screw up, they still deserve some respect, simply for the fact of them being your parent. You don't have to worship them or anything, just be courteous, civil, well-mannered etc.

Good points. Even if the parent is a screw up, they still deserve some respect, simply for the fact of them being your parent. You don't have to worship them or anything, just be courteous, civil, well-mannered etc.
Well, if you mean that even lousy parents deserve some credit for, say, providing for their kids and at least making an effort to parent, then I would agree with that. I don't think biological parents deserve any respect simply for having MADE a baby, but if they step up and at least try to parent then I'd give them a bit of respect for it. Some people try their hardest and still just suck at parenting...I don't respect them much, but I do at least respect them for trying.

That's just so twisted to me.

If what you're saying is true, then every man should beat his wife so that she can enjoy the "good times" of their relationship that much more. Every parent should abuse their children so that the kids can appreciate the "good times" that much more.

That's fucked up.


No no no!

Use your common sense! beating your wife is bad, don't do it, m'kay?

Bad times, as in the downs of life...losing your job, girlfriend, running out of beer, running of cigs, losing a loved one, etc make you appreciate when things are going good: plenty of booze and cigs, friends and family, etc.

Although I guess if someone beat you you would appreciate when they weren't...but that's not what I mean. I'm talking about regular ups and downs of life- not abuse, rape, murder, or other rare to somewhat rare happenings.

Yeah, simply making a baby doesn't make anybody worthy of respect in my book.

I respect and thank my parents because they were good parents. I am thankful because they supported me physically and emotionally. They protected me, they educated me, they helped me, and they've been great role models to me. They have actually EARNED my respect and my thanks.

I don't respect or thank them simply because they had sex and made a baby. I respect them for how they dealt with the baby that became me. :D

QFT

On the contrary, kids should be most respectful to their parents and their elder family members. (Is this an old fashioned way of looking at family?!)


Good points. Even if the parent is a screw up, they still deserve some respect, simply for the fact of them being your parent. You don't have to worship them or anything, just be courteous, civil, well-mannered etc.

No. Just no.
My parents fucked up, and they don't deserve any respect for deciding to have kids and then "raise" them.
Now, my mom just fucked up as a parent, but she's otherwise a comparably nice person and I respect her for that.
My father is just a complete human failure, and I heartily despise him. He tried getting my respect the "oldfashioned" way, being authoritarian, beatings, house arrests, the whole thing. And it simply made me hate him. So much so that as a teenager, I once tried to tamper with the brakes of his car (I'm shit at mechanics and I now regret ever trying this, it could have endangered other people after all).

Just to be clear, I left home well over a decade ago. You're not talking to some rebellious teenager here, your talking to someone who has had the bad luck to be born, and to be born to parents who thought that being parents alone deserved respect. That's utter bullshit.

<OP Snip>

I think that neither way is inherently selfish, it's just whether it has selfish motives behind it or not. Like me, completely selfish, I could give all your reasons about overpopulation et cetera, but that's just rationalisation.

I'm very morally detached and basically don't understand the concept of "guilt". So my plans are essentially to indulge myself and push reality to the limit til death.

The way I see it, if you condense the fun of an average lifetime to the point where you pack up and die while you can still eat and move without assistance, more power to you.

I like tutoring children and I've done so for the past three years, and will again this year, but I'm not sure if I'd be a great parent, either.

You should run an orphanage ;)

You, Miss Chandelier, should come to Britain. Chemical Engineers are hot property over here, and Labour loves single parents - you'll get a fortune from the government! In fact, you'd probably get more if you didn't work at all.

Engineers are in demand here as well, we're expanding our mining operations and if things continue the way they are we'll be building a lot more stuff for the Defence Force soon. What's causing your shortage?

What's the big deal about continuing the bloodline...?

Everything. Continuing your genes, making sure your family line doesn't die out, continuing history. Besides, kids are fun.

Blood will stand by you through best of times and the worst of times. Blood will help you in time of need. Blood is a legacy that lasts until the end of the human species.

Unless you've been keeping to your own your genes are already pretty different to the genes of your family more than a few generations ago. So there's not really any point. That bullshit about your ancestor's genes from ten generations back meaning something is archaic.

A duty to your species and to your ancestors.

You may not realize it yet, but if you die childless you'll realize something was missing from your life.

Died childless recently?

What?! rofl :rolleyes:
By whom and for what reason?

Society is telling you to have kids, haven't you noticed? You only really notice stuff like that if you have the ability to step back and refuse.

Bad times, as in the downs of life...losing your job, girlfriend, running out of beer, running of cigs, losing a loved one, etc make you appreciate when things are going good: plenty of booze and cigs, friends and family, etc.

