My girlfriend and I want children, or at least one child. However, we are both very honest with each other and both came to the same conclusion after a number of friends had babies: we are just too selfish to have kids any time soon. That doesn't stop us from wanting a baby on an instinctive animal level. Two days ago we went to the zoo in Berlin. This is the worst place in the world for a couple trying not to want kids! Not only are their loads of mothers pushing buggies, school groups of cute children holding hands and small toddlers bumping into things... you also see baby rhinos and piglets and all sorts of other animals designed over millions of years of evolution to be the cutest cuddly things in the world.
By the end of the day, we had made a deal where both of us had to go at least six months of seriously wanting a baby at the same time before we seriously started discussing if we actually wanted one. That way, we will avoid any problems on future trips to zoos.
I seem to be in the minority on the forum, I really want to have kids in the future. I have always loved kids and I was in sheer bliss when my next door neighbours had their kids (ages 2 and 7 months) as I could help them out whenever they needed.
Frankly, I'm of the mind that humans can contribute to humanity without necessarily making more humans themselves.
I completely agree. I also think that biologically reproducing/adopting are not the only way to leave a lasting "legacy". Ask any scientist, author, journalist, artist, entertainer, etc. that never had children, they still contributed to "human heritage" in their own way. I hope to leave a legacy both in my child and in my actions.
Seeing as though I recently just had my first kid some people at soccer thought we should all go out drinking to celebrate the fact I was able to achieve something that has only been done billions of time before. It was an interesting night because the advice on what I should do with my family and life came in thick and fast. Just as Apreche alluded to earlier, people seem to love tell others to do exactly the same as them so that they don't feel like insecure in their decision because it indeed was the best course of action. I suggested that perhaps one child was enough because a) I am selfish and want more time for myself, b) the world is riddled with human spawn so I am not required to kick any more out, and c) the mrs had a very difficult labour so I am reluctant to bother with that sort of day again. Well of course everyone with children said I must have more than one kid, I should have two or three or four...the number remarkably correlated perfectly with the number of children these people seemed to have had. A couple of times, when dealing with my in laws, I have been forced to interject and point out that I actually don't idealise their existence at all, in fact I plan on having a far better life so perhaps from here on in they should follow my lead. For some reason that doesn't go down well at all.
I think that every option is equally viable as a path for happiness. Me personally, I could have lived quite comfortably without having had any, though as the cliche goes, I wouldn't give him back now (unless it was for one of those miniature pigs, they look awesome). Having one feels kind of "right" (probably neurons programmed to like babies) but I think having a sweet new TV would have felt pretty right too. There is no magic to them that makes your life fuller and richer than a bachelors as far as I can tell. In saying that, now that I have one I have to say, if you don't have one you are a fool and a communist, so join us, join us, baby, join us, join us, baby, happiness, no baby = sadness, join us...etc
Me personally, I could have lived quite comfortably without having had any, though as the cliche goes, I wouldn't give him back now (unless it was for one of those miniature pigs, they look awesome). Having one feels kind of "right" (probably neurons programmed to like babies) but I think having a sweet new TV would have felt pretty right too. There is no magic to them that makes your life fuller and richer than a bachelors as far as I can tell.
Aww, that's not a nice thing to say about the baybee. Remember, nothing on the internet goes away, and when the kid hits 14 they will find this post and be like "A MINIATURE PIG?! I hate you DAaaaadd!"
I am of the opinion that if they are good kids, they can go from being like...I dunno, pets? (no talking, needing to be house broken) to a terribly entertaining mini person who says odd stuff, to a really interesting friend that you can get together with, have a beer on the porch, and discuss life the universe and everything. That's kinda how my sister and I evolved.
I will be between 28 and 32 when I have my child (assuming all the equipment works correctly) and my husband will be between 32 and 37. I don't think that is too old to have a child at all, but I say this never having had a kid so....?
Bilogicaly you are fine. You don't need to worry until you hit your late 30's.
As far as dealing with the kid, do you feel young for your age or old for your age? Do you still have a lot of energy?
