THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: lottie on 03 Jan 2013, 09:00
-
Okay, I GET that not everyone wants kids, and am fully in support of people making their own life choices, no matter how they differ from mine. But why the hate on kids? Are they really that bad? I think it seems a little disturbing to insulate your life so that it only includes your generation, except for occasional brief appearances from your parents. Just like multi-culturalism is important, ageism is bad too.
And it's fine that Jacques doesn't really want them in his comic, and doesn't see it happening for his characters, they are his, I just don't get the total vitriol. Or maybe it's because we've really only heard from Dora, who is ardently anti-child? And I'm fine with one anti-child character, but a whole community of them seems... unlikely? Scary?
Here's hoping this doesn't bring out only the people like Dora who despise anyone under the drinking age line, telling me all about every horrible experience they've ever had because some obnoxious breeder had the gall to bring their children in public. I'm actually interested in a little more of a nuanced response on whether the issue constitutes ageism.
-
As I read the thread, I wondered in how many ways the attitudes of the posters differ from others of the same age/gender/nationality who aren't members of the forum. Quite a bit, perhaps.
-
Sad but true none the same, but isn't this just more of the same where personal choice is pretty much centered around the self with no actual thought given to being centered around someone else who would depend on you implicitly for everything?
Children are Expensive as an excuse? That is more telling on personal priorities than anything.
The sad possible connotation is that the stupid and ignorant that breed like fruit flies [those breed till they poison their food source] can and will out-breed those of us with some modicum of responsibility?
I only partly recall a sci-fi short novella or three based on such a premise. All were outer-limits dark IIRC.
Even more telling is to take a look at the 0.1% and see that they also do breed.
So why are we effectively eliminating ourselves from the gene pool?
I am beginning to wonder, in that conspiracy way, if it is just another part of the eventual segregation of humanity into tiers with the top tier completely cut off from the rest.
Let the conspiracy diatrides begin .... Mwhahahahahahahaaahahaaaah heeee *cough**cough**cough* haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaa ....
-
Some people have a neurological need for the structure and predictability that children are so well designed for destroying.
Oh, and welcome, new person!
-
But why the hate on kids?
Umm, huh? There is no hate on kids.
-
Welcome, other new person!
Calling them "awful mewling poo-larvae" and announcing an intention to use them as a food source is hardly neutral.
If you're thinking of the reactions of people on the forum, it's more precise to say some of them hate the idea of parenthood as opposed to hating children.
-
Children are Expensive as an excuse? That is more telling on personal priorities than anything.
Yes, I'd agree with this. I personally do want children, very much, which will be no surprise to anyone who has been on this forum for more than five minutes and/or does not block avatars. But whether or not you have children should absolutely be based on personal priorities. This isn't a black/white selfish/selfless distinction situation - you can argue it is selfish to have children in an over-populated planet, you can argue it is selfish to not have children in order to be free to travel or whatever. Children are expensive. They are astonishingly expensive. One of the statistics brought up in the WCDT was that women who have children at 24 earn around £565,000 less than women who do not have children. That is half a million. That is a shit ton of money, and that isn't even including the actual tangible costs. It is totally a valid reason to not have children.
I don't think there is hate towards children, either in the comic or in the forum as a whole. Jeph doesn't want children, so naturally he has no interest in writing about them. He hasn't written any pet snakes either, and indeed none of the cast has a dog even though we know that he does. Not wanting to write about something doesn't mean you hate it. But if you aren't a children person, then it makes sense that the characters you create would be angled towards not wanting children, because that's the attitude you're most familiar with. The fact that Faye talks about maybe having kids in the future just shows that Jeph doesn't hate children so much that it blinds him to the fact that many people want them.
On the forum? Some people want kids. Some people don't. A very small minority actively dislike them. And to be fair, the number of children who display thoroughly unpleasant behaviour makes that unsurprising.
-
Calling them "awful mewling poo-larvae" and announcing an intention to use them as a food source is hardly neutral.
Making a fictional character say such things about kids doesn't mean there was "hate on kids" in real life. But that's what the original poster suggested. Jeph doesn't include kids in QC not because he hates kids but for the same reason why QC doesn't include elephants—it simply isn't about kids or elephants. Moreover ... QC obviously is just about to include kids. Sam is a kid after all, and there may be more of them to come in the future ...
So the question about "why there's hate on kids" after one character made a repudiative remark is just absurd.
If you're thinking of the reactions of people on the forum, it's more precise to say some of them hate the idea of parenthood as opposed to hating children.
Exactly.
-
It's not his first comment. The previous comic that brought it up was Dora again though, so I get that she's the child disliker. Many moons ago she made a comment about her womb shriveling in horror when thinking of the idea that there could be a baby in it. It just seems like this is absurdly insular existence.
-
The previous comic that brought it up was Dora again though, so I get that she's the child disliker. Many moons ago she made a comment about her womb shriveling in horror when thinking of the idea that there could be a baby in it.
Yeah—it's always Dora who is making remarks of this kind. This is exactly the reason why I wouldn't be surprised if she ends up being the first in her social circle to get pregnant ... 8-)
-
For me, I once looked forward to having children. At university I volunteered to help out at the Kidds' Klub. It had about 20x 3-9 year olds (they were the children of other students and the club existed to give their parents a break). Usually there were 4-5 of us on duty and I did what I could to encourage the quiet ones to take part in activities we had.
One day there was only 2 of us on duty and that afternoon has put me off children for the rest of my life! It was quite simple: you blinked, there was a fight. We were run ragged just trying to keep order. The children probably didn't have much fun.
-
Fear.
Fear that I could possibly screw up the life of another human being - without trying.
That's why I'm sans children.
Oh, that and where I work.
-
There's nothing wrong with kids. I love 'um. Most of 'um at least. I used to work at various kindergartens and it hasn't destroyed me.
-
HiFranc made me think of an adult in a poly family who said the main thing to know about raising children is "outnumber them".
-
Erm, shouldn't this thread be merged with the one in DISCUSS?