This is one of the reasons I dislike the concept of eternal life (or specifically people telling me how awesome it would be), bliss or torture it's really all the same in the end once you adjust to it.

neither way is selfish really. I plan not to have kids because i find it a bad idea to have kids when you're not 100% supporting it, and I don't. They also don't really fit in my life the way is see it now. Anyway, I'm 19 now, so I guess all this will change.
Also, could somebody (a parent preferably) please explain me what's the appeal in having kids? I like kids, and I can see why it's cool to see them growing up and I can imagine some moment when you get a lot back, but on the other hand I think that my parents got a lot more trouble with me than they got back from me. (and I'm not really difficult at all)

No no no!

Use your common sense! beating your wife is bad, don't do it, m'kay?

Bad times, as in the downs of life...losing your job, girlfriend, running out of beer, running of cigs, losing a loved one, etc make you appreciate when things are going good: plenty of booze and cigs, friends and family, etc.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't agree.

I don't need to have lost a family member to love and appreciate my family. Losing a family member wouldn't make the "good times" better.

I don't need to be fired to appreciate my job. Being fired would not make the "good times" better for me.

I absolutely do not agree that one must experience "bad times" in order to appreciate "good times."


Although I guess if someone beat you you would appreciate when they weren't...but that's not what I mean.

Why not? You apply it in other areas. Why not abuse?


I'm talking about regular ups and downs of life- not abuse, rape, murder, or other rare to somewhat rare happenings.
Abuse and rape are not rare. Statistically speaking, the majority of the women you meet in your lifetime will have been abused by an intimate partner and/or raped at least once.

neither way is selfish really. I plan not to have kids because i find it a bad idea to have kids when you're not 100% supporting it, and I don't. They also don't really fit in my life the way is see it now. Anyway, I'm 19 now, so I guess all this will change.
Also, could somebody (a parent preferably) please explain me what's the appeal in having kids? I like kids, and I can see why it's cool to see them growing up and I can imagine some moment when you get a lot back, but on the other hand I think that my parents got a lot more trouble with me than they got back from me. (and I'm not really difficult at all)

I don't know... I figure it's a bit like owning a cat. You feed it, you clean up after it, and occasionally it'll come and sit on your lap in the evening when you're watching TV and let you stroke it and scratch it behind the ear.
The gratification is what you get out of stroking that cat, really.

Unless you've been keeping to your own your genes are already pretty different to the genes of your family more than a few generations ago. So there's not really any point. That bullshit about your ancestor's genes from ten generations back meaning something is archaic.




Possibly.

Even if the belief is archaic, it doesn't make it wrong. It is my belief, and it will never change. I value friends and family above all else, as I've stated before. I take great pride in my family, and always will. That is why I'm strongly support having children- to carry on my bloodline, uphold my duty, or my duty as I see it, to the species by reproducing (not everyone has to, since we have a fuckton of people on the planet), and I also like kids.

Even if the belief is archaic, it doesn't make it wrong.

True. What makes the belief wrong is that it is factually wrong.


It is my belief, and it will never change.

I cannot tell you how much I love hearing people say that.


I value friends and family above all else, as I've stated before. I take great pride in my family, and always will.

If you found out tomorrow that you'd been adopted, would you stop loving your family and taking pride in them?

True. What makes the belief wrong is that it is factually wrong.


I cannot tell you how much I love hearing people say that.


If you found out tomorrow that you'd been adopted, would you stop loving your family and taking pride in them?

It is not factually wrong.

Good, want me to repeat?

Haha, fat chance of me being adopted! My sister and I look alike, and I look very similar to my mom's dad (from pics as he died way before I was born), and also my dad and my grandpa. I walk like my dad, and act like my dad in certain ways. I am my mother and father's son. There is no question of this.

Haha, fat chance of me being adopted! My sister and I look alike, and I look very similar to my mom's dad (from pics as he died way before I was born), and also my dad and my grandpa. I walk like my dad, and act like my dad in certain ways. I am my mother and father's son. There is no question of this.

So you refuse to even play along in a little thought experiment like this?

Wow, talk about insecurity...

Haha, fat chance of me being adopted! My sister and I look alike, and I look very similar to my mom's dad (from pics as he died way before I was born), and also my dad and my grandpa. I walk like my dad, and act like my dad in certain ways. I am my mother and father's son. There is no question of this.

Treat it as a hypothetical the way it was intended

Treat it as a hypothetical the way it was intended

I would still love and cherish my family, yes. I would also want to find out who my biological parents were, and what their heritage was (Irish, German, etc).

Even if the belief is archaic, it doesn't make it wrong. It is my belief, and it will never change. I value friends and family above all else, as I've stated before. I take great pride in my family, and always will. That is why I'm strongly support having children- to carry on my bloodline, uphold my duty, or my duty as I see it, to the species by reproducing (not everyone has to, since we have a fuckton of people on the planet), and I also like kids.

It's your family's spirit that you're trying to preserve then. I can't argue with that, carry on.

Haha, fat chance of me being adopted! My sister and I look alike, and I look very similar to my mom's dad (from pics as he died way before I was born), and also my dad and my grandpa. I walk like my dad, and act like my dad in certain ways. I am my mother and father's son. There is no question of this.