My mother was in her early thirties when she had me and I have two younger sisters. While older relative to a lot of parents, I think my parents are awesome and that I am really lucky to have parents that were very aware of the choices they were making. They decided that they wantedm me and could take care of me. While I didn't see much of dad as a child, my mom was and continues to a focused and energetic care giver even though she is now in her fifties. So, I don't think there is any problem with waiting--within reason, of course.
On the other hand, I also think there isn't a problem not having children. I have been very adamant about not have children since, what? middle school? Yes, I think it really has been that long. Most everyone scoffs at me and maybe they are right but I do not aspire to convention or domesticity. Don't get me started on my "alien being gestating inside of me" rant.
So for some people becoming a parent is hard simply because they have been doing the same thing for so long. In that respect having kids early can be better because you are not giving up as much. Having them later in life can sometimes lead to resentment building up in the marriage when one parent stays home to care for the kid while the other continues with their career. The one who gives up their career for their new career (poop machine monitor) may feel resentful (and or worthless) because the focal point of their life has changed so drastically. They may also feel worthless because they are no longer bring money into the home (money = power). These are extreme situations but they do happen.
I disagree. Sacrifice on either side is difficult but for different reasons. In the case of young people having children, it is that you are giving up potential. Personally, I would rather see how far I could go and then make a conscious choice about what I would rather have.
I have to admit, I have a minor freak-out every time I find out someone I knew in school is pregnant, etc. I just don't like the idea of accepting that there are people out there that are my age and having children. It makes me all the more aware of the expectant looks I get from extended family members, pointed questions about boyfriends, and recommendations for recipes.
BBC America had an expose on those babies. It is disgusting. Those women need professional help and the industry that feeds into their mental instability is reprehensible. The most insane thing to me in the expose was that the husbands (who mostly thought it was stupid/insane) didn't seek help for their wives.
Those baby dolls are disturbing, as are the women who attach to them.
Here's a quandary that I've posited to a few members of the crew before: are there any non-selfish reasons to have children? I've been grappling with a pretty fundamental question: why have children?
I think the real question is this. Someone has to have children. Why should it be you?
My answer to that is simple: the idiots are the ones breeding the most. If we want to strengthen the gene pool and better society, smart people need to breed and raise children.
My issue with that is that, well, I'm essentially advocating controlled breeding for the betterment of society. It's a very Brave New World viewpoint, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
My issue with that is that, well, I'm essentially advocating controlled breeding for the betterment of society. It's a veryBrave New Worldviewpoint, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
What, exactly, is the problem with that? We breed animals for desired traits. Are we that much different than those animals?
Is it a question of who decides which traits should be promoted and which should be culled? Can't everyone at least agree that intelligence should be promoted?
Is it a question of who decides which traits should be promoted and which should be culled? Can't everyone at least agree that intelligence should be promoted?
Well, yes, part of the problem is deciding which traits are "better" than others. I think we could all agree that, say, breeding Down's Syndrome out of the populace is probably good. Keeping Tay Sach's Disease out is probably good. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and drawing it is going to be difficult. Yes, I know this leads to a slippery slope fallacy, but my point is that I'm not entirely sure that anyone is actually qualified to draw the line except in the most obvious of places.
Another problem is with the very vague concept of "intelligence." It's tricky to define sufficiently enough to really draw a line. I can certainly draw a line from my perspective, but who's to say that my perspective is perfect? It's probably flawed in some respects, so I'm not sure that I should draw the line on that. I don't think anyone is strictly qualified to draw the line on that.
Those dolls are disturbing. Then again, I also find super dolfie collectors kinda disturbing. I feel really bad for the little girls hanging out with that grown woman. I wouldn't let my spawn be near delusional people.
I have an nephew and niece. They keep me busy as it is. I don't need more kids in my life. What I really want is an army of genetically enhanced clones of me.
I plan on having a son and a daughter (gotta keep things balanced, yeah?). I'm not sure if I really want kids, but that I really want grandkids to bitch to.