-
I just remember how glad I was to no longer be one.
-
I just remember how glad I was to no longer be one.
Same here. And I'm afraid of becoming my parents, in trying to raise my own child...hence the fear. Not hate...just uncertainty.
-
Maybe you should start with a pet or something.
-
I have ten cats and two dogs. All are spayed/neutered, up to date on vaccinations, and the cats are indoor-only. I know how to take care of living things...but it's preparing for socialization, how the kids would interact with other kids, and similar aspects of child-rearing that I worry about.
-
... but you understand that I was kidding (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2354)? :-D
-
I was visiting my niece at Christmas and it really made me wonder if I wanted a creature in my house that requires more attention than a cat.
On the other hand I feel a responsibility to ensure the survival of the human race. Despite there being 7 billion people on the planet, one bad flu season could drive us to extinction.
-
Despite there being 7 billion people on the planet, one bad flu season could drive us to extinction.
Well—I'd say one really juicy flu season could save us from extinction. But that's an entirely different topic ...
-
Luckily for the human race, most of us who become parents, even if we weren't sure about the whole thing, do a reasonably good job. My daughter, now 40, might have good reason to disagree, but only in part of her childhood.
-
... but you understand that I was kidding (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2354)? :-D
Um...oh. Ohh...yeah, my mind is in safe mode right now. Certain humorous functions have been disabled until reboot occurs. :psyduck:
Well—I'd say one really juicy flu season could save us from extinction. But that's an entirely different topic ...
Dr. Robert Neville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend_(film)) would tend to agree with you, up to a certain point in the population drop...
-
Well... in Germany most people decide to be against having a child for monetary and financial reasons. As it stands now the wish to procreate is immediately accompanied by the fear for one's own existence and diametrically opposite to the need for a safe income and a stable life standart.
For many it's just "have a child or be relatively wealthy?"
I agree with the OP in that I, too, am having a hard time understanding how "they are messy" can be someone's sole reason for not having kids who is usually not that germophobic or "mess-o-phobic" (that's not a word now is it?)
For me, I once looked forward to having children. At university I volunteered to help out at the Kidds' Klub. It had about 20x 3-9 year olds (they were the children of other students and the club existed to give their parents a break). Usually there were 4-5 of us on duty and I did what I could to encourage the quiet ones to take part in activities we had.
One day there was only 2 of us on duty and that afternoon has put me off children for the rest of my life! It was quite simple: you blinked, there was a fight. We were run ragged just trying to keep order. The children probably didn't have much fun.
I feel you. But funny enough for many people this point of view changes drastically when it's not just "a" child but "your" child.
Personally, the chance to have a child was recently snagged away from me in a horrible manner. But I really want to care for a child some day. If only to prove to myself I can do a better job at it than my parents. (not an easy task mind you, they were pretty good with only a few shortcomings)
-
Some people have a neurological need for the structure and predictability that children are so well designed for destroying.
This,
Fear.
Fear that I could possibly screw up the life of another human being - without trying.
That's why I'm sans children.
this,
I'm afraid of becoming my parents, in trying to raise my own child...hence the fear. Not hate...just uncertainty.
and this, are pretty much my reasons for not wanting kids of my own. I have troubles maintaining my own sense of "normality", and my near-obsessiveness to structure and regularity are not a great place to have any children around (although I am going to be working on this soon enough).
Do I want children (read: do I want to be responsible for a life not my own, that needs and demands basically constant attention and care) now? No, not in my current state of mental and financial health (slightly skewed, and damn-near broke respectively). If I can get my shit together on both fronts, then I might upgrade my stance to "maybe".
-
Erm, shouldn't this thread be merged with the one in DISCUSS?
I don't see the need; this thread has its own identity, and is not an argument-based discussion. It could be in Chatter, perhaps, but it arose from the comic and can as well stay here (even though we no longer have a barrier between the forums, some people don't explore as much as others).
-
My two parenting tips which I hope and intend to employ when I parent my own children are: remember you are aiming to raise an adult, not a child, and be consistent. The former leads into things like "will this remain cute when they are 13? 23? 53?" and if the answer is no, deal with it now while they're still malleable, and the latter expands into things such as "if you're going to draw a line in the sand, enforce it - if you say "come here" and they do not, go and get them, and bring them to "here". Don't teach them to disobey".
It is, however, far easier to parent in theory, or part-time, than in practice. I do admit to some trepidation about full-time responsibility for a tiny person, but I hope that having spent at least a decade thinking about and practising it, it'll be easier than just plunging in there without a clue.
-
...be consistent...expands into things such as "if you're going to draw a line in the sand, enforce it - if you say "come here" and they do not, go and get them, and bring them to "here". Don't teach them to disobey".
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :roll:
That really works well when they are smaller and weaker than you. There comes a point when they are not... and it's about the same time as a nasty rebellious streak can set in that all the training in the world won't ameliorate. This is what leads so many parents to use extremely negative pressures on their teen children (they haven't adapted to a new technique yet) which leads (probably) to most of the issues people have with their otherwise good parents.
I was sneaky. This was partly because I loved my parents and didn't want them hurt/disappointed when they found out about the things I was doing, but mostly because I just wanted some freedom, and this seemed to be an easy way to take it. The few rebellious things I did that my parents did find out about led to a lot of trouble, but physical coercion had to stop pretty early on (though the threat of it lingered effectively for years...)
Then the cycle repeats - one of my daughters is extraordinarily sneaky... and it wasn't the one I expected, the one who seems to think like I do. Turns out they both do, but only one of them can hide it!
-
In addition to my rather poor experience as a child (I was "raised" by two selfish and neglectful people who barely acknowledged my existence for most of my childhood), I have severe chemical imbalances that I am only able to maintain control over through a well-established sleep and meditation schedule and keeping my stress levels relatively low. Not only would a child make that all but impossible to maintain, I wouldn't want to risk passing on my illness. Add to that my views on overpopulation and there are plenty of reasons for me to not want kids.