It's not impossible for them to have similar genes to you, and since they raised you you would of course act like them and look like them. Spending your whole life with someone causes you to imitate their expressions and that in turn change the way you look to be more in line with theirs. It's still extremely improbable but I'm just pointing out that it's not impossible.

and what their heritage was (Irish, German, etc).

Simply out of curiosity or for another reason?

It is not factually wrong.

Let me be more clear for you:

Once you go back about 10 generations, your DNA will be as likely to be similar to the DNA of a random stranger off the street as it would be to the DNA of your ancestor.

[Assuming that your family wasn't in-breeding this entire time, and assuming nobody along the way was adopted (so you all are blood relatives).]


Haha, fat chance of me being adopted! My sister and I look alike, and I look very similar to my mom's dad (from pics as he died way before I was born), and also my dad and my grandpa. I walk like my dad, and act like my dad in certain ways. I am my mother and father's son. There is no question of this.
You didn't answer my question.

Here, to be really fair I'll answer it first:

"If you found out tomorrow that you'd been adopted, would you stop loving your family and taking pride in them?"

If I found out tomorrow that I'd been adopted, I would extremely surprised. I'd be hurt that my parents never told me the truth, and I'd wonder why the hell they didn't. But the hurt would ONLY be because they didn't tell me. The fact that I was adopted would not change my feelings toward my family in any way, shape, or form.

Here, to be really fair I'll answer it first:

"If you found out tomorrow that you'd been adopted, would you stop loving your family and taking pride in them?"

If I found out tomorrow that I'd been adopted, I would extremely surprised. I'd be hurt that my parents never told me the truth, and I'd wonder why the hell they didn't. But the hurt would ONLY be because they didn't tell me. The fact that I was adopted would not change my feelings toward my family in any way, shape, or form.

He answered it already

I would still love and cherish my family, yes. I would also want to find out who my biological parents were, and what their heritage was (Irish, German, etc).

He answered it already
Yah, he'd posted that already when I posted mine. @#$ing slow internets...

Simply out of curiosity or for another reason?

Curiosity and I'm proud of my heritage (mostly Irish and Swedish).

I would still love and cherish my family, yes.
I would also want to find out who my biological parents were, and what their heritage was (Irish, German, etc).
Okay, next question (proceeding with the hypothetical):

You've said that you feel a duty to carry on your family legacy by having kids. If--HYPOTHETICALLY--you were adopted, which family legacy would take priority? The family that brought you up, or that of your biological parents?

Having children may or may not be selfish or selfless. By that I mean that someone could be selfish about having children, selfless about having children, selfish about not having children and selfless about not having children.

As a parent, I will say this. I can not think of any rational reason to breed, but I did it anyways. Mind you, I have done selfless and selfish acts without any rational reason either.

I would argue that the decision to have children is inherently irrational. But as to its selfishness, that has more to do with parenting method than the choice of whether or not to be a parent.

As a parent, I will say this. I can not think of any rational reason to breed, but I did it anyways. Mind you, I have done selfless and selfish acts without any rational reason either.

Here's your rational reason as it is programmed into you: "If you don't humanity will die out". There you go. :)

Okay, next question (proceeding with the hypothetical):

You've said that you feel a duty to carry on your family legacy by having kids. If--HYPOTHETICALLY--you were adopted, which family legacy would take priority? The family that brought you up, or that of your biological parents?

Hmm

Maybe both. My adopted family because of the kindness and love, and biological family because they are blood. Although I would still consider my adopted family to be blood.

Let me be more clear for you:

Once you go back about 10 generations, your DNA will be as likely to be similar to the DNA of a random stranger off the street as it would be to the DNA of your ancestor.

[Assuming that your family wasn't in-breeding this entire time, and assuming nobody along the way was adopted (so you all are blood relatives).]



Well maybe, but they would still be of my blood. There would still be a stronger connection to them than some random Joe Schmo off the street.

I just don't want to have kids; I hate kids, they piss me off.
That's just how I am.
I understand they're ignorant, but I just can't stand ignorancy, no matter who from.
I'm still trying to find an effective, permanent solution to sterilization...
Besides, even if I do change my mind later and decide to have kids, I'll adopt. It's a lot more helpful to take care of a kid that needs it than to make another kid.

Hmm

Maybe both. My adopted family because of the kindness and love, and biological family because they are blood. Although I would still consider my adopted family to be blood.

What exactly is your definition of blood if both your (hypothetical) adopted and biological parents can fit it?

What exactly is your definition of blood if both your (hypothetical) adopted and biological parents can fit it?

Well people can be adopted into different families and tribes, and can become part of them, effectively becoming a blood member of the group. I consider my best friend my brother, as we have been friends since elementary school.

Being biologically related is obviously blood related, and that blood carries with it the legacy of all your forbears.

As I'm not adopted its hard for me to imagine my reaction 100% correctly...