"Bah! You and your holocomputers. Check this out *goes up to attic, brings down old p3 tower and a crt*. Now THIS is a computer. It's made out of PLASTIC and METAL, none of that polymorphic bicarbonite alloy you kids are using theses days. *kick h0locomputer* See how easy that breaks? *kicks tower* See how that doesn't? Computers these days have no heart, no craftsmanship. Why, back in the day, we would walk FIFTEEN MILES to the nearest parts shop. UPHILL, BOTH WAYS!..."
I SO wanna be that kind of old guy. Get around with all the other old guys like that and have computer building races...then one of us throw his hip out while turning the tower around looking for motherboard spacers...
My issue with that is that, well, I'm essentially advocating controlled breeding for the betterment of society. It's a veryBrave New Worldviewpoint, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Good grief man! Eugenics is not something to be flippant about. Or are you trying to invoke Godwin's Law?
Anyway, regarding you previous question about why to have kids; I propose that you are like a six year old who can't for the life of him figure out why older boys like girls. The desire to have kids is not something entirely voluntary. It may affect women more than men and just like there are people who grow up not feeling the need for sex or life long company, there will be a few people who never want kids, but regarding the desire, felt by the vast majority, as a purely conscious decision (which you may be inclined to do if you are of the minority, or simply not old enough to have yet developed those feelings) is condescending at best. In cases where a couple can't have kids due to, e.g., infertility this attitude is borderline misanthropic.
Is it a question of who decides which traits should be promoted and which should be culled? Can't everyone at least agree that intelligence should be promoted?
Well, yes, part of the problem is deciding which traits are "better" than others. I think we could all agree that, say, breeding Down's Syndrome out of the populace is probably good. Keeping Tay Sach's Disease out is probably good. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and drawing it is going to be difficult. Yes, I know this leads to a slippery slope fallacy, but my point is that I'm not entirely sure that anyone is actually qualified to draw the line except in the most obvious of places.
Why should we allow breeders to select for different characteristics in animals? If we allow that, why shouldn't we allow breeders to experiment with breeding for or breeding out different characteristics in humans? What, exactly, is this line you don't want to cross? If there's no "line" to be concerned about in breeding animals, I don't understand what "line" there would be for breeding humans. Shouldn't it be a simple utility test? Decide what characteristics are desirable and which are not and then start breeding.
My issue with that is that, well, I'm essentially advocating controlled breeding for the betterment of society. It's a veryBrave New Worldviewpoint, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Good grief man! Eugenics is not something to be flippant about. Or are you trying to invoke Godwin's Law?
Anyway, regarding you previous question about why to have kids; I propose that you are like a six year old who can't for the life of him figure out why older boys like girls. The desire to have kids is not something entirely voluntary. It may affect women more than men and just like there are people who grow up not feeling the need for sex or life long company, there will be a few people who never want kids, but regarding the desire, felt by the vast majority, as a purely conscious decision (which you may be inclined to do if you are of the minority, or simply not old enough to have yet developed those feelings) is condescending at best. In cases where a couple can't have kids due to, e.g., infertility this attitude is borderline misanthropic.
I shall expound a bit.
First, don't mistake my attitude for being flippant. I genuinely cannot resolve this question within myself, and I suspect it's because I'm considering it from multiple angles.
Here's a good way to understand from whence my attitude derives: Tay-Sachs disease. It's an autosomal recessive disorder that results in an infantile disease (most often). The subject's nervous system slowly deteriorates; the subject slowly becomes blind, deaf, and finally unable to swallow. The usually die by the time they're 3, and it's incurable.
People can be carriers for the disease. In those cases, when both parents are carriers, there's a 25% chance that a child will be born with Tay-Sachs. 1 in 4 will be born with a terrible, incurable, fatal genetic disorder. There are a lot of questions that arise as a result: should carriers be allowed to have children? If you could genetically breed the Tay-Sachs mutation out of the population, would you? How about genetic pre-screening to determine whether or not a baby will be born Tay-Sachs? It's a compelx situation, and certainly not one that leads to a "flippant" attitude.