What dislike I do have for kids is primarily based on my experience of being one and the interactions I had with others, PTSD is a pretty terrible thing to deal with as a child (and into adulthood).
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :roll:
That really works well when they are smaller and weaker than you. There comes a point when they are not...
Oh sure, I'm talking about toddlers here. Once you hit the stage where they're bigger than you, or just nearly as big, then new tactics are better. Conveniently, the too-big-to-carry stage generally coincides with the old-enough-to-reason-abstractly stage, and things like curfews and loss of privileges actually work. You tell a two year old "if you do x, you won't get y" and they'll do x, and then scream and scream for y.
-
Parenting: The only job you're not allowed to just quit.
Some people still do, though.
Others just slack off and pay others do the job for them.
-
I don't want kids right now. I don't believe that I will ever want kids, but I know that things can change my mind about other things. I have had surgery to prevent me from ever birthing children. Voluntary and much-wanted surgery. But I do know that if I decide down the line that I want kids, I would much rather adopt. I have so many reasons for not wanting children in general, or not wanting them of my own blood, at the least. Most have been listed here already.
But it really doesn't matter. Who cares why someone else doesn't want kids? The fact is that they don't. There will be no lives ruined by the decision to not have kids. Some people will make up a reason just to have one beyond "I don't want them." Not having the money, while a perfectly valid reason, is one that many people use. Yes, this can change, overpopulation could, theoretically, change, all these reasons can change. But it is a decision that belongs to each person, and no one should forcefully try to change their mind about it.
So you think that someone's reason not to have kids is selfish - if that were actually the case, do you want a selfish person having a kid? Or immature, or any of the 'bad' things people say about those that decide against kids?
There's also no reason to get on anyone for their dislike of children. I like them up until the point that they can speak sentences; this is where I get nervous and can no longer deal with them confidently. That's my own decision, I certainly don't hate kids older than that, I just don't want to be around them, if I can avoid it.
-
The only thing more irritating than /r/childfree (http://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/) is being asked to justify why you don't want children.
-
The only thing more irritating than /r/childfree (http://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/) is being asked to justify why you don't want children.
I think I'd ask a person who stated that they don't want children why, but not to justify themselves - I'm just curious about their reasoning.
Then I'll probably agree with them, because most reasons I've ever heard not to have kids are pretty damn good reasons.
Didn't stop me, though.
-
I wouldn't be curious at all by someone saying "I don't want kids" or "I can't right now", but saying that you never want kids, ever, and going as far as getting surgery done to ensure you never get one even by mistake, is curious to me. They're little kids. You used to be one. They're not evil little imps. I'm not offended by it or anything, please note that, and I respect that people may be in situations which may never change, which may prevent them from ever having kids. Someone with OCD as bad as, say, Hanners, probably isn't suited for having kids and I could completely understand her saying she doesn't want them, ever.
So, not offended and I don't demand an explanation. I just don't understand it.
(but that's my name after all)
-
I understand that I was once a kid, and I have no problem with kids overall. I just know that I never, ever ever ever, want to carry/birth a child.
If anyone is interested in reasons, well, I've had many health issues. Many of which are directly connected to my reproductive organs. But even if that weren't the case, being pregnant is really fucking difficult in so many ways. Besides the obvious, you'd be the center of attention, people would touch you, and you'd have to see doctors who would stick their hands up your cooch far too often.
And even besides those reasons, my family has a terrible history of diabetes, obesity, depression, anxiety, so on and so forth. I wouldn't want to make another kid go through what I have.
-
And in all honesty, I have to agree with everything Neko has said. Both the health issues (thought that's pretty much a dice roll, and people are more optimistic than they should be about rolling dice), and I can vouch for the thing about being pregnant.
In the ninth month of my younger daughter's pregnancy, my wife (who carried a 10-lb fetus WAAAAAY out front), I made her a large button that answered everyone's first two questions;
1) Yes, I'm still pregnant.
2) No, it's not twins.
On the way to the scheduled caesarian, we stopped at the store so she could pick up a crossword puzzle book for during recovery, and the clerk asked, "Honey, when are you having that baby?"
My wife looked at the clock, and said, "In about an hour and a half."
-
It's perfectly understandable reasons. However...
Saying you don't want kids EVER is a bit like predicting the future to me. In a negative way. "I will never be a healthy person enough to have a kid". I understand someone may have chronic problems which prevent them but not all problems are impossible to work out.
I dunno, I guess it's just me but I don't think you should narrow down your opportunities so early in life as most of us are. We have pretty scarce opportunities as it is already.. I guess.
-
Opinions / desires change over time. One of the reasons that, unless you have severe health issues like Neko did, you wouldn't necessarily want to do anything irreversible. But you should definitely respect your desires, and those of others as much as possible. If you don't want kids for any reason, that's good enough, and people should respect that.
Doesn't stop those of us who've had kids from sharing the grossest and most disconcerting things that happen with those of you who are easily squicked - we need to get our entertainment somewhere...
-
I like children!
Like hell I want any of my own though. I'll probably be sterile anyway before too long for unrelated reasons, so...
Fatalism aside there's no way I'll ever ever EEEVVVEEEERRR want to actively seek a child for myself while being on my own. If/when I have vaguely stable companionship it can be on the table. Maybe adoption, because fuck my genes.
Edit: I've helped raise baby/toddler/child cousins. I have some experience across the board with all the lovely day-to-day stuff in caring for a human child. I'm sure that it being 'my own' would change my opinion a little, but that knowledge does not change my opinion enough at this time.
It just seems like this is absurdly insular existence.
No worries. I don't understand why someone would want more than one or two kids tops, seems like an absurdly stressful existence that would only lead to neglect and abuse, but some people seem to pull it off. So whatever I guess.
Some people have a neurological need for the structure and predictability that children are so well designed for destroying.
^^^^
-
Carl-E: Yeah, that's a better way of putting it. As a person I'm generally trying to keep my options open, not getting too radical. Maybe that just means I'm a scared of changing or something. But it's the way I am.