Blood is a spiritual and biological connection. So the adopted family would have a spiritual connection, while the biological family would obviously have a biological connection, and I would hope spiritual connection- but as I'm not adopted I'm not positive on this.

I have both a biological and spiritual connection to my family. They are my blood. My family. I would do absolutely anything for them.

You could have just said "deep emotional connection" from the beginning and we could avoided the last few pages of this thread. Now it's 1:30am and I'm a little unhappy.

EDIT:
Well maybe, but they would still be of my blood. There would still be a stronger connection to them than some random Joe Schmo off the street.

But if they're your family you've never meet from ten generations ago, they aren't any different from some random guy off the street.

Well of course I haven't met them, but if I did then I would instantly have a connection to them, and would die for them.

Here's your rational reason as it is programmed into you: "If you don't humanity will die out". There you go. :)

No doubt. Whenever my kids are driving me up the wall and I ask myself 'why did I have kids?', I invariably answer myself that I was thinking with my genes.

This notion is rooted in prejudice. European and european offshoot (white) populations have lower fertility rates. This means that due to simple population dynamics, "white" populations are threatened in terms of future world population proportions. This "family" oriented movement, socially shaming other whites for not having children, is about this racial fear. Funny thought, because of euro/euro-like development of "white" populations (dominance), their future cultural existence is threatened. Warning, this is of course a simplification.

This notion is rooted in prejudice. European and european offshoot (white) populations have lower fertility rates. This means that due to simple population dynamics, "white" populations are threatened in terms of future world population proportions. This "family" oriented movement, socially shaming other whites for not having children, is about this racial fear. Funny thought, because of euro/euro-like development of "white" populations (dominance), their future cultural existence is threatened. Warning, this is of course a simplification.

Eh?

Eh?

Look it up.

Look it up.

Where exactly do you suggest?

Look it up.

Maybe the "Eh" was the link to prejudice which I did not link too well. But this relates the fears of loss of dominance to inundatinos of non-whites to typically white areas of the world. SO as a social movement, which it is, fear creates prejudice, creates action. Brief but adequate.

Indepence is referring to the rapidly declining birth-rates in European and Western nations compared to the rapidly rising birth-rates of European immigrants and Eastern nations.

Indepence is referring to the rapidly declining birth-rates in European and Western nations compared to the rapidly rising birth-rates of European immigrants and Eastern nations.

Oh. Isn't Europe the most populated its been at any time in history?

Where exactly do you suggest?

I am referring to the population figures. For the social movements, just look at any border regions where darker skinned people are moving into areas formally dominated by caucasian populations. Of course, not all whites have these fears (a minority), or even know of the population dynamics, but become more entrenched with larger populations because of erroneous informatino in immigration debates.

Selfish or not! Maybe if people stopped making more people, the human race could finally die out. Damn if this virus won’t just go away.

Yeah, simply making a baby doesn't make anybody worthy of respect in my book.
It's not like getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant takes an awful lot of skill or anything. I mean, if people can do it when they're trying not to, then it's hard to consider it as much of an accomplishment.

I don't respect or thank them simply because they had sex and made a baby. I respect them for how they dealt with the baby that became me. :D
I think it's safe to assume that the butterfingers uncle may have slightly less respect that the fumble-free father :p

On the contrary, kids should be most respectful to their parents and their elder family members. (Is this an old fashioned way of looking at family?!)
But why? Like I said, managing to have a baby isn't a huge accomplishment on it's own, so it seems strange that people should automatically earn respect for doing it.
Good points. Even if the parent is a screw up, they still deserve some respect, simply for the fact of them being your parent. You don't have to worship them or anything, just be courteous, civil, well-mannered etc.
I find it's a good idea to be like that to everyone you encounter, unless they give you a reason not to. Simple pragmatism, if you treat people decently, then they're somewhat more likely to do the same in return.
No no no!

Use your common sense! beating your wife is bad, don't do it, m'kay?

Bad times, as in the downs of life...losing your job, girlfriend, running out of beer, running of cigs, losing a loved one, etc make you appreciate when things are going good: plenty of booze and cigs, friends and family, etc.

Although I guess if someone beat you you would appreciate when they weren't...but that's not what I mean. I'm talking about regular ups and downs of life- not abuse, rape, murder, or other rare to somewhat rare happenings.
Well if bad times make one appreciate the good times more, then it makes perfect sense to arrange for some bad times. Whether it's Bottle's examples of being abusive towards your child or SO, or your examples of losing your job or SO, etc.

This notion is rooted in prejudice. European and european offshoot (white) populations have lower fertility rates. This means that due to simple population dynamics, "white" populations are threatened in terms of future world population proportions. This "family" oriented movement, socially shaming other whites for not having children, is about this racial fear. Funny thought, because of euro/euro-like development of "white" populations (dominance), their future cultural existence is threatened. Warning, this is of course a simplification.
What? You're saying our instincts to breed, which exist in every observed lifeform to some extent, are actually caused by some kind of subconscious racism? You have correlation(white populations are declining, white people feel the instinct to breed), but not causation.
Selfish or not! Maybe if people stopped making more people, the human race could finally die out. Damn if this virus won’t just go away.