Secondly, as to the "it's involuntary" argument, I agree. In fact, I go so far as to say that free will doesn't exist at all, and that everything you do is the result of some interaction a long time ago. Thus, you don't have any choice at all in the desire to breed; it's simply the consequence of existing. I know very well the hormonal changes that occur as one ages, particularly in women, that result in behavioral changes and changes in desire for children; I'm very inclined to agree that those who have had children are not necessarily choosing to do so.
However, we all have this collective delusion of free will, and thus I'd like to believe that it exists, even if I know otherwise. Saying that people can't control their impulses (i.e. have no choice in the desire to have children) is tantamount to saying that people have no ability to choose anything. So the question is: if we believe that people can choose, why do many choose to have children? If we don't believe that they choose, what else must that say?
Irrespective of those questions, some people "choose" NOT to have children. So, there's still an illusion of choice there; if I can choose not to do something, then it would seem that someone else can choose TO do that thing. As in, if it's a choice for me, it's a choice for EVERYONE, unless there's something physiologically different about me that results in not wanting children; that still harkens back to the previous problem of removing the concept of free will and self-determination. I actually find it MORE condescending to think that people are unable to control their desires at all, and thus MUST have children. I want to believe that we're not just the emergent behavior of complex system, though I suspect that to be true. Thus, I want to find a REASON for having children, if one exists.
You're ALSO assuming that I myself do not want children. I do, in fact, want to be a parent some day, but I want to know WHY I want to be a parent. I always question my own desires and motivations, and when I can't reach an answer, I ask the same question to other people and dissect their response. Hence the question.
Finally, if my attitude seems misanthropic, it's because I am, to an extent. Really, though, I'm trying to consider this as objectively as possible, so as to not cloud it with the vagueries of subjective human experience.
Is it a question of who decides which traits should be promoted and which should be culled? Can't everyone at least agree that intelligence should be promoted?
Well, yes, part of the problem is deciding which traits are "better" than others. I think we could all agree that, say, breeding Down's Syndrome out of the populace is probably good. Keeping Tay Sach's Disease out is probably good. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and drawing it is going to be difficult. Yes, I know this leads to a slippery slope fallacy, but my point is that I'm not entirely sure that anyone is actually qualified to draw the line except in the most obvious of places.
Why should we allow breeders to select for different characteristics in animals? If we allow that, why shouldn't we allow breeders to experiment with breeding for or breeding out different characteristics in humans? What, exactly, is this line you don't want to cross? If there's no "line" to be concerned about in breeding animals, I don't understand what "line" there would be for breeding humans. Shouldn't it be a simple utility test? Decide what characteristics are desirable and which are not and then start breeding.
Well, animals aren't people, duh.
I agree, but allowing people to select partiuclar traits is eugenics, straight out, and most people have a problem with eugenics. The concept of taking ANY trait and saying "this should not be, so we won't allow it" is a very complex issue. Shouldn't we give people the opportunity to overcome adversity? Doesn't that lead to great inner strength? You still have the problem of deciding which traits are desireable and which are not. Should we just leave that decision up to the parents? What if somebody wants to have the experience of raising a child with a genetic defect? Do we deny them that?
I would say yes to all of those, but I also know my own persepctive. I would want to weed "stupid" out of the population, but I have no idea how to define it. My concept of "stupid" may not be someone else's concept of "stupid," so why should I get to decide? What makes me right? What makes anyone's perspective the "right" one? Again, would it be a case of majority rules? I would contend it would have to be, but what if the majority decides something that is objectively detrimental to their genetics?
However, people are animals, and you start to get interesting ideas when you take ideas like class inheritance from OOP and apply those principles
What really separates people from animals? Is it because we have "souls"? If you don't believe in souls, then it can't be that. Is it because we have a "divine spark"? If you don't believe in the divine, it can't be that. Is it because we're so smart?
Why do the breeding characteristics have to be decided by a majority? Why can't there be independent breeders breeding for different traits? What would be wrong with having one breeding operation whose goal is to breed the biggest, strongest, ugliest soldier, one whose goal is to breed the smartest scientist, and one whose goal is to breed the prettiest model?
Thus, I want to find a REASON for having children, if one exists.