And I completely respect that anyone wouldn't want to have children, I eh just don't get it. But I don't have to.
-
If when I had insurance, the company had deemed vasectomys to be worthy of covering, I absolutely would have gotten one in a goddamn heartbeat. Still would.
I realize no one here is saying this, but the attitude that was brought up earlier, that not having children was selfish, I find hilarious considering how incredibly selfish the choice to have children can be. Maintaining your family legacy, having immortality in some fashion, assuming you raising a child will make the world a better place, to have an accessory, to do God's work etc etc.
I also don't understand thinking that stories about children being gross are gross though. This may be colored a bit by having slaughtered animals and helping raise several nieces and nephews. Maybe with a bit of my modification fascination added as well. Children ARE gross, but the human body is pretty gross in general. Gross and fascinating.
-
Like I said, it's only entertaining when the people listening are squickable.
You, sir, are far from squickable!
-
idontunderstand, women at least can have health issues which guarantee that having children is out the question. I have a friend whose uterus is backwards, for instance (or it was - I think she's had it removed now). If she bore the child she found she was carrying at sixteen, she would have died. That isn't a situation for optimism, it's a situation for termination and hysterectomy.
-
I know about issues like that, that's not what I'm getting at. If she doesn't have a uterus, and this sounds harsh no matter how I say it, she doesn't have a choice anyway, does she? I'm talking about people who have the ability and opportunity, but still say that they will never, ever, take advantage of it.
-
I think the problem there is you assume it's considered an advantage to the people involved. Also, removing the oppurtunity to have a biological child does not remove the possibility of adopting. It's a lot more of a pain in the ass as far as bureaucracy goes and can be more of a problem depending on if you are a minority, non-christian, of a non upper middle class socio economic status etc etc, but it's arguably a much better thing to be doing.
-
It definitely seems like you're saying, "why would someone want to give up this wonderful thing forever?" I understand those people who think that having a kid is a wonderful thing, and that's fine. They can have all the kids they want, in my opinion. I don't consider it to be such a wonderful thing, for many reasons.
-
I suppose one way to look at it is the old "biological imperative" thing - as an individual, the imperative is to live, and as a species, it's to procreate and keep the species going. Why waste this function, when it is (very arguably) the only thing we've been built to do?
Of course, the argument's moot - we've been sooo far past biology for so long... and we've become a dangerously successful race because of it. Denying biology should be an option.
-
It definitely seems like you're saying, "why would someone want to give up this wonderful thing forever?"
I'm not saying anything quite that stupid but I guess the gist of it is the same.
I admit I hadn't thought of adopting, though. A fair point.
-
In a world where the overpopulation of our species is destroying the stability we need to sustain ourselves, it is to the detriment of the species to have more than one child. To have none at all is beneficial.
Unfortunately, those with the foresight to acknowledge this tend to be members of society whose removal from the gene pool might also be detrimental.
-
Hence eugenics - but if you want to discuss that further, please find the already existing thread in Discuss! rather than continuing here.
-
I was reading this article/blog post this morning, and coming back to this reminded me of it:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-questions-you-need-to-ask-to-avoid-ruining-your-life/ (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-questions-you-need-to-ask-to-avoid-ruining-your-life/)
Read through it if you like, but point #3 (bottom of the first page) should be insightful.
-
I haven't got a great deal to contribute to this discussion, but I wanted to share an anecdote: the ten year old (he might be eleven - I can't work out how the Korean age numbering works, and he couldn't explain it well) I tutor just spent an hour discussing economics, the market economy, and the inequality of the British taxation system. Not all ten year olds are impossible to talk to.
-
Man as I recall I was pretty impossible to talk to meaningfully at 10. Some of that was purposeful smokescreen, mind, but not nearly all of it.
-
At age 25, I am only now discovering all the nuances of taxation, economics, world politics, etc.
When I was 10, I was focused on how fast I could bike downhill. That's about it.
-
Some completely reasonable babies and toddlers on the train this trip. Parental supervision seems to be adequate. Inadvertent movie reference from yesterday: mother warns "Logan, don't run!".
-
"Not until you're 30!"
I've decided fairly recently (past year or two) that I do want kids at some point (as opposed to not knowing) but not until I'm established in my career. However, I'm not sure I could say why. So I definitely wouldn't criticize sounding for not wanting kids.
-
I might be convinced to adopt. Maybe. If it was really important to my partner, and I thought that I was going to be with her for the rest of our lives. Other than adoption, my only other choice would be artificial insemination, and I see no point of that. Plus, fuck my genes. My current girlfriend's genes are pretty solid, granted.
I personally consider it selfish to procreate when we are already overpopulated AND there are so many kids who need a good home. Adding more humans to an already fucked up situation just be cause you want your own seems like the height of selfishness. But, that's just me.
I am a godparent to the daughter of two friends of mine, if anything were to happen to them I would step in and take care of her.
-
I'd have to agree it's selfish, but many things are. Having a car is selfish. Drinking alcohol is selfish. Buying nice clothes is selfish. Being a relatively wealthy citizen in a first-world country when there are people starving is elsewhere, well, selfish on some level. If you think students are poor here, go ask how much a lawyer makes in Georgia. I don't believe that me getting a kid is detrimental to the world in a larger perspective, however. But that's another discussion..
-
...Which "Georgia" are you talking about?
-
The one the Russians bombed the hell out of.
-
. I don't believe that me getting a kid is detrimental to the world in a larger perspective, however. But that's another discussion..
You, personally, perhaps not, but aggregated from all the people who choose to so, it is. One could just as well argue that one person polluting isn't detrimental to the world in a larger perspective.
-
Having a kid = Polluting the world?
Sorry, I'm done with this discussion. I respect your view but we obviously won't see eye to eye.
-
Having a kid = Polluting the world?
You could argue that both lead to a degradation of the planet's remaining resources.
-
That's true, Hodges...but I believe/hope that with further advances in science, we'll be able to not only curb and possibly reverse the state of global pollution, but also increase the the earth's biological threshold for the human species. (Here's where everyone berates me for promoting GMOs, but that's a separate subject)
-
We still grow exponentially, and the world iis still finite...