Contrary to the rantings of then Agent Smith, humanity cannot be considered a virus by any accepted definition of the term.

Contrary to the rantings of then Agent Smith, humanity cannot be considered a virus by any accepted definition of the term.

Thou shalt not contradict Agent Smith, our Lord of Perpetual Monologues.

[QUOTE=Ifreann;13180995]What? You're saying our instincts to breed, which exist in every observed lifeform to some extent, are actually caused by some kind of subconscious racism? You have correlation(white populations are declining, white people feel the instinct to breed), but not causation. [QUOTE]

Instincts to breed do NOT determine to what extent we breed. Look at fertility rates around the world and you will find that there is a direct correlation with certain lifestyles and the growth of populations. Look up the "demographic transition." It is not an absolute, but applies very well to most populations. One general correlations...as populations urbanize, fertility rates decrease...over time. I never talked about instincts and was only responding to the original question.

Instincts to breed do NOT determine to what extent we breed. Look at fertility rates around the world and you will find that there is a direct correlation with certain lifestyles and the growth of populations. Look up the "demographic transition." It is not an absolute, but applies very well to most populations. One general correlations...as populations urbanize, fertility rates decrease...over time. I never talked about instincts and was only responding to the original question.

I'm lazy, and it's common practice here that one back's up one's own claims, rather than insisting that others do so for them. Though I expect that some of my original objection will still stand, that is, you have correlation, but not causation.

I'm lazy, and it's common practice here that one back's up one's own claims, rather than insisting that others do so for them. Though I expect that some of my original objection will still stand, that is, you have correlation, but not causation.

The major failing, really, is the apparent disregarding of what is likely the key element in the declining birth rates: the prevalence of contraception use is, I'd say, much greater in Europe than in Africa and Asia, both by virtue of the expense and the level of education.

My mother always said that her sister was the most selfish person she knew. I could never figure out why. Now I know. My aunt had the gall to adopt two boys instead of having biological children. How incredibly selfish of her - to take two children into her home and raise them as her own and to love them just as much, if not more. I hope to see a lot more selfishness like this.

Nothing whatsoever. Frankly, I think I'm doing humanity a favour refusing to have children.

The major failing, really, is the apparent disregarding of what is likely the key element in the declining birth rates: the prevalence of contraception use is, I'd say, much greater in Europe than in Africa and Asia, both by virtue of the expense and the level of education.

Correlation can indicate causation...my brief argument was not trying to establish a footnoted academic argument. Also, there is not the disregarding of contreception use, it is generally incorporated and correlated with urbanization and level of development.
Causation for lower birth rates in more developed locations has to do with different type of living...urban as opposed to rural. Many aspects of life are incorporated with this, major ones being better hygiene, better health care, better education, social welfare (to prevent poverty), employment opportunities, and more opportunities with women. If you really want to know the major factor, it is not just use of contraception (while this is related), it is the opportunities afforded to women in a populations.
Back to my original post. I am not addressing the fundemental propensity for all living creatrues to propogate themselves, I am speaking of factors that affect the rate and composition of this propogation. Further, the original discussion I presented was about the socio/economic/political movement surrounding the genetic eruopean white populations around the world. Because of the characteristics highlighted previously, they have lower growth rates compared to non-europeans. Because of the level of development in the geographic locations they inhabit that are more and more genetically non-european immigrants causing a heightened perception of these issues. In fact, the most developed countries NEED these immigrants to support the capitalist systems. This however brings us to the cultural/economic clashes that create sociopolitical movement that supports higher population growth in white populations.
I hope this clarifies...and yes I will back-up anything I write. FYI-these issues are specifically my profession and I know them well.

Correlation can indicate causation...my brief argument was not trying to establish a footnoted academic argument. Also, there is not the disregarding of contreception use, it is generally incorporated and correlated with urbanization and level of development.
Causation for lower birth rates in more developed locations has to do with different type of living...urban as opposed to rural. Many aspects of life are incorporated with this, major ones being better hygiene, better health care, better education, social welfare (to prevent poverty), employment opportunities, and more opportunities with women. If you really want to know the major factor, it is not just use of contraception (while this is related), it is the opportunities afforded to women in a populations.
Back to my original post. I am not addressing the fundemental propensity for all living creatrues to propogate themselves, I am speaking of factors that affect the rate and composition of this propogation. Further, the original discussion I presented was about the socio/economic/political movement surrounding the genetic eruopean white populations around the world. Because of the characteristics highlighted previously, they have lower growth rates compared to non-europeans. Because of the level of development in the geographic locations they inhabit that are more and more genetically non-european immigrants causing a heightened perception of these issues. In fact, the most developed countries NEED these immigrants to support the capitalist systems. This however brings us to the cultural/economic clashes that create sociopolitical movement that supports higher population growth in white populations.
I hope this clarifies...and yes I will back-up anything I write. FYI-these issues are specifically my profession and I know them well.