I'm suspect of ANY action taken by any human that was not a willful, conscious decision made with calculated forethought (ignoring the obvious solipsistic question of whether such is possible or can be known). Too many people act automatically, respond automatically, and live automatically. They take action, and have goals, but the two are often entirely disconnected.
If your plan works, can you tell me what method you used to ensure the correct genders? I know the thing about pointing towards or away from the sun, but I've never been convinced.
Comments
By the end of the day, we had made a deal where both of us had to go at least six months of seriously wanting a baby at the same time before we seriously started discussing if we actually wanted one. That way, we will avoid any problems on future trips to zoos.
I think that every option is equally viable as a path for happiness. Me personally, I could have lived quite comfortably without having had any, though as the cliche goes, I wouldn't give him back now (unless it was for one of those miniature pigs, they look awesome). Having one feels kind of "right" (probably neurons programmed to like babies) but I think having a sweet new TV would have felt pretty right too. There is no magic to them that makes your life fuller and richer than a bachelors as far as I can tell. In saying that, now that I have one I have to say, if you don't have one you are a fool and a communist, so join us, join us, baby, join us, join us, baby, happiness, no baby = sadness, join us...etc
I am of the opinion that if they are good kids, they can go from being like...I dunno, pets? (no talking, needing to be house broken) to a terribly entertaining mini person who says odd stuff, to a really interesting friend that you can get together with, have a beer on the porch, and discuss life the universe and everything. That's kinda how my sister and I evolved.
On the other hand, I also think there isn't a problem not having children. I have been very adamant about not have children since, what? middle school? Yes, I think it really has been that long. Most everyone scoffs at me and maybe they are right but I do not aspire to convention or domesticity. Don't get me started on my "alien being gestating inside of me" rant. I disagree. Sacrifice on either side is difficult but for different reasons. In the case of young people having children, it is that you are giving up potential. Personally, I would rather see how far I could go and then make a conscious choice about what I would rather have.
I have to admit, I have a minor freak-out every time I find out someone I knew in school is pregnant, etc. I just don't like the idea of accepting that there are people out there that are my age and having children. It makes me all the more aware of the expectant looks I get from extended family members, pointed questions about boyfriends, and recommendations for recipes.
Here's a quandary that I've posited to a few members of the crew before: are there any non-selfish reasons to have children? I've been grappling with a pretty fundamental question: why have children?
I think the real question is this. Someone has to have children. Why should it be you?
My issue with that is that, well, I'm essentially advocating controlled breeding for the betterment of society. It's a very Brave New World viewpoint, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Is it a question of who decides which traits should be promoted and which should be culled? Can't everyone at least agree that intelligence should be promoted?
Another problem is with the very vague concept of "intelligence." It's tricky to define sufficiently enough to really draw a line. I can certainly draw a line from my perspective, but who's to say that my perspective is perfect? It's probably flawed in some respects, so I'm not sure that I should draw the line on that. I don't think anyone is strictly qualified to draw the line on that.
"Bah! You and your holocomputers. Check this out *goes up to attic, brings down old p3 tower and a crt*. Now THIS is a computer. It's made out of PLASTIC and METAL, none of that polymorphic bicarbonite alloy you kids are using theses days. *kick h0locomputer* See how easy that breaks? *kicks tower* See how that doesn't? Computers these days have no heart, no craftsmanship. Why, back in the day, we would walk FIFTEEN MILES to the nearest parts shop. UPHILL, BOTH WAYS!..."
I SO wanna be that kind of old guy. Get around with all the other old guys like that and have computer building races...then one of us throw his hip out while turning the tower around looking for motherboard spacers...
Anyway, regarding you previous question about why to have kids; I propose that you are like a six year old who can't for the life of him figure out why older boys like girls. The desire to have kids is not something entirely voluntary. It may affect women more than men and just like there are people who grow up not feeling the need for sex or life long company, there will be a few people who never want kids, but regarding the desire, felt by the vast majority, as a purely conscious decision (which you may be inclined to do if you are of the minority, or simply not old enough to have yet developed those feelings) is condescending at best. In cases where a couple can't have kids due to, e.g., infertility this attitude is borderline misanthropic.