It's a problem.
-
Actually the world population isn't growing exponentially. Our growth has been steadily declining for decades now. This isn't to say that we aren't growing population, but the global birth rate trends has us topping out and then declining by 2080 somewhere around the 12 - 15 billion point.
The decline is actually likely to cause some problems of it's own, but it'll clearly be good long term.
-
Exponentially no, but birth rates still exceed death rates. If you look at it mathematically, something needs to be done. Natural resources aren't infinite...but we as humans are innovative by design. Personally, I'd like to see martian terraforming take humanity and spread it out more widely...large space colonies a-la Gundam Wing are also an option...I know, I'm getting a little off-topic, but I'd like to think that humanity will preserve itself along with its host environment...unless the earth disagrees, and goes all "The Happening" or "Day the Earth Stood Still" upon us. Yeesh.
-
I think you might have posted as I was editing.
But yes, clearly stuff needs to be done, but we're well on our way to dealing with many of them, including the issue of resources. The actual birth rate issue can only really be dealt with with time unfortunately.
Basically, it's likely that if we make it to the end of the century, as far as species survival goes we're golden.
Edit: That "if" in the last sentence is important.
-
Having a kid = Polluting the world?
Sorry, I'm done with this discussion. I respect your view but we obviously won't see eye to eye.
My point was simply that while one person doing something might not have a significant effect in the large scheme of things, it is never just one person doing it. The effects of millions of individuals making the same decision do aggregate. Pollution was just an example, it was not meant as a direct comparison. Although, one could certainly argue that adding additional humans is, in a round about way, polluting the world, that was not the point I was trying to make.
-
Actually the world population isn't growing exponentially. Our growth has been steadily declining for decades now. This isn't to say that we aren't growing population, but the global birth rate trends has us topping out and then declining by 2080 somewhere around the 12 - 15 billion point.
The decline is actually likely to cause some problems of it's own, but it'll clearly be good long term.
I'd like to see how that works... Yes, the rate is slowing, but it's still an exponential rate. Death also grows as the population does, but getting the total growth rate to hit 0 and then go negative just doesn't seem likely; at least, not as soon as it needs to happen.
Not without a pandemic or two thrown in...
-
Not without a pandemic or two thrown in...
Considering the speed at which diseases adapt to current methods of eradication, as compared to the speed at which we develop pharmaceuticals to combat resistant organisms...I'd say that plague and pestilence is a distinct possibility.
All the more reason to vaccinate those kids y'all may or may not be havin'.
-
The basic facts are that the rate of decrease of the population growth
rate has been falling for decades, at an ever increasing rate.
I honestly think he meant it.
-
The basic facts are that the rate of decrease of the population growth
rate has been falling for decades, at an ever increasing rate.
I honestly think he meant it.
Graphed, that would be similar to y=(-√x)+⅓x
Wait...no, that would be the rate of growth over time. The actual population over time would look more like y=4/(3√x).
I think....wait, maybe it's just y=x2
I...don't know anymore. :psyduck:
-
Having a kid = Polluting the world?
Sorry, I'm done with this discussion. I respect your view but we obviously won't see eye to eye.
My point was simply that while one person doing something might not have a significant effect in the large scheme of things, it is never just one person doing it. The effects of millions of individuals making the same decision do aggregate. Pollution was just an example, it was not meant as a direct comparison. Although, one could certainly argue that adding additional humans is, in a round about way, polluting the world, that was not the point I was trying to make.
Hm, I see. In that case I'll have to answer that of all the things we could do to make the planet a better place, I believe that "not having a kid" is pretty far down on the list. Raise the kid to be environmentally aware. Teach it to think critically. Show it what the world looks like outside the city limits. It doesn't have to grow to be a polluting little carnivore.
-
"Not until you're 30!"
I've decided fairly recently (past year or two) that I do want kids at some point (as opposed to not knowing) but not until I'm established in my career. However, I'm not sure I could say why. So I definitely wouldn't criticize sounding for not wanting kids.
Don't take this the wrong way, but don't wait. I know it's in vogue to have a career and then settle down. But to anyone who thinks they want children, I advise, don't wait. (Well, be in a committed relationship with someone who also wants children.) But once you are out of school, soon is the time to have children. You can always want to accomplish one more thing before you'll be ready to have kids. Do it too often and you'll be in your late 30s and wondering if you should have kids.
But the real reason to so sooner rather than later is that in your 20s you still have an abundance of energy and a child can suck that dry in an instant. Young people are designed for the rigors of child rearing. It will also be easier for you to identify with the trends that will fascinate your child when you are closer to their age.
And for those who think they won't want kids, that's fine. The last thing a child needs is a parent who regrets the decision to have kids, right?
Finally, I'd like to address some of the fears in this thread. Fear of the unknown is normal. Overcoming fear is also normal. Do it. There is no reason to fear "I might screw up some child's life." Odds are the child will mess with your head just as badly as you mess with its. :) I find it painfully ironic that the people who generally don't want kids are the smarter people who over think everything. I'm not saying having kids should be a thought-free endeavor. But analysis paralysis tends to be the geek way to avoid parenting.
My son can be a royal pain in the ass, and he's only seven. But I love him like I've never loved before. And you can't place a value of that kind of love.
YMMV, VWPBL, and several other disclaimers.
-
The "not until you're 30" was actually in response to "Logan, don't run!", not when I plan on having kids, just so everyone's clear. Although...I'm 25 right now, and I'll be starting law school this fall when I'm 26 and taking the bar when I'm almost 29. Having kids while still in law school is not going to happen, but I suppose any time after that is fine, as long as I have a job. So...yeah, 30 probably is the earliest I'd have kids, but probably not that long after that, for biological reasons, if anything else, since the further you go into your 30s the more risk you have. (My girlfriend and I are the same age)
-
idontunderstand, sitnspin: Have either of you heard of the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)?
-
On what is only a vaguely-related note, I will point out we have all that Moon with all its Moon-Dollars we could exploit if we'd just get on that shit better than we have been.
Just sayin'...
-
idontunderstand, sitnspin: Have either of you heard of the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)?
You're drawing a very small picture. A person is not a meat factory, pumping out pollution.
-
idontunderstand, sitnspin: Have either of you heard of the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)?
You're drawing a very small picture. A person is not a meat factory, pumping out pollution.
Pilchard has a point, though. Without some sort of intervention or action, we will deplete many natural resources without exchanging them for other useful resources. That's why I like goats more than I like cows, as one example.
On what is only a vaguely-related note, I will point out we have all that Moon with all its Moon-Dollars we could exploit if we'd just get on that shit better than we have been.
Just sayin'...
If Congress ever got their act together, I'm sure we could apportion a higher budget for NASA to begin work on lunar colonies. But that's a big IF.
-
Hm? Oh.
I wasn't trying to say that they were, just that that article was kinda relevant. Like you said, if raised 'correctly' (quotes because no two people will agree exactly what that means) a child may well be a boon to the planet.
-
It is relevant, but it's nothing I'm not aware of. I hold that there are many better ways of saving our planet than not having children. But then this is a side-track. I think most people who choose not to have children have other, likely more personal, reasons for not doing so.
-
If Congress ever got their act together, I'm sure we could apportion a higher budget for NASA to begin work on lunar colonies. But that's a big IF.
Kills me having to agree with Newt Gingrich (sp?) on something as awesome as extra-terrestrial colonization, but space makes strange bedfellows!
-
If Congress ever got their act together, I'm sure we could apportion a higher budget for NASA to begin work on lunar colonies. But that's a big IF.
Um, going to the moon and making friggin' colonies is a sure way to destroy the earth's ecosystem. The moon has NOTHING. Let me repeat that. The moon has NOTHING. No air, no water, no food, no building materials, NOTHING. All that stuff has to be torn out of the ground on earth and shipped to the moon. How much energy does it take to launch a ship carrying these material to the moon? Not just orbit, but to the moon, that's much farther away and it's not that simple to make sure all the supplies land next to each other. How often do you need to resupply a colony of 100 people? 1000 people? 10000 people? How many days worth of food and water and air do you think can be easily dumped on the moon in a single trip?
The carbon footprint of a man on the moon is astronomical. No one who is into conservation should want to put man on the moon.
Now the ice moons of Jupiter on the hand... At least there is water there. But the costs in terms of fuel and TIME are even worse than going to the moon. But at least there might be something there to help with the building of a colony.
-
Might want to read up on the water studies and the feasibilty of manufacturing needed materials on site from regolith. In fact, that's one of the standard arguments for a presence on the moon in the first place: A supply base and staging area in a not-so-deep gravity well.
-
I wasn't aware we had managed enough geological surveying to determine that the Moon's resources were too limited to be of use.
Very well, FURTHER INTO THE VOID! :mrgreen: 8-)
-
Um, going to the moon and making friggin' colonies is a sure way to destroy the earth's ecosystem. The moon has NOTHING. Let me repeat that. The moon has NOTHING. No air, no water, no food, no building materials, NOTHING.
....
Now the ice moons of Jupiter on the hand... At least there is water there. But the costs in terms of fuel and TIME are even worse than going to the moon. But at least there might be something there to help with the building of a colony.
Very well, FURTHER INTO THE VOID! :mrgreen: 8-)
Ugh...so depressing, the both of you... :psyduck:
-
Well in my defense I meant the void of space, not the void of entropy and annihilation that constantly hangs over our heads as an ever-vigilant companion, keeping the pace with us as an amoral and uncaring universe slowly digests our hopes and dreams and selves, crushing us between its gears of the cold laws of science and the hopeless futility of striving to be more than the barest hint of a drop in the vast wellspring of time.
-
You do that very well. Psychiatrists should pay you to build their practices by inducing depression :-)
-
I would argue that no matter how much you teach the kid to not be a pollution producing machine, the mere existence of an increase population is a resource drain. No matter how efficient we get, the presence of this many people on the planet is rapidly depleting valuable resources. Having one kid, not a big issue. If everyone just had one kid, fine, but that is simply not the case. We have people popping out eight kids like a damn clown car. And, like I said, there are millions of kids growing up with no family. Given the situation, I see very little justification for having children.
As for moving off world, the reason to do that has little do with saving the planet. The reason to move off world is to avoid having the species wiped out by a cataclysmic event. Don't have all your eggs in one basket. The more spread out we are in the universe, the less vulnerable the species is to extinction.
-
Actually, having a kid isn't necessarily a resource drain. If that kid is not only efficient himself, but convinces others to be efficient as well, the resources he saves could easily be more than he consumes himself.
-
Actually, having a kid isn't necessarily a resource drain. If that kid is not only efficient himself, but convinces others to be efficient as well, the resources he saves could easily be more than he consumes himself.
Theoretically possible, granted, but highly unlikely.
-
Also not very scalable.
-
Well in my defense I meant the void of space, not the void of entropy and annihilation that constantly hangs over our heads as an ever-vigilant companion, keeping the pace with us as an amoral and uncaring universe slowly digests our hopes and dreams and selves, crushing us between its gears of the cold laws of science and the hopeless futility of striving to be more than the barest hint of a drop in the vast wellspring of time.
I....wow. Yeah, I know you meant space, but the realization of the time and resources it will take just makes me want to get back into bed, hide under the covers, and think that maybe I'll wake up somewhere in the future, where the time's made up and the resources don't matter. Thanks, Drew Carey.
-
Might want to read up on the water studies and the feasibilty of manufacturing needed materials on site from regolith. In fact, that's one of the standard arguments for a presence on the moon in the first place: A supply base and staging area in a not-so-deep gravity well.
One could also set up a small colony on the Moon and start mining resources from the asteroid belt. By the time we have a lunar colony, we probably would also have autonomous mining vehicles.
Oh, and some light reading on the possibilities of lunar water: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html)
-
We have people popping out eight kids like a damn clown car. And, like I said, there are millions of kids growing up with no family. Given the situation, I see very little justification for having children.
I know what you're saying, I just feel it's a narrow perspective. "Very little justification", what, I need a justification to have children, but you don't need one to not have one? If we're not free to do what we want with our bodies, our society is not worth saving and we can just give it all up right now.
Also on a less serious note... with your logic, the best thing we could do right now is probably to go out and try to kill as many people as possible and then end our own consuming, dirty existence.. :mrgreen:
-
In some respects, yes! But it's a matter of balance, really.
-
Also on a less serious note... with your logic, the best thing we could do right now is probably to go out and try to kill as many people as possible and then end our own consuming, dirty existence.. :mrgreen:
I do not disagree. One could make the case for it quite well. A sudden massive drop in the population of the species might be just what we need.
-
I know what you're saying, I just feel it's a narrow perspective. "Very little justification", what, I need a justification to have children, but you don't need one to not have one? If we're not free to do what we want with our bodies, our society is not worth saving and we can just give it all up right now.
Does NOT performing an action require justification? Not unless it is a mandatory action or if not performing it would cause harm. I would say one needs justification to not call 911 in an emergency, but no justification would be required to not go to McDonald's for lunch.
-
If the goal is the happiness of all humans, then we should bring our numbers down in the most humane way possible: have less kids or no kids, and adopt. While I understand that it's a very difficult process to adopt, it is much more humane than increasing the world's population and leaving those other kids to not find homes. One thing I agree on is that bringing population down by killing people who have already been born is not the answer, nor is trying to decrease the birth rate through laws, as in China, where the result is a high rate of female infanticide. It would have to be something that most of society would have to agree to do voluntarily. This would require a change in the culture, which is never an easy task, as cognitive bias makes the human mind extraordinarily difficult to change.
An adopted child will not love you less than a biological one, and hopefully you will not love them less. They may not have your DNA, but that has very little to do with how someone will turn out, compared to upbringing.
-
Also on a less serious note... with your logic, the best thing we could do right now is probably to go out and try to kill as many people as possible and then end our own consuming, dirty existence.. :mrgreen:
I do not disagree. One could make the case for it quite well. A sudden massive drop in the population of the species might be just what we need.
I take the proponents of such a measure seriously only if they volunteer to be on the receiving end. Most seem to want to be on the "giving" end -- and should be taken seriously only for as long as it takes to stop them.
-
I do not have the patience or maternal instinct to raise a child. Even when I was younger I couldn't stand kids, and it's only gotten worse the older i've gotten. I see no reason to give birth to a child when there are already so many in the world. I would happily go and get sterilized if it were an option I could afford right now. Along with the fact that I do not want or like children very much, there is a slew of mental and physical health issues that run in my family that I see no reason to pass along to ANYONE. I refuse to give birth to a child with the same brand of crippling Social Anxiety that I suffer from. Giving birth is not a wonderful option that should never be taken off the table for some people. For some, it's just not something we want to do.
On top of that, my nana was a foster parent for most of my formative years. I decided early on that if, by some strange power, I did decide I wanted a child, I would adopt an older child. My play mates when I visited my nana were the babies of broken homes and junkies. They need love and understanding just as much as any newborn and would appreciate the chance to make something of themselves. I vividly remember one boy telling me how jealous he was of me having a mother around who cared what I did. That stuck with me.
-
"cognitive bias"? translated into real world terms in set theory - The selfish and The stupid - note there is some overlap.
Unfortunately the overlap is where a vast majority of humanities ills stem. :psyduck: People in general are stupid. people in larger numbers are insane morons with WMD.
The idea is applaudable where someone makes an informed decision not to procreate to help ease the stress of population growth on our planet instead of just selfish short term reasoning. Mind you everyone is selfish but it is overriding this selfishness that separates us from the reptiles that have a habit of consuming their own young, mates, each other.
Unfortunately the effective result is that their positive choice is negated in whole by those who do the opposite.
It is a classic example of "The tragedy of the commons". All it takes is one selfish gluteus maximus to spoil it for everyone else because there is no immediate, chop your tally-whacker off, consequences to not playing fair.
I suggest a general program of Sesame Street combined with aversion therapy [Guantanamo] for all, starting with those putting themselves up as leaders and working our way down to the common idiots.
:angel: [kidding - or am I?] :evil:
-
But then we would lose our humanity. Is the future of the planet more important than humanity? Not too sure if I agree..
-
I've always wondered why when people complain about "losing {their} humanity" it most often seems, when one actually looks at what is to be lost, that the human traits that are most animal-like in action that are the ones actually being threatened with extinction… :psyduck:
-
Empowering women may be all the cultural change that's needed. Women who control their own fertility seem to average many fewer kids than those who don't.
-
Yes that and decent healthcare for women.
Mind you for that to happen there would need to be a whole lot of crotch kicking involved in the meantime.
Some nation states would have to get a little religion and a whole lot more would need to loose theirs.
We don't want the Mongol solution to the problem do we? :psyduck:
-
We don't want the Mongol solution to the problem do we? :psyduck:
The Mongol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_khan) solution, or the Mongol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongul) solution?
-
But then we would lose our humanity. Is the future of the planet more important than humanity?
I'm not really sure what you mean here. How would this necessarily make us lose our "humanity?" It wouldn't stop us from having empathy, or any of the other positive human traits. And as for a dichotomy between "humanity" and the earth, I think it's not an either/or situation. We can't survive without the planet, it's the only place we have to live, the resources it has are all we have to live on for the rest of our life as a species. When it goes, we go with it. Bringing our numbers down in the most humane way possible is in our interest as a species. We have too many humans living on this planet as it is for it to be able to support us indefinitely. Even if our population quits growing and stabilizes, at our current numbers and rate of consumption it's still only a matter of time before we use up all of our resources and our civilization crashes and burns.
If we want our descendents 100 years from now to be anything other than ragged, malnourished post-apocalyptic hobos waiting to die on a ruined planet, we need to take a multi-leveled approach, and having fewer children or choosing to adopt in stead would have to be part of it, along with developing green technologies, somehow reforming the economy and our personal habits so that we don't waste such sickening quantities of food, water and other resources, and perhaps not driving everywhere in colossal military-inspired steel fortresses that pound down oceans of gas like they're trying to impress their friends.
-
If we survive past this century, Earth won't be the only place we'll be living.
Doesn't change the fact that the rest of your post is perfectly accurate.
-
If we survive past this century, Earth won't be the only place we'll be living.
There's nothing like optimism!
Realistically, some predictions are far short of what we achieve, but others turn out to be pie in the sky.
-
I like the Mongo solution (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ciVBQixpU)much better.
-
I know what you're saying, I just feel it's a narrow perspective. "Very little justification", what, I need a justification to have children, but you don't need one to not have one? If we're not free to do what we want with our bodies, our society is not worth saving and we can just give it all up right now.
A little bit late and someone already said about justifying not doing something but I feel a big point here is in a way, yes it's your body and do what you like with it. Although having a child makes this whole other person that's effected by your choice and had no say in their creation. Then you can get into creating a person means creating something that will continue to cause effects on a small and possibly large scale for their entire existence. Not even in terms of carbon footprint, just them meeting people or taking up a seat in a school. So it definitely would need more justification than, "Just because." Compared to not having a child, "Just because." is less consequential since there's nothing, except yourself and possibly some family/friends/partner's emotions being effected.
-
There's nothing like optimism!
Realistically, some predictions are far short of what we achieve, but others turn out to be pie in the sky.
Well, if we survive I don't think it's terribly optimistic, just inevitable. If we don't make it to the end of the century we're either going to be on our way to extinction or at the very least will have dropped below a point in civilization we won't be able to recover from.
-
There's nothing like optimism!
Realistically, some predictions are far short of what we achieve, but others turn out to be pie in the sky.
Well, if we survive I don't think it's terribly optimistic, just inevitable. If we don't make it to the end of the century we're either going to be on our way to extinction or at the very least will have dropped below a point in civilization we won't be able to recover from.
Start yer doomsday prepping while sales last, folks! (Yeah, that's by backup plan...though I haven't really gotten started with it)
-
But then we would lose our humanity. Is the future of the planet more important than humanity?
I'm not really sure what you mean here. How would this necessarily make us lose our "humanity?"
No, that post was in response to what sitnspin wrote. I fucked up and forgot to quote. Sorry.
I know what you're saying, I just feel it's a narrow perspective. "Very little justification", what, I need a justification to have children, but you don't need one to not have one? If we're not free to do what we want with our bodies, our society is not worth saving and we can just give it all up right now.
Does NOT performing an action require justification? Not unless it is a mandatory action or if not performing it would cause harm. I would say one needs justification to not call 911 in an emergency, but no justification would be required to not go to McDonald's for lunch.
Yes, there are plenty of situations where NOT performing an action could require a justification. That's not the point, however, I'm just saying that I shouldn't be required to justify something that's so personal and so invariably connected to what I choose to do with my body (and the body of the to-be-mother of the child), which is the same reason you are not required to justify NOT doing it.
-
I'm not entirely sure if you mean justify something, as in explaining to a particular person who asks or if you mean no reason is needed for either choice. The first scenario I totally agree you don't have to justify anything to them because it's your business but the second, I think more reason is needed for having a child than just, "Why not?"
Not saying that's what you specifically are saying, just talking generally.
-
Yeah, I meant the first. Of course you should carefully consider if you want a child or not.
-
I think the discussion is seemingly, either on purpose or just a consequence of the point of view taken, missing something.
Responsibility.
Not just to self or in some grandiose yet wishy washy something or other about the planet being better off.
[note: the planet will get along just fine without us and cares about us just as much as it did for the trilobites in the past]
There are other responsibilities as well, a few were touched on in passing and then brushed aside as inconsequential.
Family and friends for one but then community as the other and then there is the big one that the vast majority never think about even in passing, the human race as a whole.
That last one only a very rare few think about, have a positive impact on and are recognized only after their passing for the most part, if at all.
/Begin Tangent
Having children is genetic selfishness.
Not having children and not doing anything for ANYONE is personal selfishness, plain and simple.
>> Not having children is not selfish in and of itself. <<
The reasoning and actions around that decision can and from some of the arguments presented here, are selfish.
/End Tangent
-
For what it's worth, a single average American child will need the following energy sources in their lifetime (http://www.mii.org/pdfs/baby.pdf (http://www.mii.org/pdfs/baby.pdf)):
6.29 million ft^3 of natural gas
504,192 lbs of coal
72,556 gallons of petroleum
Compared to the estimated reserves, that looks fine, but remember, that's adding to the existing consumption, and almost all of that is nonrenewable!
It's unfair to the world to bring a kid into it.
Also, given the geopolitical issues in this world, it's unfair to the kid to forcibly bring it into the world.
And, in my personal case, I know my fuse is WAY too short to ever raise a kid. I also just don't like kids, and have better things to do with my life.
-
There's really nothing you can do with your life that's more valuable than raising the next generation. What important to remember is that if you're concerned about additional energy consumption or overpopulation, adoption doesn't make either of those any worse at all, it just makes a life better.
Not everybody has to go about it, but saying "not me, kids? never" makes a definite statement about your maturity.
-
Interesting statistics though most of those things listed are renewable and the non-renewable ones are predominantly towards the industrial infrastructure.
Numbers Never Lie
Science and Engineering
Then there's Marketing
It may seem crazy but manufacturing will be as wasteful and messy as they can get away with as long as it is more profitable that way in the very short term. :psyduck: talk about your stone-age mentality on a global scale. :psyduck:
As for the future and kids ..... you could still be a responsible person and make the world, or your corner of it, better for everyone else ..... Challenging eh? [Shrek voice]