I refuse to read something below the literary ability of a high school student.
Format your post properly, learn to use paragraphs, and how to capitalize correctly. Then this post may be deserving of a proper response.

What? You're saying our instincts to breed, which exist in every observed lifeform to some extent, are actually caused by some kind of subconscious racism? You have correlation(white populations are declining, white people feel the instinct to breed), but not causation.

I think he was talking about the notion that there is something selfish or bad about not wanting to have kids.

In other words, white people in some countries think it is "selfish" for another white person not to have babies because the immigrants might take over if there aren't more white babies. Or something like that.

I refuse to read something below the literary ability of a high school student.
Format your post properly, learn to use paragraphs, and how to capitalize correctly. Then this post may be deserving of a proper response.

Being fairly new to these forums, I admittedly am not sure how to take the comment. Could be that you cannot refute the argument which is founded in years of internationally acquired data and regress to trying to get a rise out of the author with a sardonic remark...or your just being humorously sarcastic because the writing is clearly not of a high school student. I will choose the latter and avoid the fisticuffs.

Being fairly new to these forums, I admittedly am not sure how to take the comment. Could be that you cannot refute the argument which is founded in years of internationally acquired data and regress to trying to get a rise out of the author with a sardonic remark...or your just being humorously sarcastic because the writing is clearly not of a high school student. I will choose the latter and avoid the fisticuffs.

You use big words. You even use them properly. Your sentence structure sucks. And your punctuation could use some work. This made your post difficult to read.

Though you seem to be correct about lower birth rates being correlated with opportunities for women.

It is selfish to not procreate if you are intelligent. The majority of people being born now are from inner cities, 3rd world countries and in other unfortunate circumstances. Our education system stiffles brilliance in favor of glorifying mediocrity. If you are intelligent, it is vital to the survival of intelligence in America to procreate.

Seriously, somebody please explain that one to me, because I can't for the life of me understand this idea.

There was a radio show on earlier today where they discussed people and couples who decide against having children. The show was ok, listing a lot of the arguments and showing different angles of the whole family-concept. It was when they started getting texts from outraged parents that I suddenly felt like I had somehow passed the invisible threshold into some sort of parallel universe. The parents and parents-in-spe who felt compelled to get their opinions heard were literally throwing hissy-fits about the selfishness of not having and not even wanting to have children.

Now, I've recently been thinking about maybe having some kids myself after all, and I felt that this would be the most selfish thing I'll ever do in my life. I'll create a little person without asking his or her consent, and for years this person will have to live with me and follow the rules I'll decide to put up.
I'll add another additional person to a planet that's ecosystem is already stretched to the limit with 6.5 billion individuals of my species.
I'll eventually die and those kids of mine will have to somehow come to terms with the world that my generation and the generations before have fucked up to the best of their abilities.
All because I want children. Not because anyone else desperately wants the little buggers I'll produce. Not because those kids can't wait to be exposed to this world with BSE in beef and heavy metals in mushrooms, melting glaciers, Islamic extremists and Western neofascists, religious nutcases, Dublin Bus, and all sorts of everyday madness and viciousness.

How is that not selfish beyond description??? How is it selfish not to have kids??? :confused:

I know. I don't want to have kids, and some people seem to take issue with that.

A duty to your species and to your ancestors.

You may not realize it yet, but if you die childless you'll realize something was missing from your life.

How sad if your only measure of self-worth is whether you reproduced.
Roaches can do that, too.

If you get to the point where you can choose to have children, then by definition your genes aren't flawed. That's evolution for you.

watch idiocracy

watch idiocracy

Idiocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy) I plan to watch that just 'cause I'm sure it's a hoot, but it's a shitty reason to breed. If anything it's a cautionary tale about the need for population control.

But how do you know that something is good if you don't have the bad to relate it to?

I can love chocolate without ever having had a toothache to show me how good chocolate is.

I
You should run an orphanage ;)


Nah. ;)

It is selfish to not procreate if you are intelligent. The majority of people being born now are from inner cities, 3rd world countries and in other unfortunate circumstances. Our education system stiffles brilliance in favor of glorifying mediocrity. If you are intelligent, it is vital to the survival of intelligence in America to procreate.

It's not selfish to want to be able to use my intelligence instead of having to get married and have kids. I have no duty to procreate.

I can love chocolate without ever having had a toothache to show me how good chocolate is.

I don't know if that analogy works.

If good = chocolate, then bad = lack of chocolate, or something that does not taste good.

Though I'm sure chocolate would still taste good, regardless if there was nothing to compare it to. :)

Well of course I haven't met them, but if I did then I would instantly have a connection to them, and would die for them.

I'm your long lost auntie. Buy me a house.

I don't know if that analogy works.

If good = chocolate, then bad = lack of chocolate, or something that does not taste good.

Though I'm sure chocolate would still taste good, regardless if there was nothing to compare it to. :)

Ok then -- I don't have to have eaten horseshit to know that I love chocolate.

Seriously though, he's talked about having to have bad to appreciate good -- in my books toothache is bad whilst a nice Belgian chocolate is near-orgasmic. ;)

You use big words. You even use them properly. Your sentence structure sucks. And your punctuation could use some work. This made your post difficult to read.

Though you seem to be correct about lower birth rates being correlated with opportunities for women.

This is getting tedious. I don't use big words, I use appropriate words...and yes, correctly. Next, punctuation and sentence structure (the latter being a matter of taste) is of no real concern on a casual forum.
Funny how you response to me was to insult something other than my informative points. Perhaps, you should focus on your own choice of words (sucks?...quite the educated critique) and reconsider posts where you demonstrate you lack of comprehensive understanding on a topic. However, I acknowledge you right to portray any characteristics you want about yourself.
Finally...yes, my argument is correct.

Just put a space in there every once in a while after some sentences.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't actually fit in as a paragraph.

Some folks literally will not read something if there are no gaps. =)

This is getting tedious. I don't use big words, I use appropriate words...and yes, correctly. Next, punctuation and sentence structure (the latter being a matter of taste) is of no real concern on a casual forum.
Funny how you response to me was to insult something other than my informative points. Perhaps, you should focus on your own choice of words (sucks?...quite the educated critique) and reconsider posts where you demonstrate you lack of comprehensive understanding on a topic. However, I acknowledge you right to portray any characteristics you want about yourself.
Finally...yes, my argument is correct.

Thing is, people aren't obligated to read your posts; if you want them to read, why make it hard for them?

Thing is, people aren't obligated to read your posts; if you want them to read, why make it hard for them?

You are right...I should also refrain from getting enticed into tit for tat posts.

This is getting tedious. I don't use big words, I use appropriate words...and yes, correctly. Next, punctuation and sentence structure (the latter being a matter of taste) is of no real concern on a casual forum.
Funny how you response to me was to insult something other than my informative points. Perhaps, you should focus on your own choice of words (sucks?...quite the educated critique) and reconsider posts where you demonstrate you lack of comprehensive understanding on a topic. However, I acknowledge you right to portray any characteristics you want about yourself.
Finally...yes, my argument is correct.

I use small words because they are easier to type, and to read. Like Ernest Hemingway.

I could elocute loquaciously as a matter of course, but I am apprehensive in regards to having the gist of my phrases occluded by the overbearing verbiage of my pretentious discourse. That would suck.

I don't try to write in an educated manner. I try to write clearly.

Look, you wanted to know why DM wouldn't respond to you. In my opinion, it's because you don't write clearly.

I use small words because they are easier to type, and to read. Like Ernest Hemingway.

I could elocute loquaciously as a matter of course, but I am apprehensive in regards to having the gist of my phrases occluded by the overbearing verbiage of my pretentious discourse. That would suck.

I don't try to write in an educated manner. I try to write clearly.

Look, you wanted to know why DM wouldn't respond to you. In my opinion, it's because you don't write clearly.

It wasn't truly an issue of clarity. Mostly what threw me was the sentence structure and a mixture of verbosity and an apparent inability to be brief, and the simple fact that his post could be summed up easily in a quarter of the space.
It's the reason why I generally avoid discussions once the posts reach a certain length. They can be presented in a much more succint format, and when they are not, it is something of a turn-off.

I will, however, acknowledge that he has a point, at least on the notion that the perception of those who do not reproduce by those who do may tie into a perceived disparity in the ethnicity of incoming immigrants, and a resulting desire to maintain a comparable rate of growth.

Thing is, people aren't obligated to read your posts; if you want them to read, why make it hard for them?


So.. those with a greater facility at English should dumb-down their language because it might exclude people with a smaller vocabulary? That assumes that the majority of people have the same.. difficulties.. with the forums' lingua franca as you do, and that everyone who uses their language skills (instead of letting them stagnate and atrophy) necessarily wants to debate with the inarticulate masses. Personally, when I flex my vocabulary in an argument it's partially intended as a signal that I want to deal with a more academic crowd, and if you can't keep up with the level of the discussion then I don't care if you participate. It's like sports; sometimes professional players decide to practice or play on the community field. If the local peewee players want to get involved they can either try to bring themselves up a level, or they can take part but shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

oh noes, ebil elitism.

Ok then -- I don't have to have eaten horseshit to know that I love chocolate.
But you did anyway? ;)

Seriously though, he's talked about having to have bad to appreciate good -- in my books toothache is bad whilst a nice Belgian chocolate is near-orgasmic. ;)

Quoth the Raven;
Forevermore.

Hm.
Some of you apparently have flawed information.

US isn't really losing or gaining population.
Russia and various European countries + Japan are rapidly losing population.
African countries have ridiculous fertility rates.

But you did anyway? ;)

Now you're just being silly. Of course not.
The only thing I've eaten that came out of ANYTHING'S butt had a shell on and was boiled for three minutes. (An egg, ok?)

It wasn't truly an issue of clarity. Mostly what threw me was the sentence structure and a mixture of verbosity and an apparent inability to be brief, and the simple fact that his post could be summed up easily in a quarter of the space.
It's the reason why I generally avoid discussions once the posts reach a certain length. They can be presented in a much more succint format, and when they are not, it is something of a turn-off.

I will, however, acknowledge that he has a point, at least on the notion that the perception of those who do not reproduce by those who do may tie into a perceived disparity in the ethnicity of incoming immigrants, and a resulting desire to maintain a comparable rate of growth.

WARNING! If words, sentences, and even paragraphs (GOD forbid!) intimidate and frighten you, the AVOID this post at all costs!

These forums have some serious "academic" debates along with humorous posts...this is why I participate. This thread started with a question that could have many superficial, humorous discussions...they were present. I thought I would interject the connections to some larger issues of population dynamics and links to sociopolitical movements.

My original post was misunderstood because I attempted to be brief without connecting all the dots. So, with the attempt to maybe educated, I attempted to quickly make those logical connections for the few that had difficulty. So inablity for some to understand or even accept the argument indicates that the point could not be brief in nature. If I wanted people to actually understand something that they obviously did not, I needed to expand on the topic, in effect providing a public service to some ignorance. You can see even by this attempt, I generally like to create understanding and will be elementary and overexplanatory if needed.

What I thought could be an interesting stream of thought on an issues has derailed into passive-agressive, "I'm smarter than you" posts, which this is not meant to be. One thing I will say is...if you think my "words are big," then, depending upon your age, a larger vocabulary should be acquired. As said by another, if you think that I should a pander to the lowest common denomonator of intelligence or vocabulary in a discussion, then you are an idiot.

Again, portraying my inablity to be brief (maybe you are right).

US isn't really losing or gaining population.
The US is gaining population. Our current growth rate is 0.894%, based on 2007 estimates.

USA birth rate is about 14.16 births/1,000 population, while the death rate is 8.26 deaths/1,000 population. Right there you see the increase, but you also have to add in the net migration rate of 3.05 migrant(s)/1,000 population.

It is selfish to not procreate if you are intelligent. The majority of people being born now are from inner cities, 3rd world countries and in other unfortunate circumstances. Our education system stiffles brilliance in favor of glorifying mediocrity. If you are intelligent, it is vital to the survival of intelligence in America to procreate.
Intelligence in America has migrated to Canada.
Now you're just being silly. Of course not.
The only thing I've eaten that came out of ANYTHING'S butt had a shell on and was boiled for three minutes. (An egg, ok?)
An amusing fact: although chickens use the same organ for laying eggs as they do for defacating, their eggs always come out clean.

It is selfish to not procreate if you are intelligent. The majority of people being born now are from inner cities, 3rd world countries and in other unfortunate circumstances. Our education system stiffles brilliance in favor of glorifying mediocrity. If you are intelligent, it is vital to the survival of intelligence in America to procreate.
Yeah, if we want intelligence to thrive in America, we have to make sure that all smart people are occupied with having babies and raising children. That way they'll have less time to apply their intelligence to things like teaching, researching, developing new technologies, practicing medicine, improving industry, running the country...

Fun Fact:

The more educated women become, the fewer children they tend to have. I guess the secret of increasing the "intelligence" of our country is to make sure we only let females attend school for long enough to determine if they have "smart genes." Then we should force them to drop out and spend the rest of their lives pregnant.

It is selfish to not procreate if you are intelligent. The majority of people being born now are from inner cities, 3rd world countries and in other unfortunate circumstances. Our education system stiffles brilliance in favor of glorifying mediocrity. If you are intelligent, it is vital to the survival of intelligence in America to procreate.

In the future, the intelligent class of humans will just clone offspring in a shorter time period than it takes a stupid human to getstate.

If you couldn't tell from my posts, I don't date. :p


A quote that jumps straight over the whole of the rest of the thread: Wow. You're missing out Chandy :P Just don't date the jerkwads and you'll be fine :p

A quote that jumps straight over the whole of the rest of the thread: Wow. You're missing out Chandy :P Just don't date the jerkwads and you'll be fine :p

I'm afraid that if I date someone they'll expect sexual stuff or kisses or something. I'm not attracted to anyone anyway, so what would be the point in taking that risk?

The US is gaining population. Our current growth rate is 0.894%, based on 2007 estimates.

USA birth rate is about 14.16 births/1,000 population, while the death rate is 8.26 deaths/1,000 population. Right there you see the increase, but you also have to add in the net migration rate of 3.05 migrant(s)/1,000 population.
Hm.

I heard somewhere that 2.1 fertility rate is necessary to maintain population.

Not quite sure as to why because I'm not that educated being a high school freshman.