First, don't mistake my attitude for being flippant. I genuinely cannot resolve this question within myself, and I suspect it's because I'm considering it from multiple angles.
Here's a good way to understand from whence my attitude derives: Tay-Sachs disease. It's an autosomal recessive disorder that results in an infantile disease (most often). The subject's nervous system slowly deteriorates; the subject slowly becomes blind, deaf, and finally unable to swallow. The usually die by the time they're 3, and it's incurable.
People can be carriers for the disease. In those cases, when both parents are carriers, there's a 25% chance that a child will be born with Tay-Sachs. 1 in 4 will be born with a terrible, incurable, fatal genetic disorder. There are a lot of questions that arise as a result: should carriers be allowed to have children? If you could genetically breed the Tay-Sachs mutation out of the population, would you? How about genetic pre-screening to determine whether or not a baby will be born Tay-Sachs? It's a compelx situation, and certainly not one that leads to a "flippant" attitude.
Secondly, as to the "it's involuntary" argument, I agree. In fact, I go so far as to say that free will doesn't exist at all, and that everything you do is the result of some interaction a long time ago. Thus, you don't have any choice at all in the desire to breed; it's simply the consequence of existing. I know very well the hormonal changes that occur as one ages, particularly in women, that result in behavioral changes and changes in desire for children; I'm very inclined to agree that those who have had children are not necessarily choosing to do so.
However, we all have this collective delusion of free will, and thus I'd like to believe that it exists, even if I know otherwise. Saying that people can't control their impulses (i.e. have no choice in the desire to have children) is tantamount to saying that people have no ability to choose anything. So the question is: if we believe that people can choose, why do many choose to have children? If we don't believe that they choose, what else must that say?
Irrespective of those questions, some people "choose" NOT to have children. So, there's still an illusion of choice there; if I can choose not to do something, then it would seem that someone else can choose TO do that thing. As in, if it's a choice for me, it's a choice for EVERYONE, unless there's something physiologically different about me that results in not wanting children; that still harkens back to the previous problem of removing the concept of free will and self-determination. I actually find it MORE condescending to think that people are unable to control their desires at all, and thus MUST have children. I want to believe that we're not just the emergent behavior of complex system, though I suspect that to be true. Thus, I want to find a REASON for having children, if one exists.
You're ALSO assuming that I myself do not want children. I do, in fact, want to be a parent some day, but I want to know WHY I want to be a parent. I always question my own desires and motivations, and when I can't reach an answer, I ask the same question to other people and dissect their response. Hence the question.
Finally, if my attitude seems misanthropic, it's because I am, to an extent. Really, though, I'm trying to consider this as objectively as possible, so as to not cloud it with the vagueries of subjective human experience. Well, animals aren't people, duh.
I agree, but allowing people to select partiuclar traits is eugenics, straight out, and most people have a problem with eugenics. The concept of taking ANY trait and saying "this should not be, so we won't allow it" is a very complex issue. Shouldn't we give people the opportunity to overcome adversity? Doesn't that lead to great inner strength? You still have the problem of deciding which traits are desireable and which are not. Should we just leave that decision up to the parents? What if somebody wants to have the experience of raising a child with a genetic defect? Do we deny them that?
I would say yes to all of those, but I also know my own persepctive. I would want to weed "stupid" out of the population, but I have no idea how to define it. My concept of "stupid" may not be someone else's concept of "stupid," so why should I get to decide? What makes me right? What makes anyone's perspective the "right" one? Again, would it be a case of majority rules? I would contend it would have to be, but what if the majority decides something that is objectively detrimental to their genetics?
Why do the breeding characteristics have to be decided by a majority? Why can't there be independent breeders breeding for different traits? What would be wrong with having one breeding operation whose goal is to breed the biggest, strongest, ugliest soldier, one whose goal is to breed the smartest scientist, and one whose goal is to breed the prettiest model?
(Yes, I know I'm nitpicking...)
Edit: Aaarhg! beaten because of